# Why we should listen to the 97%



## Abraham3 (Aug 19, 2013)

This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings.  Have a listen.  See what you think.  Tell us about it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iRAL3dWnSNg]Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube[/ame]

Muchas obligado.

Abraham


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 19, 2013)

Who cares?


The only % that matters is the 3% in blue there on the graph below!!! That little itty bitty blue sliver there that makes me laugh my balls off every time I see it!!!











THATS called..........not winning.


And there are about 450,000 other graphs just like it, all of which should be entitled, *"THE K00KS ARE LOSING"*


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 19, 2013)




----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 19, 2013)

If you listened to the recording and this is all you have to say in response, why in god's name do you bother?  Is your existence so filled with ignominy and bleak despair that these tawdry bangles of other's wit are, to your mind, fitting?  Turn around.  See the sun.  Walk till your feet are wet.


----------



## westwall (Aug 19, 2013)

When it has been shown categorically that your 97% number is sheer absolute BS, why on Earth would anyone listen to ANYTHING these frauds have to say?

You need to get a clue there little clown.  You and they are not credible.  End of story.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings.  Have a listen.  See what you think.  Tell us about it.
> 
> Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube
> 
> ...



The 97% claim is bullshit, just like everything else warmist cult members claim:

ICECAP


> By Larry Solomon, The National Post
> 
> [SPPI Note: Also see the Dennis Ambler SPPI report.
> 
> ...


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 20, 2013)

The topic off this thread is not whether or not 97% of active climate scientists believe human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming.  The topic of this thread is the simple and brief presentation by Andrew Dessler of a risk assessment of taking action against global warming.

I guess I can assume none of you have listened to it as none of you has made the slightest comment to make on the presentation.  An impressive lot.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The topic off this thread is not whether or not 97% of active climate scientists believe humans GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming.  The topic of this thread is the simple and brief presentation by Andrew Dessler of a risk assessment of taking action against global warming.
> 
> I guess I can assume none of you have listened to it as none of you has made the slightest comment to make on the presentation.  An impressive lot.



I can&#8217;t view vids atm but will at a later time.  My beef with something like this though is that none of the doomsayer&#8217;s predictions have come true &#8211; why are we to assume that future impacts are going to be so great that it requires widespread response?  If you can answer that, then you also have to address one more reality here: not one single passable proposal to curb human activity results in any real changes.  Typically, we are talking about a few percentage points at most.  And those are usually measured relative to the nation and not the world where increasing emissions are the norm for developing countries.  Those nations are not going to change those habits.  So, in the end, even if we listen NOTHING changes.

One thing I do know, if the inevitable happens we are going to NEED a strong economy and new advanced technology to deal with it.  If we obliterated those now for a few percentage of a change, when we need the means to effect real solutions there won&#8217;t be anything left.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 21, 2013)

The audio-only message attached to the OP in this thread takes less than 5 minutes to listen to.  Sadly, no one here seems to feel as if they need to listen to anyone else's opinion, they've got their own and they're going to stick to it no matter what.

The crux of Dessler's message was:

If 97% of the experts in a given field all believe the same thing, it is PROBABLY correct.  It is not proven correct.  We cannot say it is KNOWN to be correct.  But it PROBABLY is correct.

The harm that will be done should those 97% be correct and yet ignored is immense.  For one thing, the harm will be IRREVERSIBLE within any timeframe meaningful to anyone alive now.  The lifetime of CO2 and methane in an overheated world is many hundreds of years at the very least.  If we do not stop it now, we will not be able to stop it in the future.

The harm that will be done should those 97% be incorrect and yet measures are taken is small.  It is small for several reasons:

1) There are numerous co-benefits to moving away from fossil fuels
    a) Reduce air pollution
    b) Get an early start on the new energy and transport infrastructure that WILL be required at some point
    c) It is REVERSIBLE.  If we eventually discover that we can safely burn coal and oil, they will still be here.  We can quite easily return to a fossil fuel economy and burn the shit out of that stuff.


Any thoughts on any of THAT?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The audio-only message attached to the OP in this thread takes less than 5 minutes to listen to.  Sadly, no one here seems to feel as if they need to listen to anyone else's opinion, they've got their own and they're going to stick to it no matter what.
> 
> The crux of Dessler's message was:
> 
> ...



First, he makes an assumption that 97% of the scientists agree that:

the earth is warming
Humans are very likely the cause
Future warming may be severe
Which is a bald faced lie.  Brip already outlined why the 97% is bullshit.  More importantly, if you take the statistical analysis at it face value, you notice that the 2 questions that are asked NEVER allude to the third point.  Again, this is ANOTHER core element to the argument that the video makes.

IOW, the entire premise of the video that you are upset that no one is watching is based upon a complete fabrication.  This alone is sufficient to disregard the asinine argument that he makes but we can go even FURTHER.  The next step is to analyze the proposed &#8216;solutions&#8217; that are being suggested and ask how much of an impact that they are going to make.  In the video, he makes ANOTHER assumption that is incorrect, that the impacts of climate regulation are going to be small.  That is absolutely false.  All of the &#8216;small&#8217; changes that are brought up have one thing in common &#8211; small impacts.  Impacts that, when really looked at, amount to less than 1 percent of actual change.  Is that going to do anything?  Not according to ANYONE that believes AGW is going to be disastrous.  Considering that, in order for the results to be disastrous in the first place, a feedback loop is required it is unthinkable that any of these changes amount to squat.  In order to make real changes, we are going to have to completely remodel our economy and that is going to result in DRASTIC results.  Lastly, he makes another MONUMENTAL asinine claim &#8211; that any changes occurring from AGW are completely irreversible.  That is buffoonery.  There was a time when people thought that the moon was impossible to reach or that the patent office was no longer needed because we had already invented everything.  The fact is that no one knows what we are going to be able to do in ten or twenty years as technology moves faster every day.

There is one thing that I do know however.  If AGW is going to cause drastic and deadly changes in our atmosphere we are going to NEED a strong economy and advanced technology to deal with it.  There is no other way around that simple truth as the doomsayers have already stated that we cannot handle those changes with what we currently have.

The sad part is that the AGW believers seem to want to dismantle any method of dealing with that outcome out of sheer fear.  Bad idea.


----------



## daveman (Aug 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings.  Have a listen.  See what you think.  Tell us about it.
> 
> Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube
> 
> ...


"We need to listen to the 97% because my funding is at stake!"

A. E. Dessler
*Department of Atmospheric Sciences*
Texas A&M University


----------



## daveman (Aug 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings.  Have a listen.  See what you think.  Tell us about it.
> ...


AGW surveyors do their work just like AGW scientists...cherry-pick, massage, and distort.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 21, 2013)

Dave, have you ever heard the term "unsubstantiated assertion"?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The topic off this thread is not whether or not 97% of active climate scientists believe human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming.  The topic of this thread is the simple and brief presentation by Andrew Dessler of a risk assessment of taking action against global warming.
> 
> I guess I can assume none of you have listened to it as none of you has made the slightest comment to make on the presentation.  An impressive lot.



There is no 97%, dipstick.  I just proved that claim is bullshit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Dave, have you ever heard the term "unsubstantiated assertion"?



You mean like the claim that 97% of scientists support the bogus AGW theory?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 21, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> First, he makes an assumption that 97% of the scientists agree that:
> 
> the earth is warming
> Humans are very likely the cause
> ...



You should pay more attention before using the L word.



FA_Q2 said:


> Brip already outlined why the 97% is bullshit.



No, he absolutely did not.  He cut and pasted an article (IceCap) that, just as I mentioned in the Six Ways from Sunday thread, criticizes one and only one of the five different surveys that can be found in Wikipedia's article on the Scientific consensus on climate change and which all arrived at approximately the same value: 97%. Dessler may have overstepped his basis with the claim that 97% believed there would be severe future consequences, but I doubt it.  The 2007 Harris poll found 41% of climate scientists believed that moderate impact would be suffered within 50-100 years and 45% believed the consequences would be "catastrophic".  It is not reasonable to accept AGW and not accept that it creates a risk of severe consequences if left unaddressed.  And to attempt to throw out the risk assessment because of this point is disingenuous.  Dessler is presenting a risk assessment on different predictions.  The primary risk of ignoring AGW when it is a valid theory is that the harm will be irreversible within many human lifetimes.



FA_Q2 said:


> More importantly, if you take the statistical analysis at it face value, you notice that the 2 questions that are asked NEVER allude to the third point.  Again, this is ANOTHER core element to the argument that the video makes.



Still only addressing one survey out of five.



FA_Q2 said:


> IOW, the entire premise of the video that you are upset that no one is watching is based upon a complete fabrication.



That would be incorrect because you and BritishPatrick are unaware or intentionally ignoring the four other surveys.



FA_Q2 said:


> This alone is sufficient to disregard the asinine argument that he makes but we can go even FURTHER.



I think your behavior here and that of BritishPatrick are far better described as "asinine" than Dessler's presentation.  I think it's difficult to challenge the world's scientific community with the sort of education that your folks appear to have had (I'm no better) and not be asinine (but I'm not trying to challenge mainstream science).



FA_Q2 said:


> The next step is to analyze the proposed solutions that are being suggested and ask how much of an impact that they are going to make.  In the video, he makes ANOTHER assumption that is incorrect, that the impacts of climate regulation are going to be small.  That is absolutely false.  All of the small changes that are brought up have one thing in common  small impacts.  Impacts that, when really looked at, amount to less than 1 percent of actual change.  Is that going to do anything?  Not according to ANYONE that believes AGW is going to be disastrous.  Considering that, in order for the results to be disastrous in the first place, a feedback loop is required it is unthinkable that any of these changes amount to squat.  In order to make real changes, we are going to have to completely remodel our economy and that is going to result in DRASTIC results.



As we shall see shortly down the page, you're an amazingly knowledgeable fellow when it suits the argument you're trying to make.  And not when it's not.  There have been small changes that had large impact on our energy usage.  The relatively rapid switch away from incandescent lighting had dramatic effects on our energy usage.  Smart grid enhancements will have at least as great an effect.  Plug-in hybrid and EV transportation technology is showing signs of actually taking off.  The growth rates of wind and solar are impressive.  A meaningful return to nuclear power could have an enormous impact on our carbon footprint.  It wouldn't hurt us to follow Belgium's lead and do a little more bicycling.  And walking.  And NONE of these things will have any large negative impact on our economy.

More importantly, NONE of these measures and NONE that have been suggested have - by orders of magnitude - as great a negative impact as doing nothing.



FA_Q2 said:


> Lastly, he makes another MONUMENTAL asinine claim  that any changes occurring from AGW are completely irreversible.  That is buffoonery.  There was a time when people thought that the moon was impossible to reach or that the patent office was no longer needed because we had already invented everything.  The fact is that no one knows what we are going to be able to do in ten or twenty years as technology moves faster every day.



Are you really suggesting we take the risk of putting off action now because we MIGHT discover some way to fix things down the road, after temperatures have risen 4 or 5 degrees, billions have lost their homes to rising sea levels and both food and water are becoming more and more scarce?  Really?  You've got some nerve calling anyone else "asinine".



FA_Q2 said:


> There is one thing that I do know however.  If AGW is going to cause drastic and deadly changes in our atmosphere we are going to NEED a strong economy and advanced technology to deal with it.  There is no other way around that simple truth as the doomsayers have already stated that we cannot handle those changes with what we currently have.



How can you worry about the financial impact and yet cast aside the FACT that the earlier we start, the less it will cost?  If we had joined the Kyoto Protocols and actually put some effort to this back then, we might have had a chance of keeping this under control without breaking the bank.  But we've had too many naysayers with too much fossil fuel industry funding convincing people that it's okay for them to be lazy, to make no changes, to keep things just the way they are.  Of course they go along.  People are stupid in the long run.



FA_Q2 said:


> The sad part is that the AGW believers seem to want to dismantle any method of dealing with that outcome out of sheer fear.  Bad idea.



Were you planning on dealing with global warming with the aid of coal fired power plants and V8 SUVs?  Care to explain how that works?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The topic off this thread is not whether or not 97% of active climate scientists believe human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming.  The topic of this thread is the simple and brief presentation by Andrew Dessler of a risk assessment of taking action against global warming.
> ...



You've done no such thing.  There are currently FIVE surveys showing 97% support.  The critique you posted (IceCap) only addressed one of the surveys and the critique was complete crap  to begin with.  How much statistics have you had son?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave, have you ever heard the term "unsubstantiated assertion"?
> ...



No.  I mean assertions like yours that are made with no substantiating evidence.

Look, if those were the worst surveys ever conducted, how  low could AGW support be?  85%?  75%?

If you really want to tell me and Wikipedia we're full of shit, find us the objective surveys of climate scientists that SHOW A DIFFERENT RESULT.  It can't be that hard and I know you've got the funding.

Unless, perhaps, you already know what you'd find.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 21, 2013)

daveman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Mr Solomon statements about the surveyor's motives are completely anally derived.  He (and you) ignore the point that publishing climate scientists are THE most expert of the experts in the precise question under examination.  Their's was not the only survey to find that the more folks knew about the climate, the more likely they were to believe AGW a valid theory.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 21, 2013)

And there is not a single Scientific Society, not a single National Academy of Science, not a single major University that contests AGW. Not even in outer Slobovia. That is a damned impressive consensus. And that is not 97%, that is 100%. 

Of course, our little tin hat wearers will immediate posit a worldwide conspiracy among all of these scientists. Anyone with more than a two digit IQ just has to be in on some kind of conspiracy!


----------



## westwall (Aug 21, 2013)

Who cares about all of those organizations who generate income based on their support of the fraud.  Let's look at facts.  You claimed that the Arctic was spiraling ever downward and that has been shown to be a joke of the first order.

You claimed that the temps were rising and Hansen has said no, they're not.

You claimed the oceans were rising and NOAA says that actually Australia has somehow magically LOWERED the sea level.

Those are facts.

Facts trump opinion.....


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 22, 2013)

OK....these frauds give us something to laugh about ALL the fucking time!!!

Remember how 10 years ago, volcanic activity had no impact on global temperature trends over time.......lmao........NOT ANYMORE!!!! >>>

Why HAS global warming has slowed? Scientists admit they don't know why | Mail Online


Now, scientists are suddenly saying that volcanic ash is contributing to the slowing of the warming.


These frauds will morph anything to conform to the established narrative. It is the perfect ruse. Foolproof. The failed predictions will always have some BS explanation......we've all seen it 100 times over the past 10-15 years.


On the Reality Manufacturing Company >>>>

Booking a reservation for the movie called Reality « Jon Rappoport's Blog


Designing the mind: a fable « Jon Rappoport's Blog


The individual vs. the illusion of consensus reality « Jon Rappoport's Blog


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > First, he makes an assumption that 97% of the scientists agree that:
> ...


I paid plenty of attention.  He made an assertion based on slipping a piece of information that was completely false.  That is a lie.  There is no other way to frame that.


Abraham3 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Brip already outlined why the 97% is bullshit.
> ...


His claim was 97 percent.  You are backing that up by pointing out a poll that identifies 45% believe it might be catastrophic (without the actual questions that were asked I might add).  You do understand that 45% is not in the same ball park.  That is not eve a majority.  If you were to plug 45% into his arguments then the ENTIRE argument would fall apart.  

Again, his entire point centers around that claim and the fact that it is a false one destroyes the entire argument.


Abraham3 said:


> Still only addressing one survey out of five.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect because you and BritishPatrick are unaware or intentionally ignoring the four other surveys.


I am simply using the one that specifies 97%.  He used that figure, not me and that is what I am going to go off of.  If you want to break away from his statements and use the figures from other surveys then bring them here, with links to the actual questions asked and methodology and we can discuss that.  I am not going to blindly pick surveys out because the lame excuse is never going to change  but there are OTHERS that say

If you want to use another set of data do so.  I was under the impression that you wanted to discuss the video in the OP.  You do realize that even if AGW is completely correct and it will be catastrophic that does not change that this video is predicated on a lie or that its logic is not complete garbage.  


Abraham3 said:


> As we shall see shortly down the page, you're an amazingly knowledgeable fellow when it suits the argument you're trying to make.  And not when it's not.  There have been small changes that had large impact on our energy usage.  The relatively rapid switch away from incandescent lighting had dramatic effects on our energy usage.  Smart grid enhancements will have at least as great an effect.  Plug-in hybrid and EV transportation technology is showing signs of actually taking off.  The growth rates of wind and solar are impressive.  A meaningful return to nuclear power could have an enormous impact on our carbon footprint.  It wouldn't hurt us to follow Belgium's lead and do a little more bicycling.  And walking.  And NONE of these things will have any large negative impact on our economy.


And NO ONE is fighting those moves.  Common sense energy upgrades is NOT a matter of AGW.  We should be switching to nuclear, utilizing wind and solar where it is effective and changing habits that make sense.  Of course, that is not what the AGW crowd is asking for as we are doing that and it is simply not enough.  Instead, you are always hearing about how we need to kill coal (and replace it with what?) or convert to electrical vehicles even though they simply do not have that capability.

You talk about the effects of the changes that we have made. Care to quantify the actual impacts you mentioned?



Abraham3 said:


> More importantly, NONE of these measures and NONE that have been suggested have - by orders of magnitude - as great a negative impact as doing nothing.


According to you (and 45% of climate scientists by your cite).  This is another appeal to the catastrophic argument.  That, by the way, is the LARGEST hole in AGW.  Not whether or not the earth is warming but rather coming up with accurate predictions on the effects.  You are claiming catastrophe without any real evidence that I have seen as to the effects actually being catastrophic.


Abraham3 said:


> Are you really suggesting we take the risk of putting off action now because we MIGHT discover some way to fix things down the road, after temperatures have risen 4 or 5 degrees, billions have lost their homes to rising sea levels and both food and water are becoming more and more scarce?  Really?  You've got some nerve calling anyone else "asinine".


More catastrophe.  I am not suggesting anything with added risk.  Instead, I am asking that we actually find out what the effects are likely to be and find solutions that actually might make a real difference rather than risking throwing it all away on a hunch that it might fix something.  Maybe.


Abraham3 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > There is one thing that I do know however.  If AGW is going to cause drastic and deadly changes in our atmosphere we are going to NEED a strong economy and advanced technology to deal with it.  There is no other way around that simple truth as the doomsayers have already stated that we cannot handle those changes with what we currently have.
> ...


No, I dont care because there is not much reason to bother when you are begging the question.  Try again.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 22, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> First, he makes an assumption that 97% of the scientists agree that:
> * the earth is warming
> * Humans are very likely the cause
> * Future warming may be severe
> Which is a bald faced lie.





			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> You should pay more attention before using the L word.





			
				FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> I paid plenty of attention. He made an assertion based on slipping a
> piece of information that was completely false. That is a lie. There is
> no other way to frame that.





			
				FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> Brip already outlined why the 97% is bullshit.





			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> No, he absolutely did not. He cut and pasted an article (IceCap) that,
> just as I mentioned in the Six Ways from Sunday thread, criticizes one
> and only one of the five different surveys that can be found in
> Wikipedia's article on the Scientific consensus on climate change and
> ...





			
				FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> His claim was 97 percent. You are backing that up by pointing out a poll
> that identifies 45% believe it might be catastrophic (without the actual
> questions that were asked I might add). You do understand that 45% is
> not in the same ball park. That is not eve a majority. If you were to
> plug 45% into his arguments then the ENTIRE argument would fall apart.



Yale/George Mason University, 2011*"When [survey participants were]
asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to
catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great
danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little
danger."  That 87% that see moderate to catastrophic effects in a future
sans AGW measures taken.  I'd place "serious" consequences somewhere in
there.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/struct
ure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/#



			
				FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> Again, his entire point centers around that claim and the fact that it
> is a false one destroyes the entire argument.



The very basis of one side of the comparison Dessler made was that
reasons for taking action against AGW were valid.  Completely and
unequivocally implicit in that structure is that AGW validity indicates
a very high risk of severe consequences.  A state in which AGW is valid
but no risk is thus presented is not one in which ameliorative measures
were necessary.  That was not one of the state's examined. 



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> That would be incorrect because you and BritishPatrick are unaware or
> intentionally ignoring the four other surveys.



I have to correct myself.  There were actually five other
surveys/polls/reviews noted in the Wikipedia article and there are
others. Six if I split the two values provided in ERL.



			
				FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> I am simply using the one that specifies 97%. He used that figure, not
> me and that is what I am going to go off of.



1) Oreskes, Naomi, 2004, 928 abstracts which mention climate change.
None (*0%*) disagree with the IPCC consensus
2) Harris Interactive, 2007, survey of 489 PhD members or AMS or AGU:
*84%* believe warming to be human-induced.  *85%* believe
consequences of GW range from moderately to catastrophically dangerous.
Only *5%* of those surveyed reject AGW.
3) Bray & Von Storch, 2008, 2,058 climate scientists surveyed.  None
(*0%*) reject warming. *98.6* agree slightly to very much that
humans are the primary cause of that warming.  83.5% agreed "to a large
extent" and "very much".
4) Doran & Zimmerman, 2009, 3,146 Earth scientists. *82% (of all
3,146)* accept AGW.  Of active, publishing climate scientists,
*97%* accept AGW (This is the one you fellows always use to
demonstrate your weakness in statistics)
5) PNAS paper, 2010, reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372
climate researchers.  *97-98%* accepted AGW and the study found a
substantial difference between the expertise and prominence (by
publication and citation rates) between those who doubt AGW and those
who accept it.  The greater one's prominence and recognized expertise in
the field, the greater the likelihood they accept AGW.
6) Cook, Nuccitelli, et al in Environmental Research Letters.  A review
of 4,014 papers which discussed the cause of global warming:
*97.1%* endorsed the IPCC position.  When the authors were
surveyed, *97.2%* of them endorsed the IPCC position.

Doran and Zimmerman were not the only ones to find ~97% acceptance of
AGW. 

 For the fifth or sixth time: WHERE ARE THE SURVEYS THAT SHOW US
DIFFERENT RESULTS? 



			
				FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> If you want to break away from his statements and use the figures from
> other surveys then bring them here, with links to the actual questions
> asked and methodology and we can discuss that. I am not going to blindly
> pick surveys out because the lame excuse is never going to change - but
> ...



I started this thread with the intent to discuss Dessler's statements
and reasoning.  You're the first to actually do so.  All your
predecessors took this as an opportunity to argue the validity of the
97% figure.



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> There have been small changes that had large impact on our energy usage.
> The relatively rapid switch away from incandescent lighting had dramatic
> effects on our energy usage. Smart grid enhancements will have at least
> as great an effect. Plug-in hybrid and EV transportation technology is
> ...





			
				FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> And NO ONE is fighting those moves. Common sense energy upgrades is NOT
> a matter of AGW. We should be switching to nuclear, utilizing wind and
> solar where it is effective and changing habits that make sense. Of
> course, that is not what the AGW crowd is asking for as we are doing
> ...



EV and hybrid automobiles have the capability right now to replace a
great many of our ICE vehicles.  They are doing so.  And as the price
comes down and the infrastructure appears, more will follow.
As to coal...
You have heard no one with the intelligence or authority to make a
difference clamoring to "kill coal".  You will hear suggetions that coal
subsidies be reduced, that coal emission requirements be tightened, that
fewer licenses for new coal fired plants be made available, etc.  Those
coal facilities taken off line will be replaced (before hand) by sources
with lower carbon output.  No one is going to simply shut down
coal-fired power plants without creating replacement capability first.
You get on Dessler's case for making an apparent exaggeration.  What is
this?



			
				FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> You talk about the effects of the changes that we have made. Care to
> quantify the actual impacts you mentioned?



For potential impacts of warming, see Table 19-1 on page 787 of the AR4,
Working Group II Report, Chapter 19, "Assessing key vulnerabilities and
the risk from climate change"
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter19.
pdf

For reductions:
CFLs provide a 78% reduction in energy consumption.  LED lights will
take an even larger chunk out compared to incandescents.  Hybrid
popularity has grown tremendously since the introduction of the Honda
Insight and Toyota Prius. Virtually every car maker on the planet has
hybrid models available.  The Tesla Model S is showing that a purely
electric car can be quite usable and an excellent car to boot.  Wind
power is currently gowing worldwide. In 1997 it produced 0.1% of the
world's needs.  In 2008 it was 1.5% and in 2010 it was 2.5%  Between
2005 and 2010, installed wind capacity grew worldwide by 27.6%. Solar
thermal, with it's lower installation costs, has grown rapidly.  Solar
PV growth has been slower, but commercially available PV efficiencies
have reached 20% while laboratory units have hit 40.  



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> More importantly, NONE of these measures and NONE that have been
> suggested have - by orders of magnitude - as great a negative impact as
> doing nothing.





			
				FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> According to you (and 45% of climate scientists by your cite). This is
> another appeal to the 'catastrophic' argument. That, by the way, is the
> LARGEST hole in AGW. Not whether or not the earth is warming but rather
> coming up with accurate predictions on the effects. You are claiming
> ...



I was simply being honest about the numbers.  85.2% believe that the
danger is moderate to catastrophic harm in the next 50-100 years.
Personally, I put catastrophic further out the scale then severe.  And,
as I think I stated elsewhere, it is not reasonable to accept AGW but
reject the idea that it will cause severe future harm is left
unaddressed.  The people who think we'll farm Antarctica and the
Canadian tundra and take tropical vacations in toasty Nova Scotia just
haven't got a grip.  The disruption to agriculture, fishing and water
supplies will be disastrous even if temperatures barely break +2C. And
you KNOW they're going a lot further than that.
Since we're talking about future events, the evidence will come in the
form of reasoned predictions and projections.  They are plentiful.  If
you really haven't seen one you can start with the IPCC AR4 report
linked above and move on from there with any search engine.



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> Are you really suggesting we take the risk of putting off action now
> because we MIGHT discover some way to fix things down the road, after
> temperatures have risen 4 or 5 degrees, billions have lost their homes
> to rising sea levels and both food and water are becoming more and more
> scarce?





			
				FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> More catastrophe. I am not suggesting anything with added 'risk.'
> Instead, I am asking that we actually find out what the effects are
> likely to be and find solutions that actually might make a real
> difference rather than risking throwing it all away on a hunch that it
> might fix something. Maybe.



What does "...not suggesting anything with added 'risk.' mean?  
A goodly number of scientists have spend the last couple of decades
figuring out what the likely effects will be.  Read AR4. Check your
favorite search engine.  That the solutions that have been suggested so
far do not seem adequate and could be expensive can be chalked up to the
difficulty of the problem.  Do you think no one has been working on it?
Do you think the folks that are working on it are simply stupid?  If a
good idea comes to you, feel free to pass it on.  Hell, patent it and
get rich.  Standing around bitching doesn't do anyone any good.



			
				FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> There is one thing that I do know however. If AGW is going to cause
> drastic and deadly changes in our atmosphere we are going to NEED a
> strong economy and advanced technology to deal with it. There is no
> other way around that simple truth as the doomsayers have already stated
> that we cannot handle those changes with what we currently have.



The economy is going to be eaten up dealing with the effects of the
warming you didn't want to try to stave off earlier.  Our budget will be
consumed dealing with relocating a few million people plus their homes
and their businesses.  The economies of the world will be draining
themselves trying to keep their larders full and the cisterns topped
off.  Doing nothing now so we'll have the strength to do something
later?  You're no dummy.  How can you even think of saying such nonsense
without seeing it for exactly that?



			
				FA_Q2 said:
			
		

> The sad part is that the AGW believers seem to want to dismantle any
> method of dealing with that outcome out of sheer fear. Bad idea.



What do you believe AGW believers want to dismantle that could be used
to deal with global warming? 

Ps: I was a little hot yesterday.  We've been dealing with a major
"family emergency" the last two days (and many more to come) and I
vented on you and others.  Mea culpa.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Why should anyone believe it was "complete crap," because you say so?  People can read the analysis themselves.  We don't need any bogus authorities to tell us whether it's valid. Simple logic will tell you that.  You don't need a course in statistics to know that the authors of the 97% claim cherry picked their data.

Here's an article the address the paper by Doran and Zimmerman, but also addresses another paper on the subject.

The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog: The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing

Whenever we look at one of these studies we find bogus assumptions, invalid methods and outright fraud.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 23, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> And there is not a single Scientific Society, not a single National Academy of Science, not a single major University that contests AGW. Not even in outer Slobovia. That is a damned impressive consensus. And that is not 97%, that is 100%.
> 
> Of course, our little tin hat wearers will immediate posit a worldwide conspiracy among all of these scientists. Anyone with more than a two digit IQ just has to be in on some kind of conspiracy!



The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog: The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing



> In actual fact the support for AGW is entirely bureaucratic. By that I mean that all the major organisations which publically espouse AGW are in effect bureaucracies with government affiliated or appointed heads who keep tight muster on the underlings and enforce conformity.
> 
> A classic case is the case of Dr Clive Spash. Spash was a senior scientist at the CSIRO. At the time when then PM Rudd was advocating an ETS Spash wrote a paper critical of the ETS. After conflict with the CSIRO bosses, including Megan Clark, former CEO of Rothschild Australia, Spash was left no alternative but to resign.
> A similar situation has also occurred with Dr Phil Watson of the NSW Department of Environment and Hertitage. Watson wrote a peer reviewed paper which showed sea level rise was not consistent with AGW. This was duly reported; and then contradicted by Dr Watsons bosses.
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The topic off this thread is not whether or not 97% of active climate scientists believe human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming.  The topic of this thread is the simple and brief presentation by Andrew Dessler of a risk assessment of taking action against global warming.
> 
> I guess I can assume none of you have listened to it as none of you has made the slightest comment to make on the presentation.  An impressive lot.





LOL....."taking action against global warming" = the perpetual fantasy of the climate k00ks.

Indeed.....for all the angst.....for all the hysterical predictions ( most of which fell flat on their face).....for all the media scams......all the bomb throwing.....these freaks have hardly moved the goalposts.

Reading in here, you'd swear there was some huge groundswell of activity going on to combat global warming but it isn't amounting to dick. What it is doing is lining the pockets of the green energy contingent who sit home and laugh about having duped the hopelessly naïve while they count their millions. Meanwhile you look at any poll on concerns of the average American and global warming is so far down at the bottom of the list its the equivalent of about how many people go to a major league baseball game just to see the ballboy shag foul balls.


The climate crusaders in here are like those handful of protestors you see outside a business once in awhile being on strike!! These sorry fucks are marching for hours in the hot sun and some likely think the public passerby's are going to get all riled up and get behind them and boycott the product or service they represent. But nobody gives a rats ass about them.......maybe a handful of asswipe losers might drive by and beep the horn for them. But nobody cares......


So knock yourselves out with all the 97% of scientists stuff......Ive been hearing that for years and years.......and its still has had zero effect at moving the goalposts a smidge!!




As Bripat astutely points out.......the whole "consensus" thing is just another lame manipulation of statistics presented in fable form!!!!


On designing a fable >>>>>>>  http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/designing-the-mind-a-fable/


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Dave, have you ever heard the term "unsubstantiated assertion"?



Yes.  It is defined by AGW.


----------



## theHawk (Aug 23, 2013)

Well if I had to answer that same survey I would answer yes, the world is getting warmer.  It has been for the last 10,000 years since the last ice age.

Are humans responsible for it?  No, it is perfectly natural.

Are humans contributing to warming?  Yes, but probably in such an insignificant way there is nothing we can do about it.  

So according to you I would be someone who accepts the "Global Warming" ideology, but I am not.

That proves that your 97% figure is pure nonsense.

I'm all for preserving the natural environment, but I am not in favor of any of the stupid ideas that progressives are pushing such as the "carbon tax" in order to try to "fix" global warming.  Mainly because these measures don't actually even help the environment, they are just designed to hurt certain nations...namely the US.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 23, 2013)

yuk......yuk.......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 23, 2013)

Where is a survey that says different?


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Dave, have you ever heard the term "unsubstantiated assertion"?


Yes.  AGW is full of them.


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 23, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



"Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?" ? ? ? ? ? ?  You sound like a Bill Cosby character.

No, it would not.  A Christian theologian, by definition, believes in the divinity of Jesus.

So, Dave, what's with all the gun talk and gun pictures?  Do you have a gun on you right now?  It is loaded?  Safety off?  How does that make you FEEEEEEEL?


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


And an AGW supporter, by definition, believes in AGW.

What?  You think the poll wasn't slanted?  


Abraham3 said:


> So, Dave, what's with all the gun talk and gun pictures?  Do you have a gun on you right now?  It is loaded?  Safety off?  How does that make you FEEEEEEEL?


Amused that you can't stick to your own topic.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 23, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



But they weren't polls of AGW supporters.  They were polls of climate scientists.



daveman said:


> What?  You think the poll wasn't slanted?



Hyuk hyuk hyuk... no.



Abraham3 said:


> So, Dave, what's with all the gun talk and gun pictures?  Do you have a gun on you right now?  It is loaded?  Safety off?  How does that make you FEEEEEEEL?





daveman said:


> Amused that you can't stick to your own topic.



Hyuk hyuk hyuk...  You posted the mystic gun diatribe and the gun-toting avatar.  What do they have to do with global warming?  

     Uhhh... nothing.   

I wasn't the first to go off topic.


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Who just coincidentally happened to support AGW.  


Abraham3 said:


> Hyuk hyuk hyuk... no.


Of course you don't.  You agree with the conclusion.  



Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > So, Dave, what's with all the gun talk and gun pictures?  Do you have a gun on you right now?  It is loaded?  Safety off?  How does that make you FEEEEEEEL?
> ...


Ummm...that "diatribe" is my signature.  It appears under _every single one_ of my posts.  

So, yes, you were the first to go off topic.  

Hyuk.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 24, 2013)

Climate scientists don't _coincidentally_ support AGW.  They support AGW because, in their expert opinions and with intimate knowledge of its successes in supporting the observations and surviving the tests of the scientific method, they believe it to be true.  That was the purpose of those surveys, Dave: to determine how much support AGW had among climate scientists.  Did you lose track of that wee point?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 24, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Dave, have you ever heard the term "unsubstantiated assertion"?



Yes, the theory that a 200PPM increase in CO2 is causing "Global Warming" is completely unsubstantiated






"where's the AGW Lab work?"


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 24, 2013)

I'm sorry Frank, but that is utter nonsense.  I'm not sure where the lot of you got this idea that no lab experiment has ever demonstrated the greenhouse effect, but it is wrong and you all look a lot of idiots spouting it over and over again.  How difficult do you believe it to be to determine and demonstrate the absorption and emissions spectra of carbon dioxide or any other gas?  Where do you think the idea of the greenhouse effect came from?  Someone's fertile imagination?


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I'm sorry Frank, but that is utter nonsense.  I'm not sure where the lot of you got this idea that no lab experiment has ever demonstrated the greenhouse effect, but it is wrong and you all look a lot of idiots spouting it over and over again.  How difficult do you believe it to be to determine and demonstrate the absorption and emissions spectra of carbon dioxide or any other gas?  Where do you think the idea of the greenhouse effect came from?  Someone's fertile imagination?









Frank is absolutely correct.  There is zero empirical data to support the idea that a 200ppm increase in CO2 can do anything.  There are computer models that claim it...but as we have seen from the Harvard study those models are "close to useless"  (their words) so that leaves you where?  

With an unsubstantiated claim...


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Climate scientists don't _coincidentally_ support AGW.  They support AGW because, in their expert opinions and with intimate knowledge of its successes in supporting the observations and surviving the tests of the scientific method, they believe it to be true.  That was the purpose of those surveys, Dave: to determine how much support AGW had among climate scientists.  Did you lose track of that wee point?





OK!!


Then why do they feel so compelled to rig the data??


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I'm sorry Frank, but that is utter nonsense.  I'm not sure where the lot of you got this idea that no lab experiment has ever demonstrated the greenhouse effect, but it is wrong and you all look a lot of idiots spouting it over and over again.  How difficult do you believe it to be to determine and demonstrate the absorption and emissions spectra of carbon dioxide or any other gas?  Where do you think the idea of the greenhouse effect came from?  Someone's fertile imagination?



However, your Bizarre Theory is NOT That CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas; it's that a 200PPM Change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere is causing (insert phrase du jour, e.g. Global warming, climate change, climate disruption)


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

daveman said:


> Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?
> 
> Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?



It's a bit baffling to me that Sceptics arguing that Climate Change is to Science what Jesus is to Christian theologians.

Remember the days when sceptics still claimed they had science in their corner?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Well they do have Consensus and there's more evidence that Jesus turned water into wine than there is for CO2 driven Climate Warming


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?
> ...



We have science because it fails your theory 100% of the time

Dave made the brilliant observation that the AGWCult worship their Gods like the Christians worship theirs.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 25, 2013)

Nothing like the manner in which you treat Watts, McIntyre, Spencer or (I choke to say this) Monckton?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Nothing like the manner in which you treat Watts, McIntyre, Spencer or (I choke to say this) Monckton?








"When are they gonna start testing 200PPM of CO2 in a Lab?"

"Never"


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 25, 2013)

Frank,

On what do you believe theories regarding the Greenhouse Effect are based?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Frank,
> 
> On what do you believe theories regarding the Greenhouse Effect are based?



Do you even know what your "Theory" is?

Is NOT that CO2 is a "Greenhouse gas", it's that a change in the chemical composition of Earth atmosphere by adding 200PPM of CO2 causes cataclysmic changes


----------



## daveman (Aug 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Climate scientists don't _coincidentally_ support AGW.  They support AGW because, in their expert opinions and with intimate knowledge of its successes in supporting the observations and surviving the tests of the scientific method, they believe it to be true.  That was the purpose of those surveys, Dave: to determine how much support AGW had among climate scientists.  Did you lose track of that wee point?


Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Dont look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the Comply with Kyoto model. The scientists in this group express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

--

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as denier to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as speaking against climate science rather than speaking against asserted climate projections. Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the vast right-wing climate denial machine.

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged consensus have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.​
Even when climate researchers try to stack surveys in their favor, they don't get the results they want.


----------



## daveman (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?
> ...


I don't know why.  It's a simple concept.  

There is no hard evidence of Anthropegenic Climate Change.  There is no hard evidence of the divinity of Jesus.



Saigon said:


> Remember the days when sceptics still claimed they had science in their corner?


We still do.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

Daveman -

You might want to read the article and correct your maths.

Someone posted this last week and made the same mistake. 

You might also ask yourself why a survey of climate specialists would include engineers, but exclude biologists.


----------



## daveman (Aug 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Nothing like the manner in which you treat Watts, McIntyre, Spencer or (I choke to say this) Monckton?



Oh, you mean the "heretics" your side tries to destroy personally?

You bolster my case.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

> There is no hard evidence of Anthropegenic Climate Change.



Really? 

Because I could list 10 things that you could go and check tomorrow with your own eyes.

You won't, though, because you know as well as I do what you would find.


----------



## daveman (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> You might want to read the article and correct your maths.
> 
> ...



You might want to read it again.  The survey was not of "climate specialists", but of scientists.

If you insist that only climate scientists may have an opinion on climate science, I'll have to ask you, a foreigner, to stop having opinions on the United States.


----------



## daveman (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > There is no hard evidence of Anthropegenic Climate Change.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't even have to look at your list to dismiss it:

Correlation does not imply causation.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Daveman -
> ...



I have read it - which is how I know that your maths is wrong. 

btw, If it is a survey of scientists, why are engineers included?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > There is no hard evidence of Anthropegenic Climate Change.
> ...



Of course you won't look at the evidence, because you know what would happen if you did. 

btw. Melting glaciers causing sea levels to raise is not a correlation - it is cause and effect, clear and simple. As you know, obviously. It is scientifically proven, and something you can check fairly easily online about your nearest coastal area.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > There is no hard evidence of Anthropegenic Climate Change.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ice melts, waterways shift, that's been going on forever; the idea that a wisp of CO2 is causing it is quite recent and borderline lunacy


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 25, 2013)

Once again we have dumb asses claiming that some survey shows that most scientists are skeptical of AGW. Were that so, why does every Scientific Society in every nation state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger in their policy statements? And the same for every National Academy of Science, and every major University.

By the way, Watts and Monkton have zero scientfic credentials, and Spencer states that GHGs do warm the atmosphere, he just does not thing that presents that much of a problem.

In the words of the scientific society that has the most members that are actively engaged in climate research, the American Geophyical Union;

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/05/agu-statement-on-climate-change/

Human-induced climate change requires urgent action. 

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. 

&#8220;Human activities are changing Earth&#8217;s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer-term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways &#8212; some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human-induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.&#8221;

Adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; Revised and 
Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?
> ...



They still do.  Anyone who goes around claiming AGW is true because of a "consensus" doesn't know diddly squat about science.  Furthermore, the so-called "consensus" is mostly concocted.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> In the words of the scientific society that has the most members that are actively engaged in climate research, the American Geophyical Union;



You mean "in the words of a few political hacks who run the organization."   Political operatives don't determine scientific facts.  That's another lesson the brethren of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming need to learn.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 25, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Daveman -
> ...



"Climate specialists" are all getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true.  By definition, someone who isn't getting paid to do research on AGW isn't a "Climate specialist," and all the money for climate research comes from the federal government.  Surveying "climate specialists" about global warming is like surveying a bunch of Ford Motor Company executives about which company makes the best cars.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > In the words of the scientific society that has the most members that are actively engaged in climate research, the American Geophyical Union;
> ...



Can you explain why "political hacks" *in countries with conservative governments* would fraudently represent the members who voted for them to represent the membership?

Seriously man, you must realise yourself that your theories here are laugh-out-loud stupid!



> "Climate specialists" are all getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true.



And why are CONSERVATIVE governments doing this?


----------



## daveman (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Then perhaps you should write to the author.


Saigon said:


> btw, If it is a survey of scientists, why are engineers included?


The planet is like a machine.  Who knows better how machines work than engineers?

I have a question for you:  Why are there no statisticians writing climate models?  After all, climate data is nothing but statistics.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

Daveman - 

Again, your maths are wrong. I suggest you read the report, add up the numbers in different categories, and tell us what the MAJORITY of those surveyed think.

Secondly, I do not think someone with two years polytechnic studies, qualifying him to be a lower level electrician, is an expert on climate or science, and neither do you.


----------



## daveman (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Yes.  I'd find things that you insist are due to CO2 without sufficient evidence. 


Saigon said:


> btw. Melting glaciers causing sea levels to raise is not a correlation - it is cause and effect, clear and simple. As you know, obviously. It is scientifically proven, and something you can check fairly easily online about your nearest coastal area.


But the insistence that man is releasing CO2 which is causing the planet to heat up thus melting the glaciers IS correlation without causation.  

Get it now?

Probably not.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



When you claim a government is "conservative" you mean only a very thin layer of politicians at the top are conservative.  The immense armies of bureaucrats underneath this layer are all statists committed to expanding their empires.  In other words, they are left-wingers.  They are the ones who determine who gets research money, not politicians.  

When George Bush was president, he was nominally a "conservative."  Yet the bureaucrats at the EPA did everything in their power to undermine his agenda.  If you think politicians have absolute control over the bureaucracy, then you're a naive fool who doesn't understand the first thing about government.


----------



## daveman (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> Again, your maths are wrong. I suggest you read the report, add up the numbers in different categories, and tell us what the MAJORITY of those surveyed think.
> 
> Secondly, I do not think someone with two years polytechnic studies, qualifying him to be a lower level electrician, is an expert on climate or science, and neither do you.


Just as I thought.

Very well, you may no longer express an opinion on anything the United States does.

You're simply not qualified to have an opinion.

And I will remind you of this whenever you say anything about the US.

This is your own standard.  Don't whine when it gets applied to you.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 25, 2013)

Bottom line:  those who depend on AGW supporters, including the U.S. government, for most or all of their funding are not likely to come to ANY conclusion that suggests that AGW is not a problem.  Those who do lose their funding.  It is as simple as that.

So, if I was going to conduct a poll to promote AGW, especially one funded by AGW supporters, including the the U.S. government, who do I poll?  All scientists indiscriminately?  Or those who will give me the answer I want?

Of course that method produces a 100% consensus which nobody would buy, so just enought 'skeptics' have to be included to produce a more believable 97%.  Which anybody with a computer and any ability at all to do a quick Google search knows is pure bunk.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/pbs-frontline-climate-change-special-cites-bogus-consensus/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130729130257AAZzP8J


It is tragic that the ridiculous analogy used in the OP is presented as science.  And tragic that so many scientists are being coerced into compromising their values and integrity to chase the almighty research dollar.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

Daveman - 

For the third time now - please post the REAL statistics from your own link.

If you don't, I will.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> When you claim a government is "conservative" you mean only a very thin layer of politicians at the top are conservative.



Don't be ridiculous. 

Conservative governments are as conservative as liberal governments are liberal. You might as well claim that US ministries are packed full of conservative scientists...somehow I don't think you are going to suggest that, though, are you?!

Your theorising here makes no sense whatsoever, and you know it doesn't. 

Forget the conspiracy theories, man, no one believes the British Academy of Sciences are a bunch of pinkos - not even you.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Bottom line:  those who depend on AGW supporters, including the U.S. government, for most or all of their funding are not likely to come to ANY conclusion that suggests that AGW is not a problem..



Another one!

So, Fox, why do you think scientists in countries with conservative governments are any different?

Is it too much to ask Sceptical posters to think through your theories just a little bit before posting them?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line:  those who depend on AGW supporters, including the U.S. government, for most or all of their funding are not likely to come to ANY conclusion that suggests that AGW is not a problem..
> ...



Depends on how you define conservative.  As you define it in Finland?  Or as it is defined in the USA?   What do you see as the definition of 'conservative' as it pertains to government?

The U.S. government has been promoting AGW as a valid concept now for a couple of decades.  And it funds ONLY scientists and scientific groups who promote AGW.   Does that make us conservative in your eyes?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > When you claim a government is "conservative" you mean only a very thin layer of politicians at the top are conservative.
> ...



Wrong.  All government below the level of elected officials is liberal.  Your analogy doesn't make sense because it's based on your view of reality, not mine.  You're the one claiming US "ministries" are packed with conservatives the minute a Republican gets elected, not me.



Saigon said:


> Your theorising here makes no sense whatsoever, and you know it doesn't.



They aren't theories.  They are facts.  Bureacrats don't lose their jobs when a new administration comes into power.  Politicians come and go, but the bureaucrats are there for life, and they all have a vested interest in expanding government.



Saigon said:


> Forget the conspiracy theories, man, no one believes the British Academy of Sciences are a bunch of pinkos - not even you.



You're ideological brethren in this forum keep telling us how 94% of scientists are liberals, do apparently they believe it.   Furthermore, the British Academy of Sciences doesn't determine who gets government funding.  A bunch of lifetime bureaucrats determine that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Apparently Saigon believes that the minute a Republican gets elected all the left-wing bureaucrats get fired and replaced by loyal conservatives.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 25, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I am guessing that liberal and conservative have much different defintions in Finland than how they are more commonly understood in America.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 25, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Engineers that all too often ignore everything but what they are trying to build. We see that in the siting of nuclear reactors, and I have had all too many experiances of having to redisign machinery that the engineer forgot the need for lubrication on.

Dumb ass, you do not realize that stastics is a required course in any scientific field, even Geology?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Well, yes, you are correct. In most nations conservative and liberal are mostly related to economic policy. Here is the US, Conservative means willfully ignorant in science, disdainful of any kind of education, and the hate of anyone that looks differant from the North European norm. Just look at the posts in general on the US Message Board.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Apparently "liberal" means being mentally retarded and dishonest to the bone.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2013)

The Physicist and the Climatologist; FOLLOW THE MONEY!, by David M. Hoffer

A classic worth repeating

"Climatologist: I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?

Physicist: The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist: Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist: See above.

Climatologist: Perhaps you don't understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average. See above.....


"Climatologist: AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would increase temperature.

Physicist: Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the planet is?

Climatologist: Uhm... no.

Physicist: Rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet... See above."


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 25, 2013)

And your defnition is why so few serious posters take you seriously Old Rocks.


----------



## daveman (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> For the third time now - please post the REAL statistics from your own link.
> 
> If you don't, I will.



Go right ahead.  I don't mind you proving that it doesn't mean what you insist it means.


----------



## daveman (Aug 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Who told the engineers to put it there?

Oh, yes -- geologists.  You were saying something...?


Old Rocks said:


> ...and I have had all too many experiances of having to redisign machinery that the engineer forgot the need for lubrication on.


Yes, I'm sure.  Like Saigon, you have a contempt for engineers.  Why is that?  Is it because they insist your silly ideas won't work?


Old Rocks said:


> Dumb ass, you do not realize that stastics is a required course in any scientific field, even Geology?


Is it one of the courses you didn't get to before you quit geology school?


----------



## daveman (Aug 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


That's what it means to bigots.  Are you a bigot?

Sure looks that way.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 25, 2013)

Late, I know.  Sometimes it can take a while and the 17th amendment thread has been taking a lot of my time 

I am pulling your statements for brevity.  I dont mean to take anything out of context.


Abraham3 said:


> Yale/George Mason University, 2011*"When [survey participants were]
> asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to
> catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great
> danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little
> ...


That does not solve the original problem though.  You are reinforcing my entire point here.  The argument in the video is rather simple:

We should do something because 

scientists have a consensus that the earth is warming  
scientists have a consensus that the earth the danger would be severe 
the fix is not severe
He likens this to a trial where beyond a reasonable doubt is the level of proof that is required to convict.  He then goes on to state that he is going to use THAT standard.  <---- RIGHT THERE is the crux of WHY this entire rationalization is bunk.  Remember that the OP of this thread was in direct reference to this rationality expressed in the video and NOT other rationalities for AGW.  That is why I said earlier that even IF AGW is really occurring and the outcome will be disastrous, this particular video is bunk because the logic is severely flawed.  In this set of statistics you have only 41% seeing great danger (which is where catastrophic and serious would be).  Lumping moderate with grate is rather disingenuous in my opinion and moderate is definitely NOT serious.  There are HUGE differences there.  I can tell you though that 41% IS NOT without reasonable doubt.  It is not even in the same ballpark.
Further, that certainly does NOT show any consensus at all.  You have achieved the first bullet point by all means IF we take the surveys at face value.  Scientists have a consensus, according to your data, that the earth is warming.  They, however, do not have one as far as the danger is concerned.  That has been one of my core points here (and problems with AGW in general).



Abraham3 said:


> The very basis of one side of the comparison Dessler made was that
> reasons for taking action against AGW were valid. Completely and
> unequivocally implicit in that structure is that AGW validity indicates
> a very high risk of severe consequences. A state in which AGW is valid
> ...


But it IS the cornerstone of the argument.  If we are demanding that the severe consequences are intrinsic in the argument and must simply be accepted then there is not much reason to continue because you have essentially demanded that the argument is correct because the argument has defined itself as correct.  That is circular reasoning and there no possible way to debate that type of reasoning.

The fact that the consequences might not be severe is a key point of contention.  Unless, of course, I am not reading what you meant by this statement properly.


Abraham3 said:


> 1) Oreskes, Naomi, 2004, 928 abstracts which mention climate change.
> None (0%) disagree with the IPCC consensus
> 2) Harris Interactive, 2007, survey of 489 PhD members or AMS or AGU:
> 84% believe warming to be human-induced. 85% believe
> ...


1  meaningless.  We have already moved past consensus on warming.  
2  moderate to disastrous  not a useful range.  Moderate may mean virtually nothing would be harmed, disastrous could mean we all die.  That range is useless as described above.
3  more consensus on the number that think warming is occurring and that people are involved.  Again, only refers to the first point, one that I already gave to you in my first response.
4  more consensus on the number that think warming is occurring and that people are involved.  Again, only refers to the first point, one that I already gave to you in my first response.
5  more consensus on the number that think warming is occurring and that people are involved.  Again, only refers to the first point, one that I already gave to you in my first response.
6 - more consensus on the number that think warming is occurring and that people are involved.  Again, only refers to the first point, one that I already gave to you in my first response.

As for the fifth or sixth time you asked this question  that is an argument that you are having with the other posters, not me.  I referenced Daves statement once and then stated that if you take the statistical analysis at it face value which means (or at least I meant it to mean) that contending that statement does not matter as it is irrelevant to my grater point.  Again, I GIVE you that, for the purposes of this thread, that there is consensus on that particular point.  


Abraham3 said:


> I started this thread with the intent to discuss Dessler's statements
> and reasoning. You're the first to actually do so. All your
> predecessors took this as an opportunity to argue the validity of the
> 97% figure.


Ill take that as a complement 



Abraham3 said:


> EV and hybrid automobiles have the capability right now to replace a
> great many of our ICE vehicles. They are doing so. And as the price
> comes down and the infrastructure appears, more will follow.


Not in any real sense of the matter.  They are trying but the actual dent they are making is non existent.  Given that pure EVs are not 100% carbon free anyway as they still rely on dirty power and hybrids are a joke, the impact is negligible at best and nonexistent at worst.  Hybrids are a joke because they still burn gas and a friend of mine had a pure gas vehicle that gets better gas mileage than my other friends hybrid.  EVs are the way to go, hybrids are, imho, pointless.  

Either way, they do NOT have the capability atm.  They WILL in the future.  That is only natural but right now they are lacking in several places.  As soon as the price comes down and the infrastructure is built up, we will see that change but I would venture a guess that we are looking at over a decade for anything real to happen on this front.


Abraham3 said:


> As to coal...
> You have heard no one with the intelligence or authority to make a
> difference clamoring to "kill coal". You will hear suggetions that coal
> subsidies be reduced, that coal emission requirements be tightened, that
> ...


Your kidding, right?  There have been several statements and proposals to tax coal out of the market.  Obama himself stated that he wanted to make it so expensive that coal would cease to exist.  That is not ending subsidies.  iT is talking about taxing them to death.  Then we get screwball concepts like cap and trade  DIRECT assaults on energy prices that are boondoggles.  These are NOT exaggerations, they are real proposed answers using AGW as cover.  Worse, they dont provide any real solutions in the long run.  


Abraham3 said:


> I was simply being honest about the numbers. 85.2% believe that the
> danger is moderate to catastrophic harm in the next 50-100 years.
> Personally, I put catastrophic further out the scale then severe. And,
> as I think I stated elsewhere, it is not reasonable to accept AGW but
> ...


No, we dont KNOW that they are going to get worse.  Reasoned predictions is one of my problems because so far, NONE of the predictions that were so reasoned have come to fruition.  Many others have variances that are so wide as to make them unusable and yet other leave out entire effects (like cloud cover) from the models entirely (the link is broken btw, get a 404).  This is my core problem, accurate and reasonable predictions are nowhere to be found afaik.  Sure, the IPCC has a lot of predictions but what we need are predictions that have come to pass  essentially verifications that the computer models used are actually accurate.  Those models are only capable of making determinations based on the variables that are fed into them.  With nothing to base the accuracy of those variables on, what you have is no more accurate than predicting the lottery.

No one has any thoughts of farming Antarctica but they do have issues with the severity of the feedback loop, historical CO2 levels and the overall effects of warmer weather particularly accepting that we are not in a terribly warm time in history.


Abraham3 said:


> What does "...not suggesting anything with added 'risk.' mean?
> A goodly number of scientists have spend the last couple of decades
> figuring out what the likely effects will be. Read AR4. Check your
> favorite search engine. That the solutions that have been suggested so
> ...


Tell me, what have I been bitching about.  A goodly number of scientists have spent a long time guessing what those risks are going to be and they are not only at odds but they are also unable to verify with current trends.  This last decade did not do as they thought it would.


Abraham3 said:


> The economy is going to be eaten up dealing with the effects of the
> warming you didn't want to try to stave off earlier. Our budget will be
> consumed dealing with relocating a few million people plus their homes
> and their businesses. The economies of the world will be draining
> ...


Because you are right back to assumed catastrophe.  


Abraham3 said:


> What do you believe AGW believers want to dismantle that could be used
> to deal with global warming?
> 
> Ps: I was a little hot yesterday. We've been dealing with a major
> ...


Many I have talked with support rather harsh penalties on both vehicles and energy production (and support things like cap and trade).  Those concepts are completely devoid of the fact that we currently have NOTHING to replace them.  The EV market is growing and will continue to grow naturally and supplant gas vehicles.  That is going to happen and we are not going to speed it up by placing draconian requirements on our current vehicles.  The ONLY thing that does is harm the economy and actually remove money from innovation as it is placed back into increasing the costs of those vehicles.  Increasing the cost of energy is EVEN WORSE.  That is a terrible idea.  Even worse than that, the replacement that we do have is vilified by the green crowed: nuclear.  We should be pushing our nuclear program HARD and recycling the spent rods.  The tech for that exists RIGHT NOW.  Instead, they are pushing subsidies for wind and solar, 2 techs that are woefully ill-equipped to take over the grid.  Not only are they not ready BUT, even worse, they will NEVER be capable.  We should be utilizing them, of course, but they are not energy replacements but rather energy SUPPLEMENTS.  Again, they will do this on their own without the government trying to artificially set them up.  What they are trying to dismantle is real innovation through crating false markets and the economy by trying to drive up energy costs in order to reduce use rather than going to better energy sources.

We do not need to reduce the use of energy (which is reducing the economy by its very definition) but rather we should be working on better energy sources.  The real sad part for me is the murdering of nuclear  a VERY reliable an clean source of energy.  Coal produces more radioactivity and that puts it right in the air.  

to the PS: If THAT was venting then you are AMAZINGLY calm compared to some of the other posters here  So far, not a single insult and that would be a MAJOR milestone for a dozen others that I can think of off the top of my head!


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again we have dumb asses claiming that some survey shows that most scientists are skeptical of AGW. Were that so, why does every Scientific Society in every nation state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger in their policy statements? And the same for every National Academy of Science, and every major University.
> 
> By the way, Watts and Monkton have zero scientfic credentials, and Spencer states that GHGs do warm the atmosphere, he just does not thing that presents that much of a problem.
> 
> ...



You continue to fail to read your own links.  You ARE aware that your link leads us to Judith Curry who is NOT among the scientific consensus that AGW as a problem is an almost certain fact?  She is not a denier, but as a scientist she also strongly questions the reliability of the climate models used to sell AGW as a sociopolitical reality.

Among her most recent writings:



> Returning to my experiences with decision makers in using weather and seasonal climate forecasts, I would like to remind that uncertainty about the future climate is a two-edged sword. There are two situations to avoid: i) issuing a highly confident statement about the future that turns out to be wrong; and ii) missing the possibility of an extreme, catastrophic outcome. *Avoiding both of these situations requires much deeper and better assessment of uncertainties and areas of ignorance, as well as creating a broader
> range of future scenarios than is currently provided by climate models.*





> Or maybe things are changing?  The whole issue of uncertainty seems to be growing in importance.  Skeptics are increasingly getting their papers published (including some that have emerged from the skeptical blogosphere).  The policy debate has broadened far beyond CO2 mitigation, although climate scientists dont seem to understand this.  *Unfortunately, the ostracism of scientists that do not socially support the consensus continues.  And the insistence on scientists supporting urgent action on CO2 mitigation continues unabated.*





> The global climate modeling effort directed at the IPCC/UNFCCC paradigm has arguably reached the point of diminishing returns in terms of supporting decision making for the U.N. treaty and related national policies. *At this point, it seems more important to explore the uncertainties associated with future climate change rather than to attempt to reduce the uncertainties in a consensus-based approach. * It is time for climate scientists to change their view of uncertainty: it is not just something that is merely to be framed and communicated to policy makers, all the while keeping in mind that doubt is a political weapon in the decision making process. Characterizing, understanding, and exploring uncertainty is at the heart of the scientific process. And finally, the characterization of uncertainty is critical information for robust policy decisions.



All found at her website:
About | Climate Etc.


----------



## Snookie (Aug 25, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Physicist and the Climatologist; FOLLOW THE MONEY!, by David M. Hoffer
> 
> A classic worth repeating
> 
> ...



Huh?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> You continue to fail to read your own links.  You ARE aware that your link leads us to Judith Curry



Judith Curry - RationalWiki
---
Judith Curry is a climatologist at Georgia Tech, infamous for flirting with the denier community on the basis that some of them have "good ideas" and can't get their contrarian papers published. For instance, she has posted on Anthony Watts' blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit. She has further embarrassed herself by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.[1] This and other shenanigans led Tamino of Open Mind to say, "Judith, your credibility is now below zero."[2] In short, she's the Richard Lindzen of the South. Or maybe the Roy Spencer of Georgia, take your pick.

Perhaps what has sparked the most criticism, more than any other one thing, is that she has invited McIntyre to talk at Georgia Tech. No, really.[3] This makes her a massive enabler.

Some other stuff she's been wrong about:

    Maybe the Heartland Institute isn't so bad after all![4]
    The BEST team tried to "hide the decline," because there has been "no warming since 1998." (This was widely quoted in a Daily Mail article.)[5][6]
    (From the same Daily Mail article) "The models are broken." She later backed down about this on her blog, saying she was misquoted and "had no idea where it came from."[7]
    Murry Salby is right about CO2 and every other scientist is wrong.[8] 

This list could actually go on for much longer -- just go to her blog for more info. 
---


----------



## westwall (Aug 25, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > You continue to fail to read your own links.  You ARE aware that your link leads us to Judith Curry
> ...








rationalwiki....for people so stupid even regular wiki is too advanced for them!


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I am guessing that liberal and conservative have much different defintions in Finland than how they are more commonly understood in America.



Not really.

The governments of Germany, the UK, Finland and New Zealand are conservative by any definition. 

Hence this idea of a socialist conspiracy makes no sense at all. It's a fantasy.

What you need to always keep in mind is that climate research is conducted right around the world, in at least 40 countries. There is a huge range of governments there, obviously. 

So when we talk about a scientific consensus, that is a consensus that exists right across the political spectrum.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Wrong.  All government below the level of elected officials is liberal.  Your analogy doesn't make sense because it's based on your view of reality, not mine.  You're the one claiming US "ministries" are packed with conservatives the minute a Republican gets elected, not me.



This must be one of the silliest things you have ever posted - and that is saying something! 

What evidence do you have that "all government" is liberal?! Care to present some proof of that?!

I'm not claiming Ministries are packed with anyone - go into any Ministry and what you will find is a mix of people with a wide range of personal political opinions. Certainly after 8 years of Bush we might have seen more conservatives in senior positions than we do now - but immense amounts of climate science was conducted under Bush as well.

As I said to Fox, climate research isconducted in 40+ countries, with a range of governments from strongly right wing to communist. We also see a range of research results. But when we talk about consensus, it is also a consensus across political divides, without question.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 25, 2013)

Daveman - 

Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW. 

I'm sorry you couldn't bring yourself to admit that. Next time - read the material before you post it!!


----------



## westwall (Aug 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.
> 
> I'm sorry you couldn't bring yourself to admit that. Next time - read the material before you post it!!







No, the great majority of _climatologists_.....  That's all bucko... just them...  And we have seen the crappy, substandard work they do.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I am guessing that liberal and conservative have much different defintions in Finland than how they are more commonly understood in America.
> ...



The usage of the terms as commonly used in America would place the governments of the Germany, the UK, Finland, and New Zealand well left of center or 'liberal' in our vernacular.  And our own government is not that much different being also left of center and much more liberal than conservative in our vernacular.

"Conservative' as it is commonly used in America these days means small government, fiscal accountability, constitutional integrity, individual liberty and accountability, and few, if any, social services provided by the central government.  That certainly doesn't describe the government of the USA.   A lot of taxpayer money funneled into global warm research and green technology subsidies is considered a liberal concept, not conservative here.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 26, 2013)

Foxfyre -

If the only real conservatives in existance are the Tea Party, then you are right that there is little evidence of Tea Party thinking in international politics or science.

However, there are genuine conservatives in every country on earth, and they are as involved in science and politics as anyone might expect. I don't actually see massive differences between the centre of the GOP and the conservatives in those countries listed. There are areas like abortion where they are very different, but attitudes towards most things are the same. 

It makes no sense at all to claim that the German CDU or Uk Conservative party are not conservatives because they are not some cardboard cut-out of the right wing of the GOP. Talk to any member of those parties and you will find that you have more in common than you do points of real difference. 

In reality, what we are then discussing here is not conservatism, but Christian fundamentalism or right-wing extremism. For myself, I am not much interested in what either left or right wing extremists have to say about science. Dismiss the extremists, and what we are left with is a genuine, board consensus. Perhaps not 97% of scientists, but very likely 90% or so - and from right across the political spectrum.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I am guessing that liberal and conservative have much different defintions in Finland than how they are more commonly understood in America.
> ...



Ahem . .  If I recall correctly, you declined to post any definition of the term.  You ran away numerous times when asked to do so.  So give us the definition by which the governments of Germany and the UK are considered "conservative."



Saigon said:


> Hence this idea of a socialist conspiracy makes no sense at all. It's a fantasy.
> 
> What you need to always keep in mind is that climate research is conducted right around the world, in at least 40 countries. There is a huge range of governments there, obviously.
> 
> So when we talk about a scientific consensus, that is a consensus that exists right across the political spectrum.



Wrong again.  It exists almost entirely among left-wing cranks


----------



## Saigon (Aug 26, 2013)

Bri Pat - 



> So give us the definition by which the governments of Germany and the UK are considered "conservative."



Have you heard of dictionaries?

Use one. All dictionaries will provide a broadly similar definition, and that is the same definition I use.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Bri Pat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see you are running away once again.  I asked for your definition.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 26, 2013)

BriPat - 

What you or I think a word means is of no value or interest. We could both be wrong, mis-informed or simply too biased to have useful opinions. Dictionaries are the only source of any value here.

So let me help you out with that:

con·ser·va·tive  (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
n.
1. One favoring traditional views and values.
2. A supporter of political conservatism.
3. Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Archaic A preservative agent or principle.

conservative - definition of conservative by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> What you or I think a word means is of no value or interest. We could both be wrong, mis-informed or simply too biased to have useful opinions. Dictionaries are the only source of any value here.
> 
> ...



Or, it doesn't matter so much how you or I or the dictionary defines a word as much as it matters how a very large group of people define themselves and what they intend when they define themselves with a particular label.   Those who define themselves as 'conservative' in the USA do not fit the dictionary definition that you provided nor is 'conservative' here defined as it would be in most European countries.   Ditto for the term 'liberal' as it is understood and used as a sociopolitical label  in the American culture.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 26, 2013)

Foxfyre - 

I agree that it doesn't matter how you or I define the term, which is why I insisted on using dictionaries. 



> Those who define themselves as 'conservative' in the USA do not fit the dictionary definition that you provided nor is 'conservative' here defined as it would be in most European countries. Ditto for the term 'liberal' as it is understood and used as a sociopolitical label in the American culture.



You may also have noticed that I used an AMERICAN dictionary.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> If the only real conservatives in existance are the Tea Party, then you are right that there is little evidence of Tea Party thinking in international politics or science.
> 
> ...



Millions of Americans who have little or nothing to do with the Tea Party movement and/or don't even understand what that is still define themselves as 'conservative' in the USA.

Again those who call themselves 'conservative' in the USA are far more likely to fit the definition of 'classical liberal' or 'libertarian'; i.e. favoring small, constitutionally limited federal government that recognizes and secures the unalienable rights of the people, restrained federal spending, lower taxes, states rights, individual liberties.  None of that fits in with your dictionary definition. 

"Conservative' is the favored term as the polar opposite of  what the sociopolitical definition of 'liberal' has become in this country; i.e. favoring a large federal government that dictates what society shall be, what language and attitudes are acceptable,  and sees to it that all have basic comforts.

The small minority who define themselves 'conservative' but who want the federal government to order the society they want are not 'conservative' at all but are extremists who behave more like liberals than consevatives here.

The consensus defintiions apply in our national conversations just as the AGW proponents want there to be a 97% consensus of scientists.  The only problem with that 97% consensus of scientists is that it doesn't exist.  If it did, then I think a whole lot more of us would take the warnings more seriously.  The fact that the 97% is being pushed dishonestly, however, greatly diminishes the confidence people have in the sociopolitical efforts of the warmers.  American Conservatives are simply not willing to give up their choices, options, opportunities, and indiidual liberties for something that increasingly appears to be bogus science.

If anthropogenic global warming is real, I suggest that your side start being scrupulously honest with your 'evidence' and how it is presented.  Your scientists are not doing you any favors with that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2013)

I wonder what weighting is assigned to the Conservativeness of a government in determining their contribution to Consensus of AGWCult Theory, is there some mathematical formula you can share with us?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I wonder what weighting is assigned to the Conservativeness of a government in determining their contribution to Consensus of AGWCult Theory, is there some mathematical formula you can share with us?



Again it is relative based on how the terms are defined.  Saigon defines the terms much differently than most Americans define conservatism and liberalism.  At least most of the  Americans who don't utilize idiotic hateful and perjorative language on message boards.

Conservatives who want to keep their unalienable rights to choices, options, opportunities are far more likely to be skeptics re AGW than are liberals in America.   That includes those in government at all levels.   Liberals are more likely to be AGW proponents and that includes those in government.   And in neither group is the consensus of opinion anywhere close to 100%.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 26, 2013)

> Saigon defines the terms much differently than most Americans define conservatism and liberalism.



Again - it's an AMERICAN source.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what weighting is assigned to the Conservativeness of a government in determining their contribution to Consensus of AGWCult Theory, is there some mathematical formula you can share with us?
> ...



Apparently, anyone Right of Pol Pot is defined as "Conservative"


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 26, 2013)

lets stay on topic, why we shouldn't give much weight to the fringers & their water-carriers like Frank57 & FoxFyre.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2013)

Consensus = f((CO2 added to atmosphere last week * 3.76 10^6,795)+ Liberal Government supporting AGW + 4* Conservative governments funding anything to do with the climate + attendance at Santa Anita race track last week + Krugmans estimate of the Additional Stimulus Needed to get the Government Spending like it's fighting an Alien Invasion)


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> lets stay on topic, why we shouldn't give much weight to the fringers & their water-carriers like Frank57 & FoxFyre.








Q. When are you going to show us that Lab work on the 200PPM addition of CO2?

A. Never


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Saigon defines the terms much differently than most Americans define conservatism and liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Again - it's an AMERICAN source.



And again, if you truly are in Finland, I don't expect you to understand American culture or cultural vernacular as well as you understand Finnish culture and vernacular.   I am pretty sure I, an American and long time student of American history, language, culture, and socioeconomic politics, probably have a better grasp of who we are and what we mean with words than does the typical European.

And again, trying to redefine things to mean what YOU want them to mean doesn't change what the common understanding of any given terms are.  We do not have a conservative government however much you want to think we do.

We have a mostly liberal government that is promoting AGW for sociopolitical purposes, and that is fact.  AGW would be far less likely to enjoy so much government emphasis under a mostly conservative government here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The topic off this thread is not whether or not 97% of active climate scientists believe human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming.  The topic of this thread is the simple and brief presentation by Andrew Dessler of a risk assessment of taking action against global warming.
> 
> I guess I can assume none of you have listened to it as none of you has made the slightest comment to make on the presentation.  An impressive lot.



"If there is a shred of evidence" That guy was funny.

The 97% who believe we are the primary cause should stop releasing more CO2.
They're killing the planet!!


----------



## Saigon (Aug 26, 2013)

Foxfyre - 

My own interpretation of these terms is not important here, not so in Finnish, and even less so in an American context. That's why we have dictionaries.  

At the time any of us start to disagree with dictionaries from our own country - it might be worth asking quite how well we REALLy understand the term. 

If you feel the dictionary definition posted is wrong....I suspect it's worth asking why that might be. 



> trying to redefine things to mean what YOU want them to mean doesn't change what the common understanding of any given terms are.



I'm not the one claiming the dictionary is wrong.



> We have a mostly liberal government that is promoting AGW for sociopolitical purposes, and that is fact. AGW would be far less likely to enjoy so much government emphasis under a mostly conservative government here.



I agree  to some extent - but this is not the case of other conservative countries, where the conservative politicians have been more objective and open minded.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The audio-only message attached to the OP in this thread takes less than 5 minutes to listen to.  Sadly, no one here seems to feel as if they need to listen to anyone else's opinion, they've got their own and they're going to stick to it no matter what.
> 
> The crux of Dessler's message was:
> 
> ...



*For one thing, the harm will be IRREVERSIBLE within any timeframe meaningful to anyone alive now. *

We won't be able to stabilize CO2 levels within any timeframe meaningful to anyone alive now. So we should destroy our economy now, because ..........

Al Gore needs a massage? Another jet?


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Saigon defines the terms much differently than most Americans define conservatism and liberalism.
> ...



ummm..... then why didn't you supply a link?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Why?  You and Bfgn never read them anyway.  But here's you a link.  You don't need to go much further than the first page at the website, if even that:  http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/


----------



## westwall (Aug 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > Saigon defines the terms much differently than most Americans define conservatism and liberalism.
> ...







saggy is an AMERICAN living in Finland.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The audio-only message attached to the OP in this thread takes less than 5 minutes to listen to.  Sadly, no one here seems to feel as if they need to listen to anyone else's opinion, they've got their own and they're going to stick to it no matter what.
> 
> The crux of Dessler's message was:
> 
> ...



Yeah..

 "..... to moving away from fossil fuels"   --- to WHAT? The only plausible solution for Electrical generation is widespread implementation of Nuclear Power. Is this OK with Dressler? There are no TRUE alternatives on the 'renewable' list.

In terms of transportation energy -- the best ENGINEERED solution is to shift to Hydrogen manufactured with renewables OFF-LINE.. 

His statement is a phoney choice --- WITHOUT a choice. And the concept that we have a decade or two to waste with $Trill in infrastructure we don't need, does not make me feel better about "it being reversible".. Evidentally -- Dressler feels no sense of urgency or CERTAINTY... He'd make a GREAT ADVISOR to the Great Waffler POTUS we currently have.

You lost me at the "If 97% of the experts in a given field all believe the same thing," --- which is why I haven't participated here. It's not in evidence by any means that there are concise QUESTIONS that 97% of some techy group would agree to.. Especially post - ClimateGate.. And more importantly -- since the lying and spinning has reached EPIC proportions..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Why do you need a link when the truth smacks u up the side of your head?

Why is the Mission of the UN IPCC to research only the science "that is relevent to MAN-CAUSED warming of the planet" ?? Is that anyway to charter the World's premiere science statement on Climate Change? They are free to ignore ANY inconvienient science that doesn't serve the POLITICAL MISSION that they were given...


----------



## Snookie (Aug 26, 2013)

Just remember boys and girls.  Fossil fuels are renewable energy sources.  It only takes a few million years.  

BP, making the gulf of mexico a nicer place to enjoy.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 26, 2013)

Their charter gives them no such ability.  They were formed to investigate the hypothesis of AGW.  Doing so requires finding out about all factors that influence the global temperature.  

Doesn't it ever strike you that you folks hop from one insignificant nitpick to another, screaming about each one that it somehow invalidates everything or proves they're all crooks or shows warming is going to be good for us - but you're never able to attack the fundamentals:

1) Humans are responsible for almost every bit of the atmospheric CO2 increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
2) That CO2 is the primary cause of the warming we've been experiencing.
3) Several positive feedback mechanisms and process alterations have been triggered by the warming.
4) The rate of warming and the pace of affectation is rising.
5) We're already hosed.  Due to the human idiocy that produced folks like you, we've done nothing and now it's more than too late.  I want you to live to a ripe old age so that you get to see as much as possible of the death and destruction that you kept us from warding off.  I really want you to see what you've done.


----------



## daveman (Aug 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.
> 
> I'm sorry you couldn't bring yourself to admit that.


Why should I admit something that's not true?


Saigon said:


> Next time - read the material before you post it!!


I did.  Obviously, you didn't.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the &#8220;Comply with Kyoto&#8221; model. The scientists in this group &#8220;express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.&#8221;​36% believe in AGW.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the &#8220;Nature Is Overwhelming&#8221; model. &#8220;In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.&#8221; Moreover, &#8220;they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.&#8221;​24% do NOT believe in AGW.

Another group of scientists fit the &#8220;Fatalists&#8221; model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, &#8220;diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. &#8216;Fatalists&#8217; consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.&#8221; These scientists are likely to ask, &#8220;How can anyone take action if research is biased?&#8221;​17% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's little or no risk.

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the &#8220;Economic Responsibility&#8221; model. These scientists &#8220;diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the &#8216;real&#8217; cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the &#8216;nature is overwhelming&#8217; adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.&#8221;​10% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe the real cause is unknown and there's little or no risk.

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the &#8220;Regulation Activists&#8221; model. These scientists &#8220;diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.&#8221; Moreover, &#8220;They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.&#8221;​5% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's only a moderate risk.


So...it looks like there are only 36% that firmly believe man's activites are causing the climate to change.  The others believe it's a mixture of man and nature, but don't believe there will be any catastrophic impacts.  Further, they don't believe the debate is settled, and some don't believe the IPCC's modeling is accurate.

From the study, the remaining 8% "did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized."

So, your claim that "the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW" is utterly false.  You should stop making that claim, because it's nowhere near accurate.

But that's how AGW believers do science, isn't it?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Their charter gives them no such ability.  They were formed to investigate the hypothesis of AGW.  Doing so requires finding out about all factors that influence the global temperature.
> 
> Doesn't it ever strike you that you folks hop from one insignificant nitpick to another, screaming about each one that it somehow invalidates everything or proves they're all crooks or shows warming is going to be good for us - but you're never able to attack the fundamentals:
> 
> ...



If you can prove No. 1 in your list, I would be really amazed given that we have scientific proof that CO2 levels have been much higher than present in the history of the Earth long before man discovered fire or any other fossil fuels.

And Roy Spencer has thrown down the guantlet challenging any smart cookie to refute his analysis here:
Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmadeor Natural? « Roy Spencer, PhD

So far nobody has been able to do it.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> If you can prove No. 1 in your list,



Done long ago through isotope ratio measurements. 



> And Roy Spencer has



... dodged the issue very ineptly.

He starts out talking about how the C13 fraction shows the CO2 is from human activities.

Then he flips to a "well, we can't be sure of anything, therefore the CO2 might not be from human activities" line of argument. 

Handwaving. It's not enough to experiment with curve-fitting. A curve can be fit to anything, especially if one slides the time axis around as Spencer does. Mechanisms and predictions are required. _Why_ does Spencer think CO2 follows temp after 9 months? What physical process drives it? What predictions does he make from it? He's had 4.5 years since that article. Any successful predictions?

Maintream scientists, of course, do include mechanisms and predictions that have come true, which is why they have credibility.


----------



## westwall (Aug 26, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Just remember boys and girls.  Fossil fuels are renewable energy sources.  It only takes a few million years.
> 
> BP, making the gulf of mexico a nicer place to enjoy.








Your name is so appropriate!  A braindead slut spreading her legs for fame and fortune.


----------



## westwall (Aug 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Their charter gives them no such ability.  They were formed to investigate the hypothesis of AGW.  Doing so requires finding out about all factors that influence the global temperature.
> 
> Doesn't it ever strike you that you folks hop from one insignificant nitpick to another, screaming about each one that it somehow invalidates everything or proves they're all crooks or shows warming is going to be good for us - but you're never able to attack the fundamentals:
> 
> ...








Doesn't it ever bother you that the fraudsters have to rename and rebrand the con job every few years?  Must make it tougher than hell, baffling the natives that is, when one lie of yours after another is shot down in flames.

I would be getting pretty tired of their consistent failures.  What keeps you going?  Is it just faith, or do you hope for a big cash payout in the end?


----------



## westwall (Aug 26, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > If you can prove No. 1 in your list,
> ...







No, it hasn't.  The residence time of CO2 is 5 to 15 years based on the IPCC's own report.
Yet again you lie through your teeth little kitty.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 26, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Just remember boys and girls.  Fossil fuels are renewable energy sources.  It only takes a few million years.
> 
> BP, making the gulf of mexico a nicer place to enjoy.



Spouting slogans isn't a substitute for thought, but it's the closest thing a liberal has.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 26, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Daveman -
> ...



Problem is, your "RESPONDENTS" aren't climate scientists.  Most of them aren't  scientists of any flavor.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 26, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Their charter gives them no such ability.  They were formed to investigate the hypothesis of AGW.  Doing so requires finding out about all factors that influence the global temperature.
> ...



Isotopic Characterisation of Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Using Isotopic and Radiocarbon Analysis

Isotopic Investigation Of Anthropogenic Sources Of Atmospheric Nitrogen And Carbon Along Spatial Gradients - D-Scholarship@Pitt

The effect of anthropogenic CO sub (2) on the carbon isotope composition of marine phytoplankton | Jay Cullen - Academia.edu

http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1996/PhysChemEarthMeijer/1996PhysChemEarthMeijer.pdf

The carbon isotopic signature of CO2 in the current and penultimate interglacial period: ocean, peat or human influences? | Jochen Schmitt - Academia.edu

Atmospheric CO2: Looking at the data | Protons for Breakfast Blog

https://www.sindark.com/2009/11/18/climate-change-isotopic-ratios/

The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming :: Monthly Review

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

Is that enough for you?



Foxfyre said:


> And Roy Spencer has thrown down the guantlet challenging any smart cookie to refute his analysis here:
> Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmadeor Natural? « Roy Spencer, PhD
> 
> So far nobody has been able to do it.



Spencer posted a response the very next day of someone "doing it".:  The Origin of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 &#8211; a Response from Ferdinand Engelbeen « Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 26, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Just remember boys and girls.  Fossil fuels are renewable energy sources.  It only takes a few million years.
> ...



Slogans?  Those were jokes.  And you are the LAST person on this forum to get on someone's case for inadequate content.

Well... maybe not the last.  GSlack is the last.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 26, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Yeah..
> 
> "..... to moving away from fossil fuels"   --- to WHAT? The only plausible solution for Electrical generation is widespread implementation of Nuclear Power. Is this OK with Dressler?



Yes, I suspect it is.  And it's fine with me.  And it seems to be fine with most of the AGW-believers here.



flacaltenn said:


> There are no TRUE alternatives on the 'renewable' list.



I don't even know what that means, but it sounds like: not very much.



flacaltenn said:


> In terms of transportation energy -- the best ENGINEERED solution is to shift to Hydrogen manufactured with renewables OFF-LINE..



I'm glad to see you like hydrogen, but how is that solution "engineered"?



flacaltenn said:


> His statement is a phoney choice --- WITHOUT a choice.



Explain.  Which statement?



flacaltenn said:


> And the concept that we have a decade or two to waste with $Trill in infrastructure we don't need, does not make me feel better about "it being reversible".. Evidentally -- Dressler feels no sense of urgency or CERTAINTY... He'd make a GREAT ADVISOR to the Great Waffler POTUS we currently have.



Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.



flacaltenn said:


> You lost me at the "If 97% of the experts in a given field all believe the same thing," --- which is why I haven't participated here.



It certainly looks amazingly like participation.



flacaltenn said:


> It's not in evidence by any means that there are concise QUESTIONS that 97% of some techy group would agree to.. Especially post - ClimateGate.. And more importantly -- since the lying and spinning has reached EPIC proportions..



Bullshit.  The vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW.  That's a fact.  You're the one trying to spin a different reality out of the vacuum.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah..
> ...



*Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.*

How much?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Their charter gives them no such ability.  They were formed to investigate the hypothesis of AGW.  Doing so requires finding out about all factors that influence the global temperature.
> 
> Doesn't it ever strike you that you folks hop from one insignificant nitpick to another, screaming about each one that it somehow invalidates everything or proves they're all crooks or shows warming is going to be good for us - but you're never able to attack the fundamentals:
> 
> ...



To reject the literal reading of the Charter of the IPCC --- means you either have no command of the English language or refuse to ponder the implications of a politically directed commission with a bias in their very formation.. 

Lemme repeat here.. Maybe some 6th grader can help you with the sentence construction.. 



> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
> 
> PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
> Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)
> ...



" ... relevent to ... " is a clarifying RESTRICTIVE clause.  That's NOT a nitpick.. It's fundamental to understanding WHO is to be pleased with their work product.

#1 --- Human produced CO2 is 4% of a 700MT/yr exchange between land and ocean and sky. It is no more potent than the NATURAL concentration of CO2 that FREELY moves every year in that cycle. At the end of the CO2 doubling period from 280ppm to 560ppm, we MIGHT see a 1.2degC increase for that period. 

#2 ---  CO2 COULD be a significant cause of the observed warming, but not the primary cause.. As witnessed by the ability of OTHER forcings to negate it's effect on temperature for over a decade now. The warmer clan has OVERSTATED the role of CO2 and purposely UNDERSTATED the magnitude and significance of any other forcing.

#3 --- Positive feedbacks are not well understood, nor can you responsibly state that they have already been triggered by the 1degF that it has warmed in your lifetime. Nor has the OBSERVED temp increases exceeded the THEORETICAL warming of 1.2DegC at doubling. If positive feedbacks were anything NEAR the 3 or 4 or 5 Climate Sensitivity numbers commonly advertised -- the warming would have exceeded the "CO2 only" line by now. To buy into this "warming amplification" you have to accept that the Earth is such a Junker of a planet that a 1.5degC forcing change from ANY source -- will light a fuse for it's destruction.. The climate is NOT that fragile.. 

#4 --- Just a pile of horseshit actually.... Affectations rising? HOW MUCH Kool-Aid are you consuming here? 

#5 ---- Psychotic horseshit here... Death and Destruction.. From a 1.2DegC GLOBAL average change??? Bad mushrooms here dude...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah..
> ...



Not a fact.. Over 1/2 of the surveys you cite are WAAAAY old. Before ClimateGate. And they don't ask the proper questions. Even if I BELIEVED in voting on science, I would put little faith in Scientists who can't get the units right for an "energy diagram" or who are just now discovering that the Climate System has storage components as part of it.. 

You ignored one of your OWN CITES in another thread that COMPLETELY refutes your assertion.. I bumped the post THREE TIMES and you refused to comment on it. Seems like you couldn't or wouldn't discuss your own link because I discovered it refuted this 97% consensus bullshit that you're spouting.. 

You seem to hide a lot.. Are you just a busy man? Or you don't want to defend this crap?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.*
> 
> How much?



Delaying our response saves us money.  The eco-nutburgers haven't proved that AGW will cost us a single red cent.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 26, 2013)

Daveman - 

What is 36 + 17 + 10+5?

By my count it is 68%. 

As according to your material, 68% of those polled believe man plays some role in climate change.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.*
> 
> How much?



For once I agree wiith Todd - regardless of how one feels about politics, the cost to the US in not transitioning into new forms of electricity production alone is hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Everyone knows the US will have to move into better, cheaper, cleaner forms of energy at some point - but it will cost more to do so ten years from now than it would have ten years ago.

Add to that the failure of the US to prepare for the droughts, rising sea levels and warmer temperatures that everyone knows are coming.....it's costing billions.

Does anyone remember 2012?!

The drought has inflicted, and is expected to continue to inflict, catastrophic economic ramifications for the affected states. It has exceeded, in most measures, the 1988-1989 North American drought, the most recent comparable drought, and is on track to exceed that drought as the costliest natural disaster in US history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_North_American_drought

The drought could not have been avoided - but a better government would have planned for it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 26, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > And Roy Spencer has thrown down the guantlet challenging any smart cookie to refute his analysis here:
> ...



No proof is posted there.  Only a thoughtful engineer's opinion based on mathematical equations he poses as an argument.  The engineer was taken seriously by Dr. Spencer because of his thoughtful contribution to the debate.  Dr. Spencer's questions to the engineer are interspersed within the text of the argument.   An argument is not proof nor can a winner of a very cordial and good debate be declared until Spencer's questions are addressed.

But the engineer didn't offer his post as proof but rather said he was 'pretty sure' because. . . . 

THAT is the way debate should be conducted and not via a list of statements presented as fact that in fact have not yet been shown to be fact.

Of interest, the engineer qualified his opinion early in his argument with this:



> I have reacted a few times via Anthony Watts weblog on your different thoughts about the origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. *Regardless if that is man made or not, I think we agree that the influence of the increase itself on temperature/climate is limited, if observable at all. But we disagree about the origin of the increase. *I am pretty sure that the increase is man-made and have made a comprehensive page to show all the arguments to that at:



I did appreciate the engineer's argument however, and will file away his hypothesis among the many other opinions I've read over the years.   The truth will be found only by having an open mind re ALL scholarly information presented.  It won't be found by seeking out and considering only the sociopolitical opinions that we want to be true.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 27, 2013)

Global warming is a hoax.  The world will warm or cool as it always has.  Human beings will react to perfectly normal occurrences as they always have,  with insanity.   People have torn out living hearts to make it rain, they can surely make themselves miserable and bankrupt to keep the sun from shining.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Global warming is a hoax.  The world will warm or cool as it always has.  Human beings will react to perfectly normal occurrences as they always have,  with insanity.   People have torn out living hearts to make it rain, they can surely make themselves miserable and bankrupt to keep the sun from shining.



Global warming may be a hoax for sure.  It sure looks and feels that way when we see so many supposedly prestigious scientific types intentionally and dishonestly skewing the information they want us to all believe.  On the other hand, there are some who are sincere and genuine who believe it is happening and have not ruled out human activity as the cause.

So I keep an open mind and keep trying to learn as much as I can.  So far, the most credible evidence seems weighted on the side of the skeptics, and as each year passes without any of the doomsday prophecies of the AGW proponents manifesting themselves, the evidence presented by the skeptics looks stronger.

One thing is for sure.  If I am going to willingly relinquish my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to the AGW gods, I want a consensus from those who do not depend on AGW promoting grants and subsidies for their livelihood and/or who are not benefitting financially from government mandates and spending to combat it.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 27, 2013)

> If I am going to willingly relinquish my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to the AGW gods,



I have absolutely no idea why anyone would relinquish any liberty, choice or option because glaciers are melting and temperatures are getting warmer. 

Also - who are these "gods"? Do they have names?


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...










Who cares.  You climate scientists have had their collective asses handed to them by a mere statistician.  Not the kind of track record that inspires confidence!


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Are you under the impression that Spencer PROVED CO2 wasn't coming from humans?  His work doesn't even suggest it.

If we want to be careful that we are considering only the opinions that we want to be true - or rejecting those we don't - you might want to have a much stronger case before rejecting the opinion of a very, very strong majority of the actual experts in the field.

Saigon had a good analogy.  If 97 doctors gave you the same diagnosis and 3 opposed, how wise would it be to reject it and the treatment it required?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.*
> ...



Actually it's precisely the opposite.  European countries have been spending hundreds of billions of dollars on "green energy." What did they get for it?  Higher utility bills.  So where's the downside from not jumping into green energy?   There is no downside.



Saigon said:


> Everyone knows the US will have to move into better, cheaper, cleaner forms of energy at some point - but it will cost more to do so ten years from now than it would have ten years ago.



They aren't better or cheaper.  They are shittier and far more expensive.  Every watt of wind and solar power requires 100% backup from a conventional power source.  How could that possibly be cheaper?   Also, it will be cheaper 10 years from now.  You and the rest of the nutburgers keep telling us that, so what's the advantage of switching early?  There is no advantage.



Saigon said:


> Add to that the failure of the US to prepare for the droughts, rising sea levels and warmer temperatures that everyone knows are coming.....it's costing billions.



Even the IPCC says sea level is only going to rise 1 foot in the next century.  What's the cost of mitigating that?  $0.  Warmer temperatures mean lower utility bills. And no one has any convincing proof that droughts will be any more severe.  In fact, if history shows anything, it's that a warmer world is a wetter world.



Saigon said:


> Does anyone remember 2012?!



Of course. What was the cost of global warming?  $0



Saigon said:


> The drought has inflicted, and is expected to continue to inflict, catastrophic economic ramifications for the affected states. It has exceeded, in most measures, the 1988-1989 North American drought, the most recent comparable drought, and is on track to exceed that drought as the costliest natural disaster in US history.



Oh yeah, we've never had droughts before.  Remember the 1930s?  Was that drought caused by global warming?  Is there any conclusive proof that global warming causes droughts?  

Nope.



Saigon said:


> 2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The drought could not have been avoided - but a better government would have planned for it.



By doing what?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Global warming may be a hoax for sure.  It sure looks and feels that way when we see so many supposedly prestigious scientific types intentionally and dishonestly skewing the information they want us to all believe.  On the other hand, there are some who are sincere and genuine who believe it is happening and have not ruled out human activity as the cause.



I thought you said you'd wait for evidence before pronouncing judgement. Examine the cases of those who claim bad intent.  Mann and Jones have been cleared by multiple reviews.  Do you really think it reasonable to insist that ALL those reviews were rigged?  And there are thousands of climate scientists out there whose work supports AGW.  They have no influence with the major journals.  And no one is getting rich from research grants.  There is no more struggle for research money here than there is in any other field.  If the world's climate scientists were all in a grand conspiracy (and that's what it would take) a dozen other branches would have discovered the benefits of crime long ago.  Are you willing to distrust all of science?



Foxfyre said:


> So I keep an open mind and keep trying to learn as much as I can.



That is not what it looks like.



Foxfyre said:


> So far, the most credible evidence seems weighted on the side of the skeptics



How is it, were that the case, that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree?  Do they lack your qualifications to examine and judge the evidence?



Foxfyre said:


> and as each year passes without any of the doomsday prophecies of the AGW proponents manifesting themselves



What doomsday prophecy has failed to manifest itself?



Foxfyre said:


> the evidence presented by the skeptics looks stronger.



I'm sorry but it most certainly does not.



Foxfyre said:


> One thing is for sure.  If I am going to willingly relinquish my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to the AGW gods, I want a consensus from those who do not depend on AGW promoting grants and subsidies for their livelihood and/or who are not benefitting financially from government mandates and spending to combat it.



If you want to hold to that, you should reject ALL science.

I'll catch you out in the woods.  I know which sticks are best to rub together.  Though friction is just more science...


----------



## daveman (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


You're wrong, and therefore dismissed.  

Buh-bye now!

On edit...of course, you have no basis for claiming that most respondents are not scientists.  

And this from the study has you pegged:



> Several assumptions have stymied advancements in understanding claims of expertise in contested issue fields. *A first stymying assumption within institutional work and professions literatures is that professionals are a homogenous group*, sharing cultural-cognitive conceptions of what problems require solving (Knorr-Cetina, 1999), and collaborating on solutions to maintain their authoritative monopoly over a scope of practice (Abbott, 1988) against outside forces (Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & Caronna, 2000; Thornton, 2002). Even climate change research has assumed a cohesive &#8216;expert&#8217; versus public or media discourse (Boykoff, 2008; Carvalho, 2007; Olausson, 2009; Weingart et al., 2000).



Scientists are individuals, same as everyone else in every other profession is.  Some people have trouble grasping that fact.


There is no consensus.  Period.  End of story.  You can stop telling that lie now.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 27, 2013)

BriPat -

If you genuinely, honestly cannot understand why or how countries prepare for drought, floods or rising sea levels - or the potential cost of not doing so - then you simply aren't bright enough to take part in this discussiob.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > How is it, were that the case, that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree? Do they lack your qualifications to examine and judge the evidence?
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> If you genuinely, honestly cannot understand why or how countries prepare for drought, floods or rising sea levels - or the potential cost of not doing so - then you simply aren't bright enough to take part in this discussiob.



In other words, you can't explain it.  How does a country prepare for drought?  Can you give an example of anyone actually doing something about it?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > BriPat -
> ...



Yes, I do realize you are this stupid. What is a dam? Why do you think we have dams and reservoirs? Perhaps a bit of food in reserve, you know, like in the story of Joseph in Egypt? Or even avoiding drawing down our aquifers in good times so that we have them for bad times. 

Ever consider using that thing sitting on your neck for something other than a hatrack?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And utility bills have not been going up here?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > BriPat -
> ...



Dont be silly.  You prepare for a drought by building windmills.  Didnt you know that.

So simple, man you must be a dolt


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.*
> ...



*For once I agree wiith Todd - regardless of how one feels about politics, the cost to the US in not transitioning into new forms of electricity production alone is hundreds of billions of dollars. *

No, you don't agree with me.
We've wasted billions on "green" energy. If you want CO2 free power, the only one that makes sense right now is nuclear.
*
but it will cost more to do so ten years from now than it would have ten years ago.*

Think of all the money we saved by giving loan guarantees to Solyndra. 
If you want to save money, let someone else develop cheap solar and buy it from them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Also, it will be cheaper 10 years from now. You and the rest of the nutburgers keep telling us that, so what's the advantage of switching early? There is no advantage.*

Shhhhhhh.........don't highlight their confusion about markets.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Not mine.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 27, 2013)

Todd - 

If you are willing to commit to actually reading and responding sensibly, then I'd be happy to explain the advantages of switching early. OK?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> If you are willing to commit to actually reading and responding sensibly, then I'd be happy to explain the advantages of switching early. OK?



Excellent! What advantage did we get from Solyndra?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Of course, just about all the damns that are going to be built in this country have already been built.  Eco-nutburgers like you have prevented any more from being built.  How are you going to avoid drawing down the aquifers?  Are you going to tell farmers to stop irrigating their fields?  Of course, the USA already has an abundance of food in reserve.  No western country has experienced famine since the advent of the industrial revolution.  Apparently the best preparation for drought is laizzes faire capitalism, but I hardly imagine that commies like you are suggesting that.

As usual, the only thing your post proved is that you're a moron who doesn't understand the modern world.  That's why you make such a beautiful liberal.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 27, 2013)

Todd -

I'll take that as a 'no', then. 

I doubt it's a coincidence that the posters here most devoted to 'spam and run' tactics are the ones who seem to understand the least about the topic. 

Do get back to us if you ever become interested in discussing the topic sensibly.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



They've only been going up because American utility companies have had "green energy" boondoggles imposed on them.  Shutting down perfectly serviceable coal fired power plants causes the price of power to go up.  You have to be a moron or a liberal not to understand that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> I'll take that as a 'no', then.
> 
> ...



You're the one who's running away, Saigon.  You claimed switching to "green energy" would produce vast savings for taxpayers and consumers.  I have yet to see any plausible evidence from you that such is the case.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 27, 2013)

BriPat - 

Plenty of evidence is available, and much of it is simple common sense...as it is anytime a country or city replaces aging infrastructure with newer and more efficient infrastructure.

Much like buying a new car - you have higher repayments for some years, but you also save on fuel, and you have a car you can rely on for the next 10 years or so - rather than a sputtering heap that may fail at any moment. 

But as I said earlier - if you are so obsessed with the politics of this debate that you can't even see the benefits of planning for droughts or floods or rising temperatures, you aren't likely to understand a hell of a lot of this topic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> I'll take that as a 'no', then.
> 
> ...



Run away!


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> Plenty of evidence is available, and much of it is simple common sense...as it is anytime a country or city replaces aging infrastructure with newer and more efficient infrastructure.
> 
> Much like buying a new car - you have higher repayments for some years, but you also save on fuel, and you have a car you can rely on for the next 10 years or so - rather than a sputtering heap that may fail at any moment.



A new car may be more reliable, but it's not cheaper.  If it were we would see poor people driving new cars instead of old clunkers.  Building a new power plant costs hundreds of millions of dollars.  How do you recoup sufficient savings to cover the cost of building it, especially when all the new "pollution" controls make it more expensive to operate?  IF the cost of replacing an older power plant with a newer one made economic sense, utility companies would do it in a heart beat.  However, that point doesn't come until the costs of maintaining the plant become prohibitive, and that takes 40-50 years.  These are the kinds of issues you learn about when you take a course in engineering economics.  However, the typical eco-nutburger doesn't know the slightest thing about economics.  That's why they are so easily conned into believing "green energy" will be cheaper.



Saigon said:


> But as I said earlier - if you are so obsessed with the politics of this debate that you can't even see the benefits of planning for droughts or floods or rising temperatures, you aren't likely to understand a hell of a lot of this topic.



What "planning" are you proposing to do that hasn't already been done?  The USA is packed with reservoirs built partly to mitigate drought.   We have vast grain silos filled to the brim with grain. What needs to be done that hasn't already been done?  What do we need to do to prepare for a one foot increase in sea level over the next 100 years?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Aug 27, 2013)

BriPat - 



> What "planning" are you proposing to do that hasn't already been done?



Exatly what most countries are doing - analyzing land use in terms of climate change trends. What pests might be more prevalent than they were 10 years ago? Will rainfall rise or fall? What species of trees or crops or livestock would cope best with those changes?

I could be wrong, but I suspect that Luddite-thinking means the US is a good 10 years behind other countries in this area. 

Once again - the cost of denial may be very, very, very high. 



> A new car may be more reliable, but it's not cheaper.



In the long run, it may well be cheaper as well - we would only know that from a case-by-case analysis. 

But all infrastructure needs to be replaced at some stage, and the longer the US waits before investing in infrastructure, the more expensive it may be. 

It's not just the cost of buying a tidal turbine - it is the fact that you will need to buy them from countries who were on to this idea 20 years ago. They created the jobs and earn the export dollars the Luddites in the US sniff their noses at. Sure, the US can build them too, but you are 20 years behind the likes of Scotland on that learning curve. 

Ok, so Germany pays more for electricity than the US does right now. Germany also produces one in every three windmills sold...and in an industry that is only just starting to real make profits.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So in terms of actual concrete action, what has been done?



Saigon said:


> > A new car may be more reliable, but it's not cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> In the long run, it may well be cheaper as well - we would only know that from a case-by-case analysis.



Such analysis are done every day.  The result show that used cars are almost always cheaper than new cars unless the maintenance costs become prohibitive.  A new car payment can easily be over $500/month.  You'd have to have your car in shop almost every month before the cost would exceed a monthly payment on a new car.  And that doesn't even consider the cost of depreciation on your new car.



Saigon said:


> But all infrastructure needs to be replaced at some stage, and the longer the US waits before investing in infrastructure, the more expensive it may be.



The "green energy" boondoggles of the Obama regime are forcing utilities to replace infrastructure long before it becomes uneconomical to operate.  Some of the power plants being closed have just recently been upgraded with new pollution control equipment.  No reasonable person can justifiably claim these policies will result in cheaper energy. 



Saigon said:


> It's not just the cost of buying a tidal turbine - it is the fact that you will need to buy them from countries who were on to this idea 20 years ago. They created the jobs and earn the export dollars the Luddites in the US sniff their noses at. Sure, the US can build them too, but you are 20 years behind the likes of Scotland on that learning curve.



These countries aren't "earning" diddly squat because the government has to subsidize these boondoggles.  They cost the taxpayers money.  The USA will have saved billions of dollars by not switching to green energy.  And according to the eco-nutburger economic ignoramuses this technology will be cheaper in the future.  That means it's a better deal to wait for the price to come down.  It's just like buying a flat screen TV.  5 years ago I paid $3000 for TV that would cost about $600 today.  I would have been smarter to wait then buy when I did, but I wanted a flat screen now.



Saigon said:


> Ok, so Germany pays more for electricity than the US does right now. Germany also produces one in every three windmills sold...and in an industry that is only just starting to real make profits.



German loses money on every windmill it builds and installs in Germany.  Lots of money.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> But the bottom line for me is that almost ALL of the scientists promoting AGW are receiving grant monies from governments promoting AGW, from green energy companies who profit from the AGW hysteria, or from left wing extremists who for whatever reason demand that AGW become the new 'god' directing all activities on the planet.



In other words, your bottom line is a deranged political conspiracy theory. That's not news. Given how deeply you've drunk of the kool-aid, why should anyone pay any more attention to you than, say, that rambling schizophrenic homeless guy and his theories?

Real scientists start with the data and reach a conclusion. Your political cult starts with a conclusion, and works backward from it, frantically cherrypicking data in a vain attempt to force the real world to match cult dogma. Shame how the real world won't cooperate with you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2013)

These AGW "Scientists" see how well the scam paid off for Al Groe and they want some too.

It's human nature


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What pests might be more prevalent than they were 10 years ago?

Progressives leaching off the free Enterprise using Climate policy to redistribute wealth per orders from the IPCC


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But the bottom line for me is that almost ALL of the scientists promoting AGW are receiving grant monies from governments promoting AGW, from green energy companies who profit from the AGW hysteria, or from left wing extremists who for whatever reason demand that AGW become the new 'god' directing all activities on the planet.
> ...



You're right.  REAL scientists start with ALL the data and reach a conclusion based on ALL the data.  They don't cherry pick data that fits a particular conclusion they need to reach in order to keep the grant money and government funding flowing to them.

It is unfortunate that so many scientists are willing to compromise their scientific integrity in order to qualify for those dollars or to achieve acceptance among their left leaning, or at least equally opportunisitic peers.

So what koolade do YOU drink that convinces you that government funded scientists are somehow more noble and believable than those who have no reason to produce a particular conclusion in order to keep the money flowing?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 27, 2013)

> The USA will have saved billions of dollars by not switching to green energy



You have to laugh, don't you?

With the best will in the world, BriPat, you are never going to understand this topic. You just aren't. 

Amazing as it may seem, in the real world, when private companies design and make and sell products to other private companies - they make money. They pay taxes. 

It's called capitalism and free enterprise - something Germany now does while the US sits on its hands pretending that this capitalism is really somehow communist. 

One example - tidal turbines go for around $10 million a piece. One Scottish company just got an order for 200.

Those are jobs that you didn't want. And you think this means you are winning?

Surely even you, as blind and blinkered as you are, must realise that this is a game you lost long, long ago. The only question really is how much it will cost you to catch up when your existing infrastructure starts to backfire.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > The USA will have saved billions of dollars by not switching to green energy
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Amazing as it may seem, in the real world, when private companies design and make and sell products to other private companies - they make money. They pay taxes. *

It sounds so simple. How much did Solyndra pay in taxes?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 27, 2013)

Todd - 

If you are willing to discuss this topic honestly, read responses and respond sensibly, I'd be delighted to explain.

But I think we both realise you don't have those kind of balls, and we both know why.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> If you are willing to discuss this topic honestly, read responses and respond sensibly, I'd be delighted to explain.
> 
> But I think we both realise you don't have those kind of balls, and we both know why.



So the answer was $0?


----------



## Snookie (Aug 27, 2013)

It's possible that sometime in our life time that a volcanic eruption will cause global freezing.  It's happened before.

Now that is something to worry about.

Have a nice day.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I personally lost a kidney because of "medical consensus".. Should have listened to the one doc who was right. 

There is no 97% consensus. My challenge is to pick ONE SURVEY from the post 2011 time frame that you think indicates this --- and we will proceed to discuss the veracity of that claim..


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



But you continue to refuse to question whether that 97% is valid as you present it.  Did you come up with that number?  Or are you accepting on faith what others, of like mind as you, are telling you about that 97%.

Spencer has never claimed to have proved anything.  He uses available data to show how variables do or could affect climate and insists that ALL the variables be included in the debate.  Your 97% seem to be those who think only certain variables can be included in the debate while all others can be ignored.

He and the one respondent to his challenge do agree that any CO2 increase resulting from human activity has little negligible, if any, affect on the global climate.  The difference of opinion between the two thoughtful gentlemen, however, is on the degree that human activity has contributed to increase in CO2.

A scientist does not hold up a biased poll or consensus as proof of anything.  Like another member said, I and a couple of my loved ones have suffered from a 100% consensus of consulted doctors who got it wrong.   There was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat and also a scientific consensus that the sun revolved around the Earth.  Be careful of placing complete faith in consensus.  Most especially when those who do not consent are presenting the better and more credible arguments without cherry picking data to do it.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Be careful of placing complete faith in consensus.



Everyone has "consensus" with their own side, but we've also got all the science and all the data, while you've just got handwaving and conspiracy theories. A consensus is the only thing you have, but only a tiny part of what we have.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Be careful of placing complete faith in consensus.
> ...



Not only do you place far too much faith in dubious consensus, Mamooth, but you also have a really bad habit of stating things as fact that make you look really clueless.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2013)

Hey, I'm not the one rambling out cult conspiracy theories and hatin' on the actual data. It's not my fault that the only thing you have is a consensus of kookery. You really need to put less emphasis on your precious consensus.

It must kind of suck to have the real world always contradicting you, but fortunately for you, you rarely dwell there.


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Hey, I'm not the one rambling out cult conspiracy theories and hatin' on the actual data. It's not my fault that the only thing you have is a consensus of kookery. You really need to put less emphasis on your precious consensus.
> 
> It must kind of suck to have the real world always contradicting you, but fortunately for you, you rarely dwell there.








Really?  You ignore actual data...that kind of implies to me that you hate it.  It certainly disagrees with your propaganda...  case in point is the graph below...it uses data from NOAA and as you can see this year is the lowest on record for number of days with a reading of 100 degrees or more. 

The lowest in a century in point of fact.  That refutes quite handily the assertion that there has been no pause in the warming.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

Interesting how poorly your graph lines up with actual temperature data.






I think what you just did is called CHERRY PICKING.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> .it uses data from NOAA and as you can see this year is the lowest on record for number of days with a reading of 100 degrees or more.



So your strange logic is that one summer in the USA represents the total trend of the entire world. Plus there's the weird data fuzzing thing going on, where you use that peculiar statistic (days above 100) for no apparent reason.

But then, if those sorts of cherrypicks are all you have, you're kind of forced to use them.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Interesting how poorly your graph lines up with actual temperature data.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Since you pulled your graph from an image hosting site, perhaps you would like to advise us what site it came from?  If you don't know, why do you trust it?

And given the general consensus based age of the Earth, do you honestly think 60 years of recorded temperatures are proof of anything?  At least Westwall provides a source for his data.   The data presented in the graph proves only that extreme heat fluctuates from year to year and not much else, but it does show that the overall trend over the last 100 years does not support global warming much.  It too is for far too short a period to draw any firm conclusions.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting how poorly your graph lines up with actual temperature data.
> ...



The age of the Earth is absolutely irrelevant in this discussion.  The time span necessary to give indication of climatic changes (vice weather) is what you're looking for.  From 15 to 30 years is usually sufficient, depending on the parameter in question.


Pardon my lapse.  The source of that graphic is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ninõ  The graph was originally produced by NOAA.


----------



## Snookie (Aug 27, 2013)

_You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows._


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

Did you actually have some doubt as to what temperatures have done during the instrumented era?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

Here's a good one to address that bogus "Days over 100" graph that the right-wing side of this argument has been throwing around today.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Only one or two more years until the big "End of Global Warming Party" Yeahhhh !!!!!


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



The age of the Earth is irrelevent?  Really?  You want to trust the paleoclimate models your guys are showing us as evidence of global warming and then say that the age of the Earth is irrelevent?  We only need to go back 15 to 30 years to determine a climate shift?  Is that honestly what you are saying here?

And your graph indicates temperature anomalies due to El Nino and La Nina, not mean temperatures.  That's a pretty important distinction if you are going to use a graph like that to refute Westwall's post.  Different graphs showing different information for different purposes.

Now the following quoted paragraphs are from the Wiki link you provided.  It includes a brief discussion on ENSO that includes the obligatory tribute to global warming that Wiki writers will insert every time in these articles.  But it does appear to be adequately referenced.  (I will not take the time to check the references cited.)  But at least it was honest enough to admit that there is insufficient data to know much for certain, the computer models are all over the place, and there is a possibility that the Earth's climate will stabilize itself over time as it has done for the entire history of the Earth.

That all needs to be part of the debate too, don't you think? 



> During the last several decades, the number of El Niño events increased, and the number of La Niña events decreased,[47] although observation of ENSO for much longer is needed to detect robust changes.[48] The question is whether this is a random fluctuation or a normal instance of variation for that phenomenon or the result of global climate changes toward global warming.
> 
> The studies of historical data show the recent El Niño variation is most likely linked to global warming. For example, one of the most recent results, even after subtracting the positive influence of decadal variation, is shown to be possibly present in the ENSO trend,[49] the amplitude of the ENSO variability in the observed data still increases, by as much as 60% in the last 50 years.[50]
> 
> The exact changes happening to ENSO in the future is uncertain:[51] Different models make different predictions.[52] It may be that the observed phenomenon of more frequent and stronger El Niño events occurs only in the initial phase of the global warming, and then (e.g., after the lower layers of the ocean get warmer, as well), El Niño will become weaker than it was.[53] It may also be that the stabilizing and destabilizing forces influencing the phenomenon will eventually compensate


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Interesting how poorly your graph lines up with actual temperature data.
> 
> 
> 
> ...








I didn't cherry pick the data idiot.  That is the number of 100 degree temps from every station going back 100 years.  You can't even put up a comparable graph you're so stupid.  How the hell do wipe your own ass?


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









It is?  Why?  The temperature of the Earth has been 8 to 10 degrees warmer for over 75% of the age of the Earth.  That is a significant fact to ignore don't you think?


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Here's a good one to address that bogus "Days over 100" graph that the right-wing side of this argument has been throwing around today.








What fraudulent site produced that hogwash?


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Did you actually have some doubt as to what temperatures have done during the instrumented era?








Why did they have to extend their "reconstruction" into the instrument era?  Seems to me that if you have an instrument record you use that instead of the "reconstructions"  No?

Oh wait....that's right...Mann and co. have used "reconstructions" (read falsification of data) BECAUSE the instrument record DOESN'T agree with them....OOOOOOOOPS!


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> The age of the Earth is irrelevent?



To any discussion of contemporary climate, yes.



Foxfyre said:


> Really?



Yes, really.



Foxfyre said:


> You want to trust the paleoclimate models your guys are showing us as evidence of global warming and then say that the age of the Earth is irrelevent?



Yes, it is irrelevant.



Foxfyre said:


> We only need to go back 15 to 30 years to determine a climate shift?  Is that honestly what you are saying here?



Yes, that is honestly what I'm saying here.  But I suspect you're misunderstanding me.  I am not saying that 15-30 years is sufficient to show the entire span of AGW.  I am saying that 15-30 years is sufficient to show a change in climate trends.



Foxfyre said:


> And your graph indicates temperature anomalies due to El Nino and La Nina, not mean temperatures.



I have a large collection of graphics and just grabbed the first one that showed temperatures.  The graph is actually temperature anomalies color coded to indicate La Nina / El Nino status.  The values of the bars ARE mean temperatures, they just aren't using 0C as a baseline.



Foxfyre said:


> That's a pretty important distinction if you are going to use a graph like that to refute Westwall's post.



You need to slow down and try to get a better handle on this stuff before you try to jump anyone.  The graph I presented far, far more clearly shows mean temperature than does a graph that indicates the number of days in a year that gets over 100F. 



Foxfyre said:


> Different graphs showing different information for different purposes.



Yes.



Foxfyre said:


> Now the following quoted paragraphs are from the Wiki link you provided.  It includes a brief discussion on ENSO that includes the obligatory tribute to global warming that Wiki writers will insert every time in these articles.  But it does appear to be adequately referenced.  (I will not take the time to check the references cited.)  But at least it was honest enough to admit that there is insufficient data to know much for certain, the computer models are all over the place, and there is a possibility that the Earth's climate will stabilize itself over time as it has done for the entire history of the Earth.
> 
> That all needs to be part of the debate too, don't you think?
> 
> ...



Whatever you may think, this does not show you to be open minded.

Due to recent research, it is now believed that global warming has altered the historical behavior of the ENSO (El Nino, Southern Oscillation) pseudo cycle.  It is this change that has caused warm surface waters to be driven into the deep ocean.  It is suggested that this is what has stopped atmospheric and land warming and caused the ocean's temperatures - particularly the deep ocean's - to rise precipitously.

Did you see the graph of global heat content recently posted?  It was produced by Nuccitelli and the rest of the gang at Skeptical Science.  I think it was PMZ that posted it.  I'll try to find it.  I thought it resembled the graphs produced by Foster and Rahmstorff showing the global warming signal devoid of aerosol, vulcanism, TSI and ENSO effects.

Until you can identify what caused the temperature trends of the last 150 years, you can't say it's stopped.  Do you understand?  Westwall and FCT and the rest keep crowing  that global warming has stopped, but since they reject AGW, they don't have a cause for the warming in the first place and can only guess that whatever it might have been, it now has stopped.  Do you see their problem?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a good one to address that bogus "Days over 100" graph that the right-wing side of this argument has been throwing around today.
> ...



The World Meteorological Organization

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/1085_en.pdf


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The age of the Earth is irrelevent?
> ...



You're the one insisting that the trends from whatever pretty charts and graphs you post are the absolute real deal and must be interpreted as global warming as a fact and as a serious problem.

I'm the one saying I don't know but am looking at all the data, opinion, evidence, and history available and drawing conclusions of probability based on who I believe has the most convincing arguments.

And I'm the close minded one?????????


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

You are rejecting material without cause and are accepting material without cause.  You are making choices based on prejudicial opinions you hold going into this matter.  You tell us that you believe the evidence supports the deniers.  That tells me that either you have not seen the evidence, you do not know how to judge evidence or that you had made up your mind beforehand and have actually made few observations on which to form an objective conclusion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The age of the Earth is irrelevent?
> ...



*It is suggested that this is what has stopped atmospheric and land warming and caused the ocean's temperatures - particularly the deep ocean's - to rise precipitously.*

Precipitously? How much is that?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Precipitously? How much is that?



This much


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2013)

Why are there no lab experiments with 200ppm of CO2?


----------



## westwall (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The age of the Earth is irrelevent?
> ...







Soooooo, logically................ if 10 to 15 years is enough to show a trend then the 16 years we have had most recently which show no trend to a slight cooling refutes what you say......

*GOT IT!*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Precipitously? How much is that?
> ...



Wow, they're measuring ocean temperature in Joules now?
So what did that translate into, 0.1 degrees? Less?


----------



## daveman (Aug 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> What do we need to do to prepare for a one foot increase in sea level over the next 100 years?



Per the IPCC, we need to adopt world socialism.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters

Obviously, it's the only thing that can save us.


----------



## daveman (Aug 27, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> These AGW "Scientists" see how well the scam paid off for Al Groe and they want some too.
> 
> It's human nature



Dr. James Hansen?s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income | Watts Up With That?

Hansen's doing pretty good.  Too bad he has to break Federal ethics rules to do it.

Oh, well, it's not like Holder's going to prosecute him.


----------



## daveman (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> If you are willing to discuss this topic honestly, read responses and respond sensibly, I'd be delighted to explain.
> 
> But I think we both realise you don't have those kind of balls, and we both know why.


Well, that's an arrogant way of saying "I have no idea, and I'm afraid to look it up".


----------



## daveman (Aug 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Be careful of placing complete faith in consensus.
> ...



You don't have ALL the science and ALL the data.

You've left out an awful lot of data...and not coincidentally, it's data that don't fit your agenda.

http://www.climategate.com/climatologists-drop-806-cold-weather-stations-in-a-single-year

Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data ? cherrypicked warmest stations | Watts Up With That?

NASA and NOAA cherry-picking Canadian weather stations (but it could have been much worse!)

Now, dismiss the sources!  Quick!  And don't click the links -- you might be exposed to heresy!


----------



## daveman (Aug 27, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Hey, I'm not the one rambling out cult conspiracy theories and hatin' on the actual data. It's not my fault that the only thing you have is a consensus of kookery. You really need to put less emphasis on your precious consensus.
> 
> It must kind of suck to have the real world always contradicting you, but fortunately for you, you rarely dwell there.



  More projection than a ten-screen multiplex.


----------



## daveman (Aug 27, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, I'm not the one rambling out cult conspiracy theories and hatin' on the actual data. It's not my fault that the only thing you have is a consensus of kookery. You really need to put less emphasis on your precious consensus.
> ...


July was cooler than normal in my neck of the woods:

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/getclimate.php?wfo=pah

And August has finally gotten hot.  It felt like fall the first three weeks.


----------



## daveman (Aug 27, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Daveman -
> ...


Saigon, have you addressed this post yet?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 27, 2013)

Dave -

Yes, I did - YOUR SOUURCE confirms that 64% of those polled believes humans play some role in climate change. 

Whether you were being dishonest or are simply illiterate, I have no idea.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 27, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



It's a way of saying that neither Todd nor Frank have any interest in this topic at all, and will NEVER make the mistake of being sucked into a serious discussion about it. 

I don't see a great deal of value in answering a question for someone who is praying he doesn't get one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I'm praying you don't tell me how much Solyndra paid in taxes?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 27, 2013)

Todd - 

Really...what a silly little child you are. 

When Ford and GM needed bailouts - did it mean that cars weren't viable?

Were you posting here that cars should be abandoned as a pointless technology?

Try and post with a little honesty and a little common sense.


----------



## westwall (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Really...what a silly little child you are.
> 
> ...









Sanctimonious twerp acting all sanctimonious again!  Solyndra was given a low rating under Bush.  But it got over half a billion under the big O....why?  Well looky here George Kaiser (a BIG Obummer bundler, i.e. huge donation machine) and just minor (read BIG investor) in Solyndra asked him to.

And as we all know Obummer takes care of his friends....


Why Solyndra? Top Obama bundler George Kaiser made multiple visits to the White House in the months before the company was granted a $535 million loan from the government. And top Solyndra officials also made numerous visits  20  to the White House, according to logs and reporting by The Daily Caller. Solyndra officials in the logs included chairman and founder Christian Gronet and board members Thomas Baruch and David Prend. The company secured the $535 million loan despite the fact that it was widely known Solyndra was in deep economic trouble and had negative cash flows since its inception. - See more at: Top Obama Bundler & Solyndra Investor George Kaiser Boasts of Cashing in On Stimulus Funds (Video) | The Gateway Pundit


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Really...what a silly little child you are.
> 
> When Ford and GM needed bailouts - did it mean that cars weren't viable?



Ford didn't get a bailout, and yes, the fact that GM needed on means that including the cost of union pensions, their cars weren't economically viable.



Saigon said:


> Were you posting here that cars should be abandoned as a pointless technology?



No, only government subsidized cars.



Saigon said:


> Try and post with a little honesty and a little common sense.



Indeed.  So tell us:  how much did Solyndra pay in taxes?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

> their cars weren't economically viable.



EXACTLY!!

When GM got a bailout it meant THEIR cars were not viable - not cars in general.

So when Solyndra went belly-up,it meant their solar panels were not viable - not solar panels in general.

So that's what Todd needs to figure out. Let's hope he will.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Dave -
> 
> Yes, I did - YOUR SOUURCE confirms that 64% of those polled believes humans play some role in climate change.
> 
> Whether you were being dishonest or are simply illiterate, I have no idea.



You claimed:
Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.​When in reality, the study I posted confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers believe man May have SOME impact on climate change -- but that it poses from a zero to moderate threat to humanity.

And you perfectly illustrate the problem with AGW proponents:  You see what you want to see.  

Are you beging dishonest, or are you simply illiterate?


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


And since you've proven you're not interested in conflicting views, you're not interested in serious discussion, either.  

Hypocrite.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > their cars weren't economically viable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are there any American solar panel manufacturers that AREN'T getting huge government subsidies?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > their cars weren't economically viable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong.  It can mean either.  Can you name one company making solar panels whose product isn't subsidized? . . . . . .

I knew you couldn't.



Saigon said:


> So that's what Todd needs to figure out. Let's hope he will.



What you need to figure out is that products that are economically viable don't need government subsidies.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Dave -
> ...


Nail, meet hammer.  

I went around and around with Abraham3 on this exact same concept.  It is telling when you start to see things like 65% still considered consensus and the word moderate being substituted with extreme or catastrophic.  

 I am open for real discussion but there really isnt any.  All there is are some demanding that drastic action be taken now to avoid the end of the world or nothing is happening at all.  I tend to think that there is warming.  I think that the evidence is very strong in this respect.  The role that carbon plays and (more importantly) the severity of that warming are in contention though and as long as people keep screaming that there is consensus I dont think that the argument is going anywhere.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Dave -

Can you explain why you claimed that only 36% of those polled believe humans play some role in climate change - when your own material suggests the figure is 64%?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

FAQ2-

There is real debate in this section of the forum - but it does require a lot of filtering through some very deliberate spamming. Put glsack, Frank,Westwall and Skooks on Ignore, and you are left with some often interesting and robust debate.



> It is telling when you start to see things like 65% still considered &#8216;consensus&#8217; and the word moderate being substituted with extreme or catastrophic.



The 64% of those polled in Daveman's study does NOT constitute consensus - nor did anyone say it did. 

The 97% figure from a different piece of research does represent consensus, as does the fact that every major scientific organisation in the world confirms the human role in climate change. 

The first survey produced a lower figure probably because it also included engineers.

Perhaps the word 'consensus' is used too liberaly - but as I have suggested many time here, when one single scientific organisation claims humans do not have a role, then sceptics can muster a case for 'consenus' to be busted down to 'majority opinion'.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

BriPat - 



> Can you name one company making solar panels whose product isn't subsidized? . . . . . .



If you don't includ feed-in tariffs then yes, of course.....honestly, where do you get your information from?

How about Catalina?

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/worlds_largest_thin_film_solar_plant_begins_operations

btw, Can YOU name a coal or nuclear company which has never received subsidies?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > The USA will have saved billions of dollars by not switching to green energy
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Amazing as it may seem, in the real world, when private companies design and make and sell products to other private companies - they make money. They pay taxes. *

How much in taxpayer subsidies do we need to waste on green energy companies before we get these profitable ones that pat taxes?

*Those are jobs that you didn't want.*

Correct. We don't want jobs that cost hundreds of millions or billions of tax dollars and that go away when the company goes bankrupt.

*And you think this means you are winning?*

Yes. Not wasting tax money on Solyndra would have been winning.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > their cars weren't economically viable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*So when Solyndra went belly-up,it meant their solar panels were not viable - not solar panels in general.*

So when I, and others, said we'll save billions by waiting until someone else creates a viable solar panel, we were right.

Glad we could educate you, even if only for a short while.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Todd - 



> So when I, and others, said we'll save billions by waiting until someone else creates a viable solar panel, we were right.



There have been "viable" solar panels for 20 years, genius. That doesn't mean every company that makes them is well managed or successful. The reason Solyndra failed is not because solar failed, genius, it is because their technology was 10 years out of date. The fact that American Luddite thinking is 20 years out of date probably meant that they thought they were up to speed...

In short - companies like Solyndra struggle in the US because of people like you. They are stuck in 1976. The best thing Solyndra could have done was relocate to Austria, where they would have better access to the latest R&D and top staff. 

If by being right, you meant that all of the hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in profits would go to more forward-thinking countries, then you were right. 

One thing you really need to try and understand is that when private companies make profits - that also benefits the country they are in, because they pay taxes. At the moment I really don't think you get how great the benefits are for countries like Austria, Scotland, Korea or Germany - and how much money Luddites cost the US. It's literally trillions of dollars that you are happily waving goodbye to, and you aren't smart enough to even realise it.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 28, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The audio-only message attached to the OP in this thread takes less than 5 minutes to listen to. Sadly, no one here seems to feel as if they need to listen to anyone else's opinion, they've got their own and they're going to stick to it no matter what.
> ...


 They're trapped in Al Gore's delusions because they feel they somehow owe him for raising so much green stuff for them. The money kind, that is. Green is green, after all!


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"*their technology was 10 years out of date.*"​ 
Why didn't that fact stop lenders in their tracks? Oh, that's right. Government catering to liberal supporters of liberal congressmen, presidents, and judges no longer has to account to the people because the media gives them a free ticket to nowhere anytime liberals want one. 
The good guys here are your anathema because they're telling liberals like you the truth, "genius," and you're spoiled too because you don't have to account to a media that is on your side and is not concerned that the American people are strapped to your bad ideas which you condone like icing on a cupcake, cupcake.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*The reason Solyndra failed is not because solar failed, genius, it is because their technology was 10 years out of date. *

Who was the moron that decided these were the guys to throw taxpayer money at?
Oh, right, Obama.
See why government subsidies, and mandates, are a bad idea? 
The politics takes the place of economics and science.
Let the market develop and sell products that are profitable.
Leave the money wasting to the "green" idiots in Europe.

*In short - companies like Solyndra struggle in the US because of people like you.*

You're right. People like me don't want outdated tech that costs too much and doesn't deliver.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Freedom - 

Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?

I have no idea. It's easy with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time only real indsutry insiders could have known how Solyndra's tech compared with that of the Chinese. More than a few German countries lost their lunch to the Chinese on that one as well. My guess is that few people knew how far ahead the Chinese were. 

But the point Todd is struggling to grasp is that Solyndra does not = solar anymore so than GM = cars.

What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.

Because in capitalism, the best company with the best product wins. The others lose. 

In Solar, it is companies like Suntech and Yingli Solar who are winning.


----------



## Snookie (Aug 28, 2013)

Global warming is a red herring created by the fossil fuel industry.

It takes the attentioon of the real issue, which is air and water pollution.

Too many people are dying of cancer and suffering from asthma in this modern age because of the pollution.
Air pollution has been getting worse since the orange fog of london.  Our waters are being poisoned.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Freedom -
> 
> Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?
> 
> ...



*What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.*

We can only hope you are.

*Because in capitalism, the best company with the best product wins. The others lose. *

And in Solyndra's case, we lost as well.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Global warming is a red herring created by the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> It takes the attentioon of the real issue, which is air and water pollution.
> 
> ...



Snookie - 

So you must be delighted that oil companies are finaly - after years of climate change denial - now supporting cleaner technologies....?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What the hell are "feed-in tariffs?"

No oil company ever received subsidies until the era of big government where everything is subsidized.  However, subsidies to oil companies now are insignificant and almost every other corporation receives the same "subsidies."

As for your example, that company is receiving subsidies.  All solar power in the United States is subsidized.  I believe the state of California even kicks in some additional subsidies.  

So the answer is obviously "no," you can't name any solar power product that isn't subsidized, and heavily subsidized.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Todd -

It's really odd to see you presenting a socialist position on this...and believe me - you are presenting a socialist position on this!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> It's really odd to see you presenting a socialist position on this...and believe me - you are presenting a socialist position on this!




Please explain how not subsidizing politically connected, money losing, "green" energy is the socialist position.

I'm dying to hear your "thoughts".


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> What the hell are "feed-in tariffs?"
> 
> "



With all due respect, BriPat, if you don't know what a feed-in tariff is, you shouldn't be discussing energy. 

A feed-in tariff (FIT, standard offer contract[1] advanced renewable tariff[2] or renewable energy payments[3]) is a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in renewable energy technologies. It achieves this by offering long-term contracts to renewable energy producers, typically based on the cost of generation of each technology.[1][4] Rather than pay an equal amount for energy, however generated, technologies such as wind power, for instance, are awarded a lower per-kWh price, while technologies such as solar PV and tidal power are offered a higher price, reflecting costs that are higher at the moment.

Feed-in tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that this has largely been used by right-wing governments.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



Because you are arguing against private companies making money through innovation. Obviously. 

You said yourself that you were happy not to have private energy producers in your country in case they go bankrupt. 

Any capitalist will tell you that investment in private companies involves risk - if you don't like that kind of risk, you might be happier in a socialist country.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



*Because you are arguing against private companies making money through innovation.*

When you get a chance, show me where you feel I did that.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Todd - 

In post #229, you clearly oppose the use of investment capital in new technologies and private companies.

Face it man - you are not comfortable with private companies making money and creating jobs and paying taxes unless it is a product you approve of. Cars you seem to be ok with, oddly enough.



> So when I, and others, said we'll save billions by waiting until someone else creates a viable solar panel, we were right.



How is this statement capitalist?

Capitalism is all about innovation, risk and yield. If you want to wait for certainty, then try socialism.


----------



## Snookie (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is a red herring created by the fossil fuel industry.
> ...



Let's discuss it after the next off shore oil spill.


----------



## Snookie (Aug 28, 2013)

Capitalism is dead in this country.  It's all about monetary manipulation, now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> In post #229, you clearly oppose the use of investment capital in new technologies and private companies.
> 
> ...



When the alternative is throwing government money at Solyndras.
If private US companies want to invest in this technology, fine, as long as there are no subsidies or mandates. 
That's the opposite of socialism.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When the alternative is throwing government money at Solyndras.
> If private US companies want to invest in this technology, fine, as long as there are no subsidies or mandates.
> That's the opposite of socialism.



So you have opposed all subsidies paid to coal and nuclear companies?

I think I must have missed those posts.


----------



## Snookie (Aug 28, 2013)

The oxymoron of the century: " Clean Coal"


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Freedom -
> 
> Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?
> 
> ...


Do you mean the company with the best corrupt connections with re to their product wins.

Solyndra was funded by Obama's top financial campaign supporters and one of Nancy Pelosi's relatives. Obama called the Treasury Department and told them to put Solyndra to the top of the list and get that check for $535 million out yesterday. The treasury responded by sending them that half a billion out that same day to save Obama's chief financial supporter's butt with a guaranteed loan (He gets 100% of his investment back due to writeins of liberals to custom order their mishandling of the people's money.)

A failed panacea that doesn't deliver power at peak hours is totally lost power. It travels through lines almost at the speed of light (less resistance), and when it goes unneeded, it is 100% lost unless someone puts very questionable environmentally hazardous batteries into play, which are so inefficient and poisonous everyday people are encouraged to not throw their batteries in the trash in parts of the country that know this.

Additionally, a needless number of birds die when the power is not being utilized by both wind and tide sources, which also takes a heavy toll on marine life which is a mainstay staple food for people on the coast as well as inland.

Ask a professional electrical engineer. He's the guy who is a certified Professional Engineers' Society member, who has pledged he will tell the truth and will suffer the consequences of uncooperative managers, politicians, and divorce himself from their financial obligations and deliver reports with only the truth attached to them. If he tells you anything else than that wind-generated and solar-generated power sources meet electrical peak demands in anything but a haphazard manner because of their lack of demand in low times, you are being sold a bill of goods, and that frightens me,, because so far I see every indication that you trust untrustworthy sources for your information on timely electrical generation which tends to peak at night when winds die down and there is no solar backup. I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> In post #229, you clearly oppose the use of investment capital in new technologies and private companies.
> 
> ...



Buying a working product rather than wasting taxpayer billions on products that aren't viable is socialism? Wow!
How much has Obama wasted on "green" energy in the last 5 years?
My electrons are still coal generated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > When the alternative is throwing government money at Solyndras.
> ...



*So you have opposed all subsidies paid to coal and nuclear companies?*

What subsidies do you feel coal and nuclear get?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Freedom - 



> Do you mean the company with the best corrupt connections with re to their product wins.



With China.....very likely yes. 

China has recently been found guilty of product dumping in Europe, gaining massive market share and bankrupting German producers by selling below cost.

Those kind of practices may have also played a part in Solyndra's downfall.

I really don't know if Obama should have put money into Solyndra even with what we knew then...perhaps not. I don't know enough details to be sure.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > *So you have opposed all subsidies paid to coal and nuclear companies?*
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Todd - 

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D *for nuclear power ($50 billion)* and *fossil fuels ($24 billion)* from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.

The subsidies the nuclear and fossil-fuel industry receive &#8212; and have received for many years &#8212; make their product &#8220;affordable.&#8221; Those subsidies take many forms, but the most significant are their &#8220;externalities.&#8221; Externalities are real costs, but they are foisted off on the community instead of being paid by the companies that caused them.[18]

Paul Epstein, director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, has examined the health and environmental impacts of coal, including: mining, transportation, combustion in power plants and the impact of coal&#8217;s waste stream. He found that the "*life cycle effects of coal and its waste cost the American public $333 billion to over $500 billion dollars annually*". These are costs the coal industry is not paying and which fall to the community in general. Eliminating that subsidy would dramatically increase the price of coal-fired electricity

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So why do you only complain about subsidies to renewables?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D *for nuclear power ($50 billion)* and *fossil fuels ($24 billion)* from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.
> 
> ...



*Those subsidies take many forms, but the most significant are their externalities. Externalities are real costs, but they are foisted off on the community instead of being paid by the companies that caused them.*

LOL!
Not paying for CO2 is a subsidy to coal. 
That's funny.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Todd - 

Do you support government subsidies paid to the nuclear and coal industries?

(If you don't understand what is posted - as seems to be the case - read the material linked.)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Do you support government subsidies paid to the nuclear and coal industries?
> 
> (If you don't understand what is posted - as seems to be the case - read the material linked.)



I'm still waiting to see some.

*The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
 1.Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
 2.Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
 3.Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)*

If #2 is supposed to be ethanol or H2, then I'm against it.
1 and 3 aren't subsidies.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Todd - 



> In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.



You have spent the past 10 pages preaching on the evils of subsidies - and now you seem to have gone very silent. 

I'll ask again - do you support government subsidies paid to the nuclear and coal industries?

It's pretty much a yes or no question.

And yes, #1 and #3 are subsidies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, business writing off their expenses is not a subsidy.
Here's a subsidy I would support for green energy.
After eliminating all "green" mandates, a 0% tax rate on green profits.

Wouldn't help the money losers.


----------



## Snookie (Aug 28, 2013)

It's all about "The Binding Curve Of Energy".


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.*
> 
> We can only hope you are.



Saigon giving out lessons in capitalism? 

Now that's a hoot!


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



Why support that?  Why shouldn't these companies pay taxes like everyone else?


----------



## Snookie (Aug 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.*
> ...


Saigon is a genius.  I know him well from the internet.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> 
> 
> > In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.



According to whom?  It's interesting that you didn't provide a source for your claim.  Most such claims are grossly inflated when the source is some left-wing eco-nutburger group.  $24 billion over 30 years comes to less than $1 billion for the entire oil industry.  Exxon paid $10 billion in income taxes just last year.  That figure doesn't include all the federal, state and local excise taxes that are imposed on the sale of gasoline and diesel.

No one has argued that nuclear hasn't been subsidized.  However, there's no need for it to be.  It should stand or fail on its own merits.

BTW, tax deductions aren't subsidies.  



Saigon said:


> You have spent the past 10 pages preaching on the evils of subsidies - and now you seem to have gone very silent.



Subsidies are evil and counter productive, and they have nothing to do with capitalism.  They are a form of socialism.



Saigon said:


> I'll ask again - do you support government subsidies paid to the nuclear and coal industries?
> 
> It's pretty much a yes or no question.



I don't mind a bit.  I would be delighted to see them end tomorrow.


----------



## Snookie (Aug 28, 2013)

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...CWMba7sQTJ6YG4Cg&ved=0CE8QsAQ&biw=780&bih=402


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I support dropping all corporate taxes to 0%.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > What the hell are "feed-in tariffs?"
> ...



It appears the term is simply an intentionally deceptive label for a subsidy.  

And, no, governments that resort to subsidizing basic industries are not right-wing.  They are left-wing.  You would claim that a government that nationalized healthcare is "right-wing."


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



Saigon thinks "risk taking" means the taxpayers bear the risk rather than the investors.  Saigon claims he isn't opposed to capitalism, but it's clear he doesn't even know what capitalism is.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


People who scream about the imaginary consensus don't want discussion.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Dave -
> 
> Can you explain why you claimed that only 36% of those polled believe humans play some role in climate change - when your own material suggests the figure is 64%?


You'll have to find where I claimed that.  Link, please.

But regardless of where I did or I didn't, I successfully refuted your claim about the percentage of scientists who believe AGW.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Catalina is not a producer of solar panels.  It's a power plant.

They bought their panels from Solar Frontier of Japan -- and Solar Frontier receives subsidies from the Japanese government.

So you were wrong twice in your post.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Dave -
> ...



Are you forgetting that *I* posted the links to those surveys?  You didn't refute anything.  And since none of the three surveys surveyed climate scientists, it's apples and oranges.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


People like us -- i.e., the Bush Administration -- knew Solyndra was a bad investment.  That's why Bush didn't give them any money.

But since Obama feels the purpose of the US Treasury is to pay back his donors and cronies, he wasted a half a billion dollars on on piece of crap company.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > What the hell are "feed-in tariffs?"
> ...



If you don't know the difference between a solar panel manufacturer and a solar power plant, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing energy.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D *for nuclear power ($50 billion)* and *fossil fuels ($24 billion)* from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.


The Obama Admin has spent, as of last October, 7.5 billion dollars on failed or failing green energy companies.

And it seems that green energy and corruption go hand-in-hand:
The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.​
That's what happens when government picks winners and losers in the marketplace.  It doesn't invest money wisely; it wastes it on cronies and donors.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


My mistake.

And yes, I did refute the silly "consensus" claim.  Like all AGW "science", you have to resort to cherry-picked data to prove your conclusion -- which, against all scientific principle, you arrived at before you did the research.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You've refuted nothing.  

The topic of this thread is why it is wiser to assume AGW is valid than to oppose it.  Since even a survey conducted by one of the most subjective, anti-AGW groups on the planet, of non-climate-scientist categories of individuals known for low AGW acceptance rates, still finds a MAJORITY believe humans to be the primary cause of global warming - I think this can be put to bed.

A very strong majority of folks with the intellect and training to understand what's going on have been convinced by the evidence that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.

You've got nothing to challenge that with because it's a fact.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings.  Have a listen.  See what you think.  Tell us about it.
> 
> Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube
> 
> ...



Rational people will watch the video linked above.  Fools and idiots will not.

Read this thread beginning with the OP and see who the fools and idiots are.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Ahhh, the ol' standby:  "Smart people agree with me.  Only DUMB people disagree with me."

How very childish.  Really, this is how you folks view science?

No wonder you keep getting it wrong.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings.  Have a listen.  See what you think.  Tell us about it.
> ...


Apropos to you, too:

Ahhh, the ol' standby: "Smart people agree with me. Only DUMB people disagree with me."

How very childish. Really, this is how you folks view science?

No wonder you keep getting it wrong.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Did you watch the video?  If you didn't I would not be surprised for I think you're a fool.  If you did then you're an idiot.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Ahhh, the ol' standby:  "Smart people agree with me.  Only DUMB people disagree with me."
> 
> How very childish.  Really, this is how you folks view science?
> 
> No wonder you keep getting it wrong.



A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:
*It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.*[117]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97&#8211;98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii)* the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.*[118]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## westwall (Aug 28, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings.  Have a listen.  See what you think.  Tell us about it.
> ...








I watched the video.  So what.  It is guilty of the same logic failures as all appeals to authority are.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> I watched the video.  So what.  It is guilty of the same logic failures as all appeals to authority are.



So you do tell your doctor to FO when he tells you you're sick.  Good to know.

You think that a failure of logic?  Perhaps you missed the fact that Dessler addressed the entire issue in terms of probabilities.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


What you think is immaterial.  THAT you think has yet to be established.


Sorry, I just can't support wrecking the economies of the entire Western world just so you can _feel_ better.  Go buy a Prius and act smug.  Leave me out of your twisted fantasies.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh, the ol' standby:  "Smart people agree with me.  Only DUMB people disagree with me."
> ...


Not at all surprising that they only polled published researchers, since pro-AGW scientists have been controlling what gets published for years.

Stacking the deck may make you feel better about the dishonesty, but it's still dishonest.

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce | Environment | The Guardian


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Not at all surprising that they only polled published researchers, since pro-AGW scientists have been controlling what gets published for years.
> 
> Stacking the deck may make you feel better about the dishonesty, but it's still dishonest.
> 
> Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce | Environment | The Guardian



There's a reason global warming literature is referred to as "PAL reviewed" rather than peer reviewed.  The committees that screen the papers on all these publications are a tight nit group of friends, and they have been caught discussing how they keep any attempt to dispute the accepted orthodoxy from getting published.  Then suckers like Abraham go around gloating that skeptics don't have any published papers.

Another thing to consider is that academics who are writing papers on global warming are most likely getting funding from the government for their research.  If they write a paper skeptical of global warming, no more research money.  So it's highly unlikely that restricting your polling sample only to published researches is going to scare up many skeptics on the matter.  the outcome is preordained.

That's what passes for "science" today among liberals.


----------



## westwall (Aug 28, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I watched the video.  So what.  It is guilty of the same logic failures as all appeals to authority are.
> ...








You claim that 97% support the idea yet can present no lab experiment to support it.  Can present no measurable metric to quantify the effect if there is one.  Can present no prediction of effect.  Can present no evidence of harm other than "well the world could end" even in the face of solid empirical evidence that a warmer world is a better world.

Basically you've got nothing but a bunch of scientists who have built their entire careers out of a very nice 20 year period where the Earth warmed as the CO2 levels increased so the correlation worked well for them.  Now that the warming has stopped they're screwed.  No correlation, no science is about as simple as it gets.

That's where they are.

Add to that the clear corruption of the peer review process, the falsification of the historic temperature records around the world, and the refusal to publish any papers that refuted their preconceived propaganda, and I wouldn't trust these clowns with a fucking nickel.


----------



## daveman (Aug 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all surprising that they only polled published researchers, since pro-AGW scientists have been controlling what gets published for years.
> ...



The AGW cult screeches "Follow the money!!" -- but never about their side.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Todd - 

At the start of our discussion I suggested that you possibly lacked the cojones to actually in engage in debate.

The fact that you obviously did not know that the coal and nuclear industries have received three times the amount of subsidies solar and wind have received rather proves this is the case.

Having spend 10 pages wailing about the evils of subsidies, you then change your mind and suggest that subsidies either don't exist as a concept, or they aren't actually a problem.

I don't think you are terribly smart - but you are smart enough to know that your position makes absolutely no sense at all.

You either believe government should subsidide energy companies, or you believe it should not. 

I suggest you go away and do a bit of reading about subsidies, and then decide what it is you actually believe.

On the upside, I don't remember when I have last so enjoyed a discussion here!


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Daveman - 

This statement is false. 



> Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,



I have now asked you five times to correct it.

I have to ask - are you not able to understand material you posted, or simply unable to represent it honestly?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.*
> ...



I thought it was ironic, too....but just on this thread we see that Todd did not know that the coal and nuclear industries are heavily subsidised, and you didn't know that most subsidies paid into Renewables are by way of Feed-in Tariffs. 

You have to ask yourself - if someone didn't know that coal receives subsidies - what business do they have whining about energy subsidies in the first place?

For homework from class - both of you need to decide if you are for or against government subsidising energy producers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> At the start of our discussion I suggested that you possibly lacked the cojones to actually in engage in debate.
> 
> ...



*the coal and nuclear industries have received three times the amount of subsidies *

If you call writing off a business expense a subsidy, it's no wonder you're so confused.

Show me the real subsidies you think coal and nuclear have received and we can discuss them.
Good luck!


----------



## Saigon (Aug 28, 2013)

Todd - 

The subsidies given to coal are very often of the same kind given to solar and wind. The same ones you spent 10 pages complaining about. 

You are the one who doesn't understand the topic - you research it. 

Come back to the topic when you you have something to say that actually makes logical sense.


----------



## westwall (Aug 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> The subsidies given to coal are very often of the same kind given to solar and wind. The same ones you spent 10 pages complaining about.
> 
> ...








Yes, that is excellent advice.  You have presented NOTHING of value to this, or any other conversation you sanctimonious twerp.  Finished your remedial Finnish geography class yet?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You have proven over and over that you don't know what capitalism is.  Massive subsidies and punitive regulations to put competitors of favored industries out of business is not capitalism.  That's fascism.



Saigon said:


> You have to ask yourself - if someone didn't know that coal receives subsidies - what business do they have whining about energy subsidies in the first place?
> 
> For homework from class - both of you need to decide if you are for or against government subsidising energy producers.



Nuclear is heavily subsidized.  Coal and oil have received close to nothing in subsidies.  Perhaps over the 30 years the sums may be roughly equivalent (although you are labeling something a subsidy that isn't a subsidy) the subsidies to so-called "green energy have vastly increased since Obama was elected.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 29, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> the subsidies to so-called "green energy have vastly increased since Obama was elected.



And your point would be...?


----------



## daveman (Aug 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Daveman -
> 
> This statement is false.
> 
> ...


I already corrected you on this once. 



daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Daveman -
> ...



Now stop claiming falsehoods.


----------



## daveman (Aug 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Unsurprisingly, you ignored this post -- as if it means it doesn't exist:



daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > BriPat -
> ...


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 29, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That does not mean it is all right to change a single industries tax rate while leaving the others in place.  That is wrong even if you are looking to get them all there in the end.  You are moving AWAY from that and, instead, running to special exclusions when you support such a maneuver.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> At the start of our discussion I suggested that you possibly lacked the cojones to actually in engage in debate.
> 
> ...



You forgot the rest of the paragraph from your source.

*However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). *The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion  a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute.[9] The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, energy infrastructure security, etc.).

Thanks for trying, it was very entertaining.
If you ever find a specific fossil fuel subsidy you'd like to discuss, please let me know.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > the subsidies to so-called "green energy have vastly increased since Obama was elected.
> ...



The point is that all the subsidies to "green energy" are compressed into a short time period whereas subsidies to conventional forms of energy are spread over a period of 40 years.  They may sum to the same amount, but the rate of subsidies for green energy in recent years is far higher.  That's why the people who produced this bogus statistic used such a long time period.


----------



## Snookie (Aug 29, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



Less than the amount spent on war in a month.


----------



## westwall (Aug 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > the subsidies to so-called "green energy have vastly increased since Obama was elected.
> ...








If they actually produced something I don't think we would care.  But, as it stands, 7.5 billion taxpayer dollars have been taken away from those who can most use them, and given to wealthy friends of Obama as payoffs for their support in his elections.  

You see, the tax breaks that the fossil fuel industry receives, (and I don't agree with them getting that FYI) but they are breaks, not subsidies, there is a huge difference, and more to the point....they *ACTUALLY DELIVER A PRODUCT THAT EVERYONE USES.*


----------



## westwall (Aug 29, 2013)

daveman said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Daveman -
> ...







saggy can't.  His honesty is on the same level as his knowledge of Finnish geography.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 29, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It's far more than $7.5 billion.  That figure doesn't include things like the $5000 the government subsidizes to the price of buying an electric car.  It doesn't include the subsidy that the purchasers of solar panels receive.  There are many $billions of subsidies other than the ones that go directly to Obama's buddies and their fraudulent businesses.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 29, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I'm glad to see you make a distinction between "breaks" and "subsidies" cause the money that people can save buying a green car or making energy improvements to their homes, those sorts of things are all done as tax BREAKS.  No subsidies.  Breaks.

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## daveman (Aug 29, 2013)

Snookie said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 29, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Freedom -
> 
> Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?
> 
> ...


*Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?*

No.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 29, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Freedom -
> ...



THis wasn't about Capitalism. It was about jerks in govt who didn't comprehend technology, pissing away other people's money on stuff they didn't understand.. 

Lemme explain.. Solyndra was based on a GIMMICK.. The feature of their solar panel was an expensive optical concentrator. If this had been a great idea -- it would have been picked up from the ashes.. It wasn't.. 

The Chinese on the other hand -- aren't swayed by gimmicks. They know that lowering the prime cost of the panels will win over more complicated ways of raising panel efficiency.. This was about the govt trying to pick winners/losers and therefore stifling other developers in the field.

It was also about business primadonnas who decided to spend TONS of money on a palacial NEW production facility.. As opposed to more modest EXISTING buildings, they had to splurge to spend all that govt largess.

Solar is a MATURE technology.. Shouldn't be expecting MASSIVE breakthrus in performance. It's a commodity item and the Chinese have the right idea. High Yield, Low Price, Reliability, Simple Designs.


----------



## westwall (Aug 29, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...








Yup.  But even Suntech and Yingli, which saggy is all hot and bothered about, get subsidies from the Chinese government.  Don't they all....


"Chinese Solar Subsidy Boost

*The Chinese government has always been a strong benefactor of  the countrys ailing solar sector*, and this week news emerged that the Chinese Ministry of Finance plans to double its subsides for solar projects to $2 billion, channeling these funds to construct around 5.2 GW of demonstration solar capacity across the country. The incentives under this scheme are as high as 25 yuan (about $4)  per watt for independent power plants. [5] While we believe these these subsidies will serve to boost domestic demand for solar products and partly alleviate the industries pain, they will not be a panacea for the industries woes given the extent of dependence of  the Chinese firms on the export market. About 90% of Chinese solar production is exported.

Separately, Chinas Ministry of Science and Technology announced that it has selected projects with a total of about 2.8 GW of capacity to receive subsidies under the countrys Golden Sun Program.  The payouts could total as much as $2.5 billion if the projects are completed by June 2013. Yingli Green Energy is expected to supply about 10% of the panels for the projects. [6]"

Solar Weekly: Rising US Installations And China's Subsidy Boost -- Trefis


https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/suntech-vies-for-big-share-of-china-subsidy-program

Yingli looks to take advantage of new Chinese solar subsidies -Recharge News


----------



## Snookie (Aug 30, 2013)

It's hard to compete against against slave labor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2013)

Snookie said:


> It's hard to compete against against slave labor.



That's why the South won the Civil War.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

daveman said:


> Now stop claiming falsehoods.



Besides having been designed and conducted by one of the biggest petro-shills around, yours surveys "geo-scientists and engineers".  

The 97% figure has always been identified as the proportion of active climate scientists who accept AGW.

The two results are not mutually exclusive.  And the significance of the overwhelming majority of experts in this particular field is not deterred by the lesser support among those lacking familiarity with climate science.


----------



## westwall (Aug 31, 2013)

Snookie said:


> It's hard to compete against against slave labor.










No shit Sherlock.  So why even try to do it?  Why should we spend billions developing a new technology only to have the Chinese steal it, reverse engineer it, and then shove it down our throats at a cost we can't come close to matching.  Only a fucking idiot would pour money into that crap.  Let them develop it and then we steal it from them.  Give them a dose of their own damned medicine for once.


----------



## westwall (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Now stop claiming falsehoods.
> ...








Yep, 74 of 79 climatologists sure is a big number....


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> Yep, 74 of 79 climatologists sure is a big number.



As noted prior, the denialist camp prefers to pretend that the several other surveys do not exist.  A very large majority of climate scientists accept AGW.  Regardless of what nonsense yous spew, that is a fact.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, 74 of 79 climatologists sure is a big number.
> ...



Science is not done like this

"Show me Global Warming!"


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Science is not done like this



Don't be stupid.  By the opinions of the scientists in the field in question is EXACTLY how its done.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 31, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



Exactly right Toddster.  I get so tired of the same old mantra from the left about 'oil company subsidies' when it is obvious they don't have a clue what they are talking about.  But I'll post it the real skinny at least one more time.  It is important to know the truth about these thing.

So to reinforce the info from Saigon's link:



> If you were to survey people and ask the question Should we subsidize oil companies?  the overwhelming majority would undoubtedly respond  No! The idea that we are subsidizing oil companies generates outrage in many people, but in this article I will show why these subsidies arent going to go away any time soon.
> 
> The reason may surprise you.
> 
> ...



And more. . . . 




> The United States oil and natural  gas industry does not receive taxpayer-subsidized payments.
> 
> Given the recent publicity surrounding this issue, this statement may come as a surprise, yet it is 100 percent true. Also true is that the industry pays more than $86 million to the government every single day and has an effective income  tax rate of 41 percent. Why then have so many readily bought the notion that the taxpayers are supporting this highly profitable industry? . . . .
> 
> ...



Compare that effective 41% tax rate paid by oil companies with the effective 26% tax rate paid by most other companies in the Standard & Poor 500.
Morning Bell: The Truth Behind Oil Subsidies | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation



> > Bottom line: Despite the Administrations rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not subsidies that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries. Rather than being mostly a benefit to big oil, the repeal of these and other oil and gas industry-related tax provisions would mainly impact smaller independent producers and royalty owners. Such repeal would serve no legitimate public policy purpose, other than to unfairly discriminate via the tax code against one of the nations most productive  albeit easily demonized  manufacturing industries.
> > The truth about all those ?subsidies? for ?Big Oil? | AEIdeas





> In the case of oil companies, the tax breaks in question are part of IRS Code Section 199, which allows any business to deduct certain expenses from their tax returns. The maximum allowable deduction is 9% of those expenses, and this is part of the tax code passed in 2004 under the American Jobs Creation Act.
> 
> The idea at the time was to make it possible for businesses to take some risks and if those risks didn't pan out to get a tax break to reduce the pain and cost. This in theory would encourage businesses to expand and hire more.
> 
> ...



I bet if you polled all the leftwingers at USMB, most especially the 'warmers', 97% of them would say that the oil companies receive obscene subsidies from our government.  And that 97% would be about as valid as those 97% of scientists who do receive government subsidies and therefore say AGW is a problem.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

This is copied from Yahoo but I did not get the URL before closing it.

Are you kidding 



 1. Intangible drilling costs. Firms engaged in the exploration and development of oil or gas properties may expense (deduct in the year paid or incurred) certain types of drilling expenditures from their taxes. These costs include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to and necessary for drilling and preparing wells for the production of oil and gas. Other companies incurring similar types of costs must recover this cost over the life of the investment. 

 2. Deduction for tertiary injectants. Tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery, methods increase the amount of oil that a company can extract from a well by an additional 5 percent to 15 percent according to some research. This tax expenditure subsidizes the costs of tertiary injectants&#8212;the fluids, gases, and other chemicals that are pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as part of this process. The subsidy essentially gives companies government money for acting in ways that will enhance their profits. It allows companies to expense the costs of tertiary injectants, even though such costs should be recovered over time. Companies can alternatively choose to deduct these costs as an intangible drilling cost.

 3. Percentage depletion allowance. Percentage depletion allows an independent oil company to deduct from its taxes about 15 percent from the revenue generated from a well, even if that amount exceeds the well&#8217;s total value. This means that oil companies take a deduction as long as a well is producing oil, without regard to how much, or whether, the well is still declining in value. Companies in other industries are only allowed to deduct an amount that represents the decline in their investment&#8217;s value that year. 

 4. Passive investments. The government generally only allows investors to deduct a limited amount of losses from &#8220;passive activities&#8221; such as renting land in order to prevent tax shelters. Yet oil and gas properties are exempt from this rule. This gives oil and gas companies a competitive edge over other types of energy companies. 

 5. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction. Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil, the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions and eliminating the subsidy would not affect consumer prices. The subsidy is essentially a throwaway for oil companies. The tax expenditure is provided through a deduction for 9 percent of income, subject to a limit of 50 percent of the wages paid that are allocable to domestic production during the taxable year. 

 6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period. 

 7. Foreign tax credit. This credit is intended to prevent the double taxation of income that is taxed abroad but also subject to tax in the United States. Yet companies, particularly oil companies, have managed to exploit this subsidy even when they don&#8217;t pay income taxes abroad. In total, adjusting the rule would prevent companies from avoiding about $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period.

 8. Enhanced oil recovery credit. Companies receive a 15 percent income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil when they use &#8220;enhanced oil recovery&#8221; methods to extract oil that is too viscous to be extracted by conventional primary and secondary water-flooding techniques. The EOR credit is nonrefundable and is allowed if the average wellhead price of crude oil (using West Texas Intermediate as the reference) in the year before the credit is claimed is below the statutorily established threshold price of $28 (as adjusted for inflation since 1990) in the year the credit is claimed. Oil prices in fiscal year 2006 were too high for companies to receive this subsidy, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.

 9. Marginal well production. This provision provides a subsidy for oil and gas produced from certain types of oil and gas wells. These wells include those that produce heavy oil and those with an average production within a statutorily specified range. Oil prices were too high for companies to receive this subsidy in fiscal year 2006, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2&#8230;


----------



## westwall (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, 74 of 79 climatologists sure is a big number.
> ...








Who cares.  The fact remains that the methodology used in those "surveys' is equally BS.  The fraudsters can't do real facts or real science.


----------



## westwall (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Science is not done like this
> ...








Since when did "opinion" trump science?  Since when did "opinion" replace empirical data?
Only in the addled brains of the fraudsters does climate modeling replace actual empirical data.

That's not science.  That's _science fiction_, and Asimov, Heinlein and a whole host of other authors tell the stories much better.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Are you kidding
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For heaven's sake Abraham, don't allow a group like Center for American Progress do your thinking for you.  I bet you didn't even read the stuff you posted here, but if you really care about being right instead of pretending you know what you're talking about, take your article, paragraph by paragraph, and compare them to the articles I linked.  And you'll see how the Center of American Progress words things to mean what a leftwing extremist wants to hear and not how things actually are.

I do that with ALL my sources before I trust them.  And because I know some sources are more biased than others, I don't trust them even then unless I can find a collaboration for their opinion through at least one othe source I trust.

But your article so distorts the actual facts, you really should be embarrassed that you posted it.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> For heaven's sake Abraham, don't allow a group like Center for American Progress do your thinking for you.  I bet you didn't even read the stuff you posted here, but if you really care about being right instead of pretending you know what you're talking about, take your article, paragraph by paragraph, and compare them to the articles I linked.  And you'll see how the Center of American Progress words things to mean what a leftwing extremist wants to hear and not how things actually are.
> 
> I do that with ALL my sources before I trust them.  And because I know some sources are more biased than others, I don't trust them even then unless I can find a collaboration for their opinion through at least one othe source I trust.
> 
> But your article so distorts the actual facts, you really should be embarrassed that you posted it.



I find my article considerably more objective than yours.  Heritage Foundation is at least as far to the right as my source is to the left.  Your article fails to mention most of these items.  Is their existence a subjective point?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> Since when did "opinion" trump science?  Since when did "opinion" replace empirical data?



When did I say any such thing?



westwall said:


> Only in the addled brains of the fraudsters does climate modeling replace actual empirical data.
> 
> That's not science.  That's _science fiction_, and Asimov, Heinlein and a whole host of other authors tell the stories much better.



Who do you believe is 'responsible' for tallying up the experimental results, the predictions successes or the falsifications failed?  Is there an organization for that?  Some government agency?  The UN perhaps?  Is it YOUR personal responsibility?  Weren't you claiming to have a PhD?  To be an experienced researcher?  To WHOM did you report your findings?  Who paid attention to your results.  Whose OPINIONS mattered?

The twists and turns you folks have to put us all through to keep up this waste of a fight are just F-ing ridiculous.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Aug 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It was in the interest of the ruling class to have their Heirheads, the Environmentalists, to limit the development of resources in order to create artificial scarcity and gouge us for obscene profit margins.  That has been done.  

Now it is time to limit this controlled Warmalarmie fraud, because the rulers aren't going to benefit if it is taken seriously and shuts down too much.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > For heaven's sake Abraham, don't allow a group like Center for American Progress do your thinking for you.  I bet you didn't even read the stuff you posted here, but if you really care about being right instead of pretending you know what you're talking about, take your article, paragraph by paragraph, and compare them to the articles I linked.  And you'll see how the Center of American Progress words things to mean what a leftwing extremist wants to hear and not how things actually are.
> ...



You can't use the Heritage Foundation alone.  You need to compare your article with the information in ALL the links I provided, as well as with other really good information out there, and see how distorted the Center for American Progress information is compared with the whole big picture.  I used one link from a Heritage source only.  Even Saigon's link--Saigon is one of the most adament warmers in the forum--refuted the Center for American Progress dogma.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> This is copied from Yahoo but I did not get the URL before closing it.
> 
> Are you kidding
> 
> ...



Which of these do you feel is a subsidy?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 31, 2013)

Oh, I actually forgot about one major thing that the left fails to note among the mythical oil company subsides but is invariably (though probably unknowingly) included in the totals groups like the Center for American Progress are fond of using to demonize oil companies:

Along with farm fuel credits intended to help keep our food costs lower, and government help with fuel costs that go to low income families, a major expenditure is the oil the government buys that goes into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.   Do any of ya'll 97% supporters want us not to have that reserve?   All of this stuff is included in the numbers that you so desperately want to believe are unfair oil subsidies to Big Oil.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> As noted prior, the denialist camp prefers to pretend that the several other surveys do not exist.  A very large majority of climate scientists accept AGW.  Regardless of what nonsense you spew, that is a fact.





westwall said:


> Who cares.  The fact remains that the methodology used in those "surveys' is equally BS.  The fraudsters can't do real facts or real science.



Saying it does not make it so.


----------



## daveman (Aug 31, 2013)

Speaking of that 97%...

Lomborg On Cook 97% Survey: ?It Turns Out They Have Done Pretty Much Everything Wrong?



> Here&#8217;s what Lomborg writes (my emphasis, links shortened):
> 
> Ugh. Do you remember the &#8220;97% consensus&#8221;, which even Obama tweeted?
> Turns out the authors don&#8217;t want to reveal their data.
> ...



They don't want to release their data to be checked?

Yep, that's climate "science", all right.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

There were two studies of the literature.  Both found 97-98% acceptance of AGW among climate scientists.

From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Opinion of Climate Change

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for *1,372* climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) *97&#8211;98%* of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[118]
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed *11,944* abstracts of scientific papers, finding *4,014* which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, *97.1%* endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[119]
Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which *1,381* discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, *97.2%* endorsed the consensus.

************************************************************************

I see numbers there.  Why does your author think they hid the numbers?


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

From a different article in Wikipedia - a little more information on several of these surveys, including the one I posted that found less support among engineers and geoscientists.

*Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010*

(i) 97&#8211;98% of the *climate researchers most actively publishing in the field* support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[14]
The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[15] Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study&#8217;s framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[16]
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011

In an October 2011 paper published in the *International Journal of Public Opinion Research*, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. *The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science*, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[17][18]
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012

*Lefsrud and Meyer* surveyed* members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industry in Alberta*. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures."[19] Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."[20]
The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analysing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."[19] Others they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), 'fatalists' (17%) and 'regulation activists' (5%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[19]
They found that respondents that support regulation ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry".[19] Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.[20]

*John Cook et al, 2013*

Cook et al examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991&#8211;2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while only 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[21]

In their discussion of the results, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[22] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics."[21]


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

John Cook, of Skeptical Science and lead author of the Environmental Research Letters study "The Consensus Project" was invited to write a letter for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on the issue.

Closing the consensus gap: Public support for climate policy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

*Closing the consensus gap: Public support for climate policy*

John Cook

Since the late 1980s, governments and policy makers have worked to develop policy to mitigate climate change. At the same time, opponents have worked to delay and prevent climate action&#8212;not just by attacking policy solutions, but also by attacking climate science. A key focus in this decades-long campaign has been to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.

Why attack the consensus? In recent years, social scientists have started to put the pieces together. A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2011, replicated by a 2013 study published in the journal Climatic Change, found that public perceptions about scientific agreement are linked to support for policy to mitigate climate change. When people think that scientists are still debating about what&#8217;s causing climate change, they&#8217;re less likely to support climate action.

Social scientists were not the first to come to this realization. Political consultant Frank Luntz advised Republicans in the 2000 presidential election to cast doubt on the consensus, arguing &#8220;should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.&#8221; More than a decade before social scientists observed the link between perceived consensus and support for climate policy, opponents of climate action understood this link and implemented communication strategies designed to erode public support for climate policy.

In fact, attacks on the consensus date back to the early 1990s. In 1991, the Western Fuels Association spent more than $500,000 on a campaign to &#8220;reposition global warming as theory (not fact).&#8221; More recently, an analysis of conservative columns published from 2007 to 2010 found that the most repeated climate myth was &#8220;there is no scientific consensus.&#8221;

These strategies have been effective. To this day, there is a significant &#8220;consensus gap&#8221; between public perception and the actual scientific consensus. A 2012 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found 43 percent of Americans thought climate scientists were still in disagreement about whether the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity. I have conducted similar research, measuring perceived consensus in the United States and Australia. When Americans were asked what percentage of climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming, the average answer was 55 percent. When repeating this survey with Australians, I found that my own country doesn&#8217;t perform much better, with an average answer of 58 percent.

The misperception of a scientific community in disagreement is in stark contrast with reality. A 2009 study found that 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are significantly changing global temperature. A 2010 analysis of public statements by climate scientists found the same 97 percent consensus. Science historian Naomi Oreskes did the seminal work on consensus in 2004; she analyzed the abstracts of 928 climate papers published between 1993 and 2003 and found none rejecting the consensus.

I recently led a citizen science effort, The Consensus Project, to continue and extend Oreskes&#8217; analysis. We analyzed 21 years&#8217; worth of climate research, resulting in the most comprehensive analysis yet done. We identified more than 4,000 peer-reviewed climate papers stating a position in their abstract on whether humans were causing global warming. Among these papers, 97 percent endorsed the consensus. To independently check our results, we asked the scientists who wrote the climate papers to rate their own research. Among papers self-rated by the authors as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97 percent endorsed the consensus.

Our research went further than earlier studies and found that the consensus had already formed by the early 1990s. Agreement continued to strengthen over the 21-year period. While our sample was admittedly a small portion of the global climate science community, we nevertheless found more than 10,000 scientists in more than 80 countries publishing climate papers that endorse the consensus.

Although President Obama tweeted our research to more than 31 million followers on the day after it was published, and later mentioned the 97 percent consensus in his landmark speech calling for climate action, public perception has not yet caught up with the science. Many psychological barriers to climate action remain in place, and opponents continue to focus intensely on attacking the scientific consensus&#8212;which is indicative of its importance. Closing the consensus gap would remove a significant roadblock that has for two decades inhibited public support for climate action.


----------



## kiwina (Aug 31, 2013)

My question is why should I listen to any of them, and who are they any way? If 97% of the experts say a plan will crash and only 3% say it will fly and the 3% are the ones who work on the plane I well fly it, they are tho ones that know what they are talking about. If an archaeollogist examims the runion of an English village that is a mile froM the North sea and on one side finds nothing but the remains of a boat, and if I have been showen a photo of a castle with a half mile of mud flats that were sea bed when it was built. Then a chemist comes a long later and clames that the plant is wormer now then ever before why should I give him any heed? 
Like the Admrial said "give me the facts, I well make my own desion".
If the question was only to delvope aulterent power sorces then it would not be a problem. However, every time fule rates go up to force people to stop using petro the people who suffer are the people who produce our food. We have electric cars but where are the aulternet fuled tractors and trucks? With six billion people in this world horses can not keep up with the demands. 
My responce is this if you want to delovep an alternet sorce then take some of the money that is being wasted in convinceing us and our repersentives to do some thing and do it yourself. This is America the land of I can, not Prussa the land of you have to do for me.


----------



## westwall (Aug 31, 2013)

daveman said:


> Speaking of that 97%...
> 
> Lomborg On Cook 97% Survey: ?It Turns Out They Have Done Pretty Much Everything Wrong?
> 
> ...









The Scientific Method says......release all data and challenge anyone to find your results incorrect.

Climatology says......hide all data and do not release ANY OF IT lest our secrets are found out.


----------



## westwall (Aug 31, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> From a different article in Wikipedia - a little more information on several of these surveys, including the one I posted that found less support among engineers and geoscientists.
> 
> *Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010*
> 
> ...








It says a lot about your particular delusion that you still believe those "studies" when the actual fact is every one of them has been eviscerated in the scientific community.  Only the "faithful" _believe_ them now...


----------



## daveman (Aug 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of that 97%...
> ...



Climate science simply isn't real science.  And there is no one who can credibly claim otherwise.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 31, 2013)

The key to the problem of releasing data (if there really is such a problem) is the name Richard Tol.


----------



## westwall (Sep 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The key to the problem of releasing data (if there really is such a problem) is the name Richard Tol.







Bullshit.  The scientific method DEMANDS THAT ALL DATA AND METHODOLOGY BE RELEASED SO THAT ANYONE CAN TEST YOUR WORK.  That's how you test for repeatability.

Climatologists are the only "scientists" who won't release their work.

I know what that means.... clearly you don't care...


----------



## IanC (Sep 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The key to the problem of releasing data (if there really is such a problem) is the name Richard Tol.



Oh my god. You are besmiching the name of an honest scientist simply because he finally has had enough of the bullshit that passes for peer reviewed science?

It has been a long time since I pased out ant rep but this definitely deserves a neg rep. You, sir are an ass.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2013)

Todd - 

Three days later, you are still trying to recover from the shock of the nuclear and coal industries receiving three times as much in subsidies as renewables do?

I really don't think the concept is THAT hard to grasp, somehow. 

Having spent 10 pages deriding subsidies before suddenly changing tack and denying that they exist is as total a capitulation as I recall seeing from any poster on this board.

My hope was that both yourself and BriPat might wise up to the fact that the inevitable result of basing your opinions purely and simply on politics (Wind = bad. Coal = good!) is exactly this. 

You will never make a solid point on this topic while you view it purely and simply in terms of politics. 

Each form of energy needs to be evaluated in terms of its potential production, its cost and emissions. Why can't you do that?

What do you gain out of this pretence that coal is somehow the magic bullet?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Three days later, you are still trying to recover from the shock of the nuclear and coal industries receiving three times as much in subsidies as renewables do?
> 
> ...



How about if we drop the pretense that wind and solar are the magic bullet?  Let's drop all subsidies right now.  Would any of the holy brethren of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming support that? You know they wouldn't because wind and solar would immediately drop from sight.  They cannot survive without subsidies.  That's the bottom line.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2013)

BriPat- 



> How about if we drop the pretense that wind and solar are the magic bullet?



I've never heard anyone suggest they were. Most countries will need a workhorse like hydro, nuclear or perhaps solar thermal or tidal in addition to wind or solar PV. 



> Would any of the holy brethren of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming support that? You know they wouldn't because wind and solar would immediately drop from sight. They cannot survive without subsidies. That's the bottom line.



Subsidies should be phased out as soon as economies have the mix of 21st century solutions they need.

In most countries that should happen quite soon - but obviously the US is so far behind that you will need more subsidies while you play catch-up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Three days later, you are still trying to recover from the shock of the nuclear and coal industries receiving three times as much in subsidies as renewables do?
> 
> ...



*However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). *The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion  a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute.[9] The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, energy infrastructure security, etc.).

Thanks for trying, it was very entertaining.
If you ever find a specific fossil fuel subsidy you'd like to discuss, please let me know, pussy.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No., subsidies should be ended immediately.  "The mix of solutions we need" shouldn't be determined by government interference in the market.  That's how you end up with expensive boondoggles.

You defend subsidies.  I don't.  That's the difference between following a principle and being a hack.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2013)

BriPat - 



> You defend subsidies. I don't. That's the difference between following a principle and being a hack.



No, it's the difference between understanding the industry, and not understanding it. 

It's almost impossible for any company to finance to building of a nuclear power station, tidal enegy project or solar thermal plant without some form of incentive or guarantee. Hence, feed-in tariffs have their place. 

Beyond that, I tend to agree with you that the free market should operate without ongoing manipulation.

Todd - 

For the 5th time now - do you support subsidies to energy companies? Yes or no?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 1, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > BriPat-
> ...



Do you reject the subsidies given coal, oil, gas and nuclear?  Do you reject subsidies given to farmers?  Dairymen?  Miners?  Lumber companies?

Or is it just alternative energy sources?

Let me ask you something.  Do you LIKE the smell of half burnt hydrocarbons?  Do you like the appearance of strip mines?  Do you like seeing miners "coughing out pieces of their broken lungs"?

The amount of money being invested in alternative energy technologies is not going to break the bank and, if nothing else, will get us cleaner air, water and land.  The vehemence of your objection seems unjustified, even by the reasons you give.


----------



## westwall (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...












That is due to government and enviro whacko interference.  Remove those impediments and things start getting built again.  It is YOU who doesn't understand industry.  I have no problem funding research into alternatives.  I have a huge problem funding companies that can only exist because of public support.  And further, any "green" company that kills more critters than the fossil fuel industry is not green.


----------



## westwall (Sep 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...









Yes.  ALL government subsidies should be eliminated.  Research is one thing.  Being forced to pay extra taxes so that that money can be given to companies that would otherwise fail completely is a joke.  If they have a product that they can deliver in a timely efficient manner then they don't NEED a subsidy.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



But has been clearly documented over the last 24 hours or so on this thread, there are no oil subsidies as such, at least as the anti-big oil company people believe such subsidies exist.  "Oil subsidies" are fuel credits--not payments--for farmers to produce food or ethanol, a green religionist favorite that the government mandates MUST be added to motor fuels.  "Oil subsidies" are government purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve critical for our national security if our oil supplies were disrupted.  "Oil subsidies" are government programs to help low income families with utility bills.

I haven't been able to find any subsidies the federal government is giving to coal companies.   Both oil and coal receive the same kinds of tax treatment that all businesses recieve, except that oil in some cases gets less of a break than other businesses.  The worst the green police can find to accuse coal of is that the government doesn't charge coal companies enough for exploration and mining on public lands.

And even if you believe the non-subsidies listed above must be counted as government subsidies, oil and coal receive roughly $2.5 billion in tax breaks while green energy intiatives are receiving $16 billion plus in tax breaks, loan guarantees, and direct payments.

And why should we promote coal?   Because it is the most plentiful, easily accessible fuel on Earth making it cheap and easily useful.  The government should be devoting all that money to finding ways to use coal in clean and environmentally friendly ways instead of trying to pretend that wind and solar are the magic bullets that will save us all.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2013)

Tax deductions aren't subsidies, that's a perversion of the word especially since the Green Companies get direct cash subsidies


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2013)

Obama started the "oil and gas subsidies" lie and the Progressive Collective immediately parroted it back


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2013)

Foxfyre - 

The issue here is not so much subsidies to oil (which is less often used to produce electricity), but to nuclear and coal (which are used to produce electricity). As my sig line shows, subsidies to nuclear and coal have often run to three times the amounts paid to renewables. 

Do you agree or disagree with those subsidies?



> And why should we promote coal? Because it is the most plentiful, easily accessible fuel on Earth making it cheap and easily useful.



I'm afraid this is simply nonsense - clean coal is amongst the most expensive forms of electricity production we have.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2013)

As for the voices of reason out there:

The British Royal Society recently released a statement that Any public perception that the science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect.   This contradicts its own former president.  If the science isn't settled, there can hardly ever have been 'consensus' on the issue among scientists in the first place.

Richard Tol Phd had the guts to expose the IPPC for its questionable conclusions.  He has argued that while one section of the report (produced by Working Group 2) appears to have systematically overstated the negative impacts of climate change, another section (written by Working Group 3) appears to have systematically understated the costs to society associated with emissions reduction.  He has a very impressive resume in both the fields of economics and climate research.  And even as the opinions of dissenters are omitted from the final analysis, eyebrows are raised at the lack of credential of some of those included.  Lisa Alexander and Laurens Bouwer lacked PhDs in their fields when they were primary writers of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC assessment reports.  Bouwer still doesn't have one.

So Abraham's manipulated 97% should not guide us in this issue.  Certainly not more than voices of reason that strongy contradict that "97%".    And it is important that we get this very right before we hand over our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to people who have demonstrated they are not completely honest, are not scientifically objective, and who don't have our best interests at heart.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The idea that you understand industry better than me is laughable.  I have a degree in mechanical engineering.  I do consulting work for fortune 1000 companies that deals with their manufacturing processes. Currently I'm doing some work for Ford Motor Company that deals with how they determine the factory capacity they need.   How much more immersed in "industry" can you get?

I work in industry every day.  You're a journalist, and you don't know diddly squat about industry.  Everything you post demonstrates the grossest naivete about how industry functions.



Saigon said:


> It's almost impossible for any company to finance to building of a nuclear power station, tidal enegy project or solar thermal plant without some form of incentive or guarantee. Hence, feed-in tariffs have their place.



That's because they are money losing propositions.  The power they produce is vastly more expensive and vastly less dependable.  You're just admitting that these forms of power can't compete in the marketplace. 



Saigon said:


> Beyond that, I tend to agree with you that the free market should operate without ongoing manipulation.



No, you don't agree with that.  You propose government manipulation of the market every time you post on the subject.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> The issue here is not so much subsidies to oil (which is less often used to produce electricity), but to nuclear and coal (which are used to produce electricity). As my sig line shows, subsidies to nuclear and coal have often run to three times the amounts paid to renewables.



Nuclear has received abundant subsidies, but coal has received virtually none.  All claims about coal subsidies are based in mischaracterizations of income tax law.



> And why should we promote coal? Because it is the most plentiful, easily accessible fuel on Earth making it cheap and easily useful.





Saigon said:


> I'm afraid this is simply nonsense - clean coal is amongst the most expensive forms of electricity production we have.



That's only if you define "clean coal" to mean coal that doesn't emit CO2.  Of course, that characterization is a joke.  Coal is already more than clean enough.  CO2 isn't a pollutant.  Modern coal fired fired power plants are still the cheapest form of energy, if the government doesn't impose draconian regulations on them.  Germany is building 20 new coal fired power plants.  That's how "dirty" current coal technology is.

The term "clean coal" is a con.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2013)

> The idea that you understand industry better than me is laughable



Well, two days ago you had never heard of feed-in tariffs....which are the most common form of subsidy used in the energy industry. 



> That's because they are money losing propositions. The power they produce is vastly more expensive and vastly less dependable



How can you evaluate the cost of power from a form of energy that has not yet been tested commercially?

It seems clear to most analysts that breeder reactors, tidal and solar thermal will all be hugely productive - but you oppose them because they are new.

It does make me laugh that you pretend to know something about this industry - but oppose the three best forms of future energy production REAL experts are promoting.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Beyond that, I tend to agree with you that the free market should operate without ongoing manipulation.
> ...



Um....seriously?

You are telling me that I believe and don't believe?! 

I have noticed several times that you totally miss the point of my posts, because you are so fixated on left/right ideology you cannot read what people post anymore - you just assume it's the same fixed dogma you rely on.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I reject all subsidies of any kind.  I also reject regulations that are designed solely to put certain industries out of business.  The market should decide which industries thrive and which wither away.



Abraham3 said:


> Let me ask you something.  Do you LIKE the smell of half burnt hydrocarbons?  Do you like the appearance of strip mines?  Do you like seeing miners "coughing out pieces of their broken lungs"?



I live within 5 miles of a giant coal fired power plant.  I don't smell a thing.  The air hear is as crystal clear as the air at the South Pole.  Miners who "cough their lungs out" are all smokers.  Black lung disease is really a disease of smokers.



Abraham3 said:


> The amount of money being invested in alternative energy technologies is not going to break the bank and, if nothing else, will get us cleaner air, water and land.  The vehemence of your objection seems unjustified, even by the reasons you give.



The improvement in cleanliness won't even be detectable to anyone.  In exchange for massive costs the taxpayers receive zero tangible benefit.  Furthermore, this meddling causes distortions in the market.  Obama is imposing draconian regulations on the coal industry in a deliberate attempt to drive it out of business.  If you think "green energy" is economically competitive, then let it compete.  Otherwise let it die a natural death.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I base my statement on what you post, not what you say about yourself.  When have you ever objected to government interference in the market?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



List the true subsidies that energy companies get (writing off business expenses isn't a subsidy) and I'll tell you if I support them.

Continue to lie about them and I'll continue to mock you.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2013)

Todd - 

As has been explained to you several times now, the subsidies received in the energy field aren't unique to one form of production. 

The subsidies nuclear received are largely the same ones you spent 10 pages wailing about.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> The issue here is not so much subsidies to oil (which is less often used to produce electricity), but to nuclear and coal (which are used to produce electricity). As my sig line shows, subsidies to nuclear and coal have often run to three times the amounts paid to renewables.
> 
> ...



I've done some research and have interviewed people in the business.  Have you?

Based on the average cost in dollars per million Btu for 2007 (annual
average for the full year):

Coal  $1.78
Petroleum liquids $9.21
Natural gas  $7.45

Electric Power Monthly - Energy Information Administration

Numbers  like these make it clear that we need to continue to develop clean coal technologies. Finding better ways to use our most affordable and  abundant fuel source will not only help us keep America running, it will help ease the costs of doing so.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2013)

Bripat - 



> When have you ever objected to government interference in the market?



When it is not necessary. 

Subsidies like feed-in tariffs are necessary as countries transition from old technologies to new technologies - but not beyond that.



> I reject all subsidies of any kind. I also reject regulations that are designed solely to put certain industries out of business. The market should decide which industries thrive and which wither away.



Fair enough - at least you are consistent and honest.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> As has been explained to you several times now, the subsidies received in the energy field aren't unique to one form of production.
> 
> The subsidies nuclear received are largely the same ones you spent 10 pages wailing about.



List the true subsidies that energy companies get (writing off business expenses isn't a subsidy) and I'll tell you if I support them.

If they're the same "subsidies" that every company in the country gets, then they aren't subsidies.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2013)

Fox - 



> I've done some research and have interviewed people in the business. Have you?



Yes...it's what I do for a living. 

I've also posted this material for you before,when you chose to ignore it. 

Advanced Coal 112.7

Wind 96.8 

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A dozen other sources will tell you the same thing. 

This is not a matter of opinion, it's simple fact. The only question is - can you take the blinkers off and look at the facts, or will you take Todd's line and stick to being wrong?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Fox -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry.  The only place in your link that clean coal is the most expensive is in the initial investment of the processing plant.  (And I find that highly questionable.)  I have looked at numerous sources including your Wikipedia link--if you know a dozen other sources, why did you choose Wikipedia?--and your sources and my sources all agree that coal is cheap, plentiful, and even clean coal beats most wind and solar for production of a kilowatt of electric power which is what your link addressed.

As usual you don't even read your own links and ignored that I have been addressing all energy costs, not just electric power.

And because of my experience with the stuff you post, I also don't believe for a minute that you are in the industry any more than I am convinced that you are a scientist which you have claimed in the past.

Abraham's 97% is bogus.  Too much of what passes for climate science is bogus.  We the people deserve better from those who would take away our liberties and control our lives in these matters.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Fox -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course, "advanced coal" is a con.  Compare it with the price for the last coal fired power plant built - before Obama imposed his punitive regulations on coal, that is.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Fox -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Costs of Coal-fired Electricity - World Coal Association



> According to studies by the European Commission, MIT, and the US Congressional Budget Office, coal power plants provide electricity at a lower cost than nuclear or gas plants. This is also confirmed by levelised generation cost studies, such as the one carried out regularly by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which takes account of all the costs over the power plant lifetime. According to IEA statistics, coal-based electricity is, on average, 7% cheaper than gas and around 19% cheaper than nuclear.
> 
> The advantage of coal is even greater in comparison to renewable energy. IEA and European Commission studies show that onshore wind costs between US$50 and US$156 per MWh and solar photovoltaics between US$226 to US$2031. In certain locations hydro resources can produce electricity at a cost comparable to coal, however estimates vary greatly according to geographic conditions and the final price can be as high as US$240 and US$262 per MWh. In comparison, electricity from coal costs between US$56 to US$82 per MWh.








The bottom line:  Coal is by-far the cheapest method of producing electric power.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Bripat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In other words, never.



Saigon said:


> Subsidies like feed-in tariffs are necessary as countries transition from old technologies to new technologies - but not beyond that.



Successful new technologies have never required subsidies of any kind.   Subsidies have always been political payoffs to favored constituents and that's all they will ever be.  The only industries that require subsidies are the ones that have failed the market test.  Wind and solar have failed that test over and over.


----------



## westwall (Sep 1, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > BriPat -
> ...








In saggy's defense...he doesn't seem to know much about anything but collectivist political theory.  He is a product of good old Howard Zinn.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre -
> 
> The issue here is not so much subsidies to oil (which is less often used to produce electricity), but to nuclear and coal (which are used to produce electricity). As my sig line shows, subsidies to nuclear and coal have often run to three times the amounts paid to renewables.
> 
> ...



DOE's clean coal R&D is focused on developing and demonstrating advanced power generation and carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies for existing facilities and new fossil-fueled power plants by increasing overall system efficiencies and reducing capital costs. In the near-term, advanced technologies that increase the power generation efficiency for new plants and technologies to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from new and existing industrial and power-producing plants are being developed. *In the longer term, the goal is to increase energy plant efficiencies and reduce both the energy and capital costs of CO2 capture and storage* from new, advanced coal plants and existing plants. These activities will help allow coal to remain a strategic fuel for the nation while enhancing environmental protection.

Clean Coal Research | Department of Energy

Damn, what a stupid idea. Burn even more coal, so we can waste the energy to capture the CO2.
A technology that only government could love.

If we're giving subsidies for this technology, we should stop instantly.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > The idea that you understand industry better than me is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They may be new, but they are already tested commercially on a broad enough scale to know their costs of operation.  The information is there for anybody who is scientifically adept enough to do the minimal research required.

And feed-in tariffs apply to renewable energy production only.  Not oil and coal.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...





Fund research, NOT companies.  The left continually wants to treat these things as the same concept and there is nothing further from the truth.  There is something to be said for the government being capable of pushing tech with resources that it can afford to lose (and the fact that industry PREFERS static tech) but we dont really do that.  For the most part, the problems have occurred because we are sinking cash into companies rather than development in the hops that a small portion might someday reach to an R&D department.  It is asinine and does nothing to clean anything up.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 1, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Are you suggesting the government fund only government research or that the government somehow restrict subsidies, tax breaks and the like to R&D?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2013)

In my opinion the government should do neither.  It should offer tax incentives to those who PRODUCE cleaner, cheaper energy to the greatest number of people.  It should not be fundng energy in any way, nor should it be funding research that will inevitably be tainted just to qualify for those government dollars.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 1, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> I reject all subsidies of any kind.  I also reject regulations that are designed solely to put certain industries out of business.  The market should decide which industries thrive and which wither away.





Abraham3 said:


> Let me ask you something.  Do you LIKE the smell of half burnt hydrocarbons?  Do you like the appearance of strip mines?  Do you like seeing miners "coughing out pieces of their broken lungs"?





bripat9643 said:


> I live within 5 miles of a giant coal fired power plant.  I don't smell a thing.  The air hear is as crystal clear as the air at the South Pole.  Miners who "cough their lungs out" are all smokers.  Black lung disease is really a disease of smokers.



Bullshit.

Coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), colloquially referred to as black lung disease, is caused by long exposure to coal dust. It is a common affliction of coal miners and others who work with coal, similar to both silicosis from inhaling silica dust, and to the long-term effects of tobacco smoking. Inhaled coal dust progressively builds up in the lungs and is unable to be removed by the body; that leads to inflammation, fibrosis, and in worse cases, necrosis.
Coal workers' pneumoconiosis, severe state, develops after the initial, milder form of the disease known as anthracosis (anthrac &#8212; coal, carbon). This is often asymptomatic and is found to at least some extent in all urban dwellers[1] due to air pollution. Prolonged exposure to large amounts of coal dust can result in more serious forms of the disease, simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis and complicated coal workers' pneumoconiosis (or Progressive massive fibrosis, or PMF). More commonly, workers exposed to coal dust develop industrial bronchitis,[2] clinically defined as chronic bronchitis (i.e. productive cough for 3 months per year for at least 2 years) associated with workplace dust exposure. The incidence of industrial bronchitis varies with age, job, exposure, and smoking. In nonsmokers (who are less prone to develop bronchitis than smokers), studies of coal miners have shown a 16%[3] to 17%[4] incidence of industrial bronchitis.

The air where you live is not as clean as the air at the South Pole and strip mines are still ugly pits in the Earth which are rarely if ever restored to a healthy state.



Abraham3 said:


> The amount of money being invested in alternative energy technologies is not going to break the bank and, if nothing else, will get us cleaner air, water and land.  The vehemence of your objection seems unjustified, even by the reasons you give.





bripat9643 said:


> The improvement in cleanliness won't even be detectable to anyone.  In exchange for massive costs the taxpayers receive zero tangible benefit.  Furthermore, this meddling causes distortions in the market.  Obama is imposing draconian regulations on the coal industry in a deliberate attempt to drive it out of business.  If you think "green energy" is economically competitive, then let it compete.  Otherwise let it die a natural death.



Do you not recall acid rain?  The smogs of London, LA and Beijing?  Coal combustion in the US has gotten cleaner - due entirely to regulation pushed through by liberals - but it is a L O N G way from undetectable.  The added regulation of coal IS meant to eventually drive it from the marketplace.  The government has the ability and the obligation to take action to protect the health and well being of the American citizenry and our common infrastructure.  Those things are put at risk by GHG emissions.  

If we were to follow your advice, we'd still be using DDT and the world's bird population would be a tiny fraction of it's current size.  We'd still be looking at cigarette advertising in every media that exists, including that aimed at the young, and the rate of lung cancer would be through the roof.  We'd never have established OSHA and their regulatory opus and workplace injuries and deaths would be several times what they are now.  We'd still be filling every chiller and aerosol can with polychlorinated fluorocarbons and the ozone hole would be up to the 60th parallel or so.

This nation is a representative democracy.  The individuals elected to run the government and this nation are intended to represent its people, not its companies; its individuals, not its corporations.  Their actually is a difference between the well-being of GM and the well-being of its employees and their nation.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > I reject all subsidies of any kind.  I also reject regulations that are designed solely to put certain industries out of business.  The market should decide which industries thrive and which wither away.
> ...



Bronchitis is not black lung disease.  Nothing you posted disproves what I said.



Abraham3 said:


> The air where you live is not as clean as the air at the South Pole and strip mines are still ugly pits in the Earth which are rarely if ever restored to a healthy state.



I exaggerated, of course, but the fact is no one could tell whether the air is cleaner 1 mile from the coal fired plant or 50 miles from the plant if you put a blind fold on them.



Abraham3 said:


> The amount of money being invested in alternative energy technologies is not going to break the bank and, if nothing else, will get us cleaner air, water and land.  The vehemence of your objection seems unjustified, even by the reasons you give.





bripat9643 said:


> The improvement in cleanliness won't even be detectable to anyone.  In exchange for massive costs the taxpayers receive zero tangible benefit.  Furthermore, this meddling causes distortions in the market.  Obama is imposing draconian regulations on the coal industry in a deliberate attempt to drive it out of business.  If you think "green energy" is economically competitive, then let it compete.  Otherwise let it die a natural death.





Abraham3 said:


> Do you not recall acid rain?  The smogs of London, LA and Beijing?  Coal combustion in the US has gotten cleaner - due entirely to regulation pushed through by liberals - but it is a L O N G way from undetectable.  The added regulation of coal IS meant to eventually drive it from the marketplace.  The government has the ability and the obligation to take action to protect the health and well being of the American citizenry and our common infrastructure.  Those things are put at risk by GHG emissions.



You're right about one thing: the added regulation is intended to drive coal from the marketplace.  The rest of your claims are bullshit.  The government doesn't have the authority to decide what forms of power generation the consumers can choose.  Where does it say that in the Constitution?  And, of course, AGW is a colossal con.



Abraham3 said:


> If we were to follow your advice, we'd still be using DDT and the world's bird population would be a tiny fraction of it's current size.  We'd still be looking at cigarette advertising in every media that exists, including that aimed at the young, and the rate of lung cancer would be through the roof.  We'd never have established OSHA and their regulatory opus and workplace injuries and deaths would be several times what they are now.  We'd still be filling every chiller and aerosol can with polychlorinated fluorocarbons and the ozone hole would be up to the 60th parallel or so.



Of course, that's all bullshit, or it's none of the government's business.  The Constitution doesn't give the government authority to regulate advertising.  OSHA isn't needed to make workplaces safer.  Tort law is more than sufficient to take care of it.  The Ozone hole was another myth perpetrated by eco-wacos, and now instead of spray cans filled with harmless freon, they are filled with butane and they are extremely dangerous.



Abraham3 said:


> This nation is a representative democracy.  The individuals elected to run the government and this nation are intended to represent its people, not its companies; its individuals, not its corporations.



Wrong again.  They are also entitled to representation and all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights and other amendments.



Abraham3 said:


> Their actually is a difference between the well-being of GM and the well-being of its employees and their nation.



You're belief that they are in conflict is where you er.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Inhaled coal dust progressively builds up in the lungs and is unable to be removed by the body; that leads to inflammation, fibrosis, and in worse cases, necrosis.



No smoking required



Abraham3 said:


> Prolonged exposure to large amounts of coal dust can result in more serious forms of the disease, simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis and complicated coal workers' pneumoconiosis (or Progressive massive fibrosis, or PMF).



No smoking required



Abraham3 said:


> More commonly, workers exposed to coal dust develop industrial bronchitis,[2] clinically defined as chronic bronchitis (i.e. productive cough for 3 months per year for at least 2 years) associated with workplace dust exposure.



No smoking required



Abraham3 said:


> The incidence of industrial bronchitis *varies with* age, job, exposure, and *smoking*. In nonsmokers (who are less prone to develop bronchitis than smokers), studies of coal miners have shown a 16%[3] to 17%[4] incidence of industrial bronchitis.





bripat9643 said:


> Bronchitis is not black lung disease.  Nothing you posted disproves what I said.



Everything I posted disproves what you said.  Black Lung disease is not a smoker's disease.  It is a disease which develops in people exposed to coal dust.  People who also smoke get it worse, but that's true of smokers and EVERY lung disease.



bripat9643 said:


> I exaggerated, of course, but the fact is no one could tell whether the air is cleaner 1 mile from the coal fired plant or 50 miles from the plant if you put a blind fold on them.



No one?  I'll bet ya a dollar to a doughnut that someone with an air filter and a mass spectrometer would find it child's play to discern signs of that plant.

I'd also bet you that someone coming from a region with genuinely clean air stepping directly into your front yard, would smell it.  It's surprising how quickly and how thoroughly our noses get saturated and exhausted and you simply no longer smell the aromatics to which you're constantly exposed. 



bripat9643 said:


> You're right about one thing: the added regulation is intended to drive coal from the marketplace.  The rest of your claims are bullshit.  The government doesn't have the authority to decide what forms of power generation the consumers can choose.  Where does it say that in the Constitution?  And, of course, AGW is a colossal con.



The government DOES have that right.  It's covered under the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution.  And AGW is quite real.



bripat9643 said:


> Of course, that's all bullshit, or it's none of the government's business.  The Constitution doesn't give the government authority to regulate advertising.



Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3



bripat9643 said:


> OSHA isn't needed to make workplaces safer.  Tort law is more than sufficient to take care of it.



That's an interesting viewpoint Patrick.  If my employer conducts his business in an inherently unsafe manner and I get injured because of that, I sue, he pays and, one hopes, alters his behavior to prevent further lawsuits.  Now what is it that forces all his competitors to also change their habits?  After all, if my employer changes his behavior to make his workplace safer, he has almost certainly added to his baseline costs.  It gives his competitors an advantage over him.  OSHA takes the rational and commonsense approach of applying common safety rules to ALL businesses.  No one gains a cost advantage at the risk of their employees health.

You really are a mercantile son of a bitch, aren't you.



bripat9643 said:


> The Ozone hole was another myth perpetrated by eco-wacos, and now instead of spray cans filled with harmless freon, they are filled with butane and they are extremely dangerous.



You believe the ozone hole was a myth?  You believe there was no hole?  Where do you get this stuff Patrick?  Did anyone ever really walk on the moon?  Was JFK murdered by the Secret Service?  Were the commies behind fluoridation?  Is the moon hollow and inhabited by aliens? 



Abraham3 said:


> This nation is a representative democracy.  The individuals elected to run the government and this nation are intended to represent its people, not its companies; its individuals, not its corporations.





bripat9643 said:


> Wrong again.  They are also entitled to representation and all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights and other amendments.



You are the first person I have EVER met that supported Citizens United.  Be that as it may, even Citizens United does not state that our elected officials represent business entities.



Abraham3 said:


> Their actually is a difference between the well-being of GM and the well-being of its employees and their nation.





bripat9643 said:


> You're belief that they are in conflict is where you er.



Err.  Two r's.  I didn't say they're in conflict.  I simply said they are not one and the same.


----------



## westwall (Sep 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Government funds universities.  They are the best to do that sort of research.  Company's, for the most part, don't do research, and when they have nothing to lose what research they do is limited to what they already know.  There is no real incentive to come out with anything better.

But I still say let the Chinese develop it and then we steal it from them.  I'm tired of them doing that crap.  Let them take the lead on something for once.  Let's put our research dollars into something truly revolutionary.


----------



## westwall (Sep 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Inhaled coal dust progressively builds up in the lungs and is unable to be removed by the body; that leads to inflammation, fibrosis, and in worse cases, necrosis.
> ...









Once workplace safety needs and measures are recognized any company that ignores those practices is going be destroyed in the lawsuit that follows their accident.  I guess you haven't read too much law have you.  Or even watched a episode of Law and Order.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 1, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Abraham's 97% is bogus.



It's not mine and it's not "bogus".  Five different surveys by five different sets of researchers, three of which passed peer review and one of which was published in a journal of statisticians.  The arguments that have been raised against the validity of these surveys, first, are almost exclusively made against Ken Doran's survey, pretending the others don't even exist, and, second, show a complete ignorance regarding sampling accuracy.  If a very large majority of climate scientists did NOT support AGW, I think we'd be hearing a great deal more complaints than we have been.  When Watts et al went looking for study authors who thought they'd been misrepresented by John Cook et al in the ERL survey of literature, he found three of them.  That would be three guys out of four thousand and fourteen papers (multiple authors each).  And uninvolved third parties CONFIRMED that Cook's characterization of the three author's papers were accurate.

97% of active climate scientists accept AGW.  As far as it is possible to tell, that is a fact.



Foxfyre said:


> Too much of what passes for climate science is bogus.



1) Like what?
2) What or who informs you that it is bogus?
3) What are your qualifications to judge?
4) What's your personal opinion of Al Gore? *

* - Just kidding.



Foxfyre said:


> We the people deserve better from those who would take away our liberties and control our lives in these matters.



I queried you about this before and I don't recall getting much of an answer.  But we've all got our pokers in way too many fires around here.

WHO do you believe would take away WHAT liberties and WHAT control of your life?  Are you worried about CFL light bulbs and hybrid cars?  Do wind generators and solar power plants make you nervous?  What in god's name could lead you to make such a statement?  You're a paragon of hyperbole and coming from a histrionic fruitcake like me that's saying something.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Inhaled coal dust progressively builds up in the lungs and is unable to be removed by the body; that leads to inflammation, fibrosis, and in worse cases, necrosis.
> ...



*You are the first person I have EVER met that supported Citizens United. Be that as it may, even Citizens United does not state that our elected officials represent business entities.*

If unions can spend money on politics, businesses should be allowed to do the same.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 1, 2013)

abraham3 said:


> you are the first person i have ever met that supported citizens united. Be that as it may, even citizens united does not state that our elected officials represent business entities.





toddsterpatriot said:


> if unions can spend money on politics, businesses should be allowed to do the same.



esl ?


----------



## westwall (Sep 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham's 97% is bogus.
> ...







It is total bullshit and anyone who is not part of the fraudster camp bloody well KNOWS it.
Feel free to enjoy your delusion,  but also know, you and yours are talking to yourselves...


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> It is total bullshit and anyone who is not part of the fraudster camp bloody well KNOWS it.
> Feel free to enjoy your delusion,  but also know, you and yours are talking to yourselves...



Impressive case you make there.  Foundational background established, evidence and observations, theories falsified, theories supported, predictions going this way and that.  Wow.

Yeah... wow.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> In my opinion the government should do neither.  It should offer tax incentives to those who PRODUCE cleaner, cheaper energy to the greatest number of people.  It should not be fundng energy in any way, nor should it be funding research that will inevitably be tainted just to qualify for those government dollars.



Then you have clearly changed your mind about supporting coal...!

I don't entirely disagree with your point though - and I do think feed-in tariffs have worked well in most countries where they have been used.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 1, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > The idea that you understand industry better than me is laughable
> ...



Really? Where has solar thermal been commercially tested?

They are both very new technologies with massive potential. LMFBR Breeders haveonly been really possible since 2006 - that isn't long for real potential to be clear. 

Smart people are going to want to pursue these technologies and see how things look in 5 - 10 years. It's going to take at least that long to analyse or solve any teething problems, environmental concerns etc.

What looks likely is that all three tecnhologies will be cheaper, cleaner and more efficient than anything available on the market now....and yet we know that you will oppose them out of hand, as you do here. There is only one reason to oppose them at this stage, and that is politics. Luddites oppose anything new, purely and simply because it is new. This is what holds the US back in this field.

Feed-in tariffs are anentirely flexible mechanism which allows government to do exactly what you just suggested - to use tax incentives to reward cheaper and more efficient means of electricity production. Coal does not meet that standard, so it is generally excluded.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2013)

abraham3 said:


> abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > you are the first person i have ever met that supported citizens united. Be that as it may, even citizens united does not state that our elected officials represent business entities.
> ...



fya!


----------



## westwall (Sep 2, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It is total bullshit and anyone who is not part of the fraudster camp bloody well KNOWS it.
> ...








There have been many  posts and links showing the fallacy of your BS 97% meme.  Do some research of your own for once.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 2, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Inhaled coal dust progressively builds up in the lungs and is unable to be removed by the body; that leads to inflammation, fibrosis, and in worse cases, necrosis.
> ...



No it doesn't.  Bronchitis is not Black Lung Disease.  The above applies to Bronchitis.  It proves nothing about Black Lung Disease which afflicts only miners who smoke.



Abraham3 said:


> No one?  I'll bet ya a dollar to a doughnut that someone with an air filter and a mass spectrometer would find it child's play to discern signs of that plant.



Of course a machine can detect it.  I said a person couldn't detect. What a machine cannot detect is levels of emissions from a power plant that are in any hazardous to human health. Modern coal fired power plants are so clean that they are built right in the middle of populous cities with zero reports of any ill effects.  



Abraham3 said:


> I'd also bet you that someone coming from a region with genuinely clean air stepping directly into your front yard, would smell it.  It's surprising how quickly and how thoroughly our noses get saturated and exhausted and you simply no longer smell the aromatics to which you're constantly exposed.



No they can't.  There is no smell.  Natural substances in the air such as pollen overwhelm anything coming from a power plant. 



Abraham3 said:


> The government DOES have that right.  It's covered under the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution.  And AGW is quite real.



Until FDR packed the court with political hacks that clause was always interpreted to mean that the federal government could remove impediments to commerce.  It doesn't mean that the federal government could itself become an impediment to Congress.  That's how the men who wrote the Constitution interpreted it.




Abraham3 said:


> Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3



wrong again.



Abraham3 said:


> That's an interesting viewpoint Patrick.  If my employer conducts his business in an inherently unsafe manner and I get injured because of that, I sue, he pays and, one hopes, alters his behavior to prevent further lawsuits.  Now what is it that forces all his competitors to also change their habits?  After all, if my employer changes his behavior to make his workplace safer, he has almost certainly added to his baseline costs.  It gives his competitors an advantage over him.  OSHA takes the rational and commonsense approach of applying common safety rules to ALL businesses.  No one gains a cost advantage at the risk of their employees health.



Where are you getting this "Patrick" shit?  Did I ever say my name was "Patrick?"  Your employers competitors will change their behavior because multi-million dollar lawsuits are very bad for profits.  There was recently a Stossel episode that showed a company that makes gas guns going out of business because of lawsuits.



Abraham3 said:


> You really are a mercantile son of a bitch, aren't you.



That must be your way of admitting that I'm not a gullible moron like you.



Abraham3 said:


> You believe the ozone hole was a myth?  You believe there was no hole?  Where do you get this stuff Patrick?  Did anyone ever really walk on the moon?  Was JFK murdered by the Secret Service?  Were the commies behind fluoridation?  Is the moon hollow and inhabited by aliens?



Yes, it's a myth.  You see, Ozone is made when sunlight strikes the atmosphere.  In the Winter there is no sunlight in the polar regions.  Hence the concentration of ozone is reduced.  That's all there was to the myth of the ozone "hole."




Abraham3 said:


> You are the first person I have EVER met that supported Citizens United.  Be that as it may, even Citizens United does not state that our elected officials represent business entities.



It also doesn't say that 2+2=4.  The Constitution says it applies to every person and every legal entity in the country.  Your belief that corporations don't have Constitutional rights is positively fascist.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 2, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> In my opinion the government should do neither.  It *should offer tax incentives* to those who PRODUCE cleaner, cheaper energy to the greatest number of people.  It should not be fundng energy in any way, nor should it be funding research that will inevitably be tainted just to qualify for those government dollars.



Absolutely NOT.  That is exactly the problem with the tax code.  That is a special favor to a company and that only leads to other special favors.  Why should any company get special tax incentives for anything.  There is nothing wrong with funding science in general.  You have a problem with NASA?  Do you agree with Obamas cancellation of the shuttle program?

That is funding science.  Tax breaks for green energy  that is EXACTLY what you just advocated for.  There are BIG problems with that.


----------



## daveman (Sep 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Really? Where has solar thermal been commercially tested?



Why do you speak on this subject, when you obviously know nothing about it?

List of solar thermal power stations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## numan (Sep 2, 2013)

'
the Global Heating Denialists insert their propaganda in the right-wing media, and, as always, further examination shows it up for the lying crap that it is.

*Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?*



> As we have discussed many times at Skeptical Science, although the warming of global surface air temperatures has slowed over the past decade due to a preponderance of La Niña events, the rate of heat accumulation on Earth has not slowed at all.  In fact over the past 15 years, the planet has accumulated more heat than during the previous 15 years (Figure 1).  That's global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_emphases added_
.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 2, 2013)

British Patrick said:
			
		

> No it doesn't.



Yes it does.



			
				British Patrick said:
			
		

> Bronchitis is not Black Lung Disease.



I never said it was.  Neither did the article.



			
				British Patrick said:
			
		

> The above applies to Bronchitis. It proves nothing about Black Lung Disease which afflicts only miners who smoke.



Can you not read?  Show us ANY authority that says only smoking miners get Black Lung.  



			
				British Patrick said:
			
		

> Of course a machine can detect it. I said a person couldn't detect. What a machine cannot detect is levels of emissions from a power plant that are in any hazardous to human health. Modern coal fired power plants are so clean that they are built right in the middle of populous cities with zero reports of any ill effects.



Link?



			
				Abraham3 said:
			
		

> The government DOES have that right. It's covered under the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. And AGW is quite real.





			
				British Patrick said:
			
		

> Until FDR packed the court with political hacks that clause was always interpreted to mean that the federal government could remove impediments to commerce. It doesn't mean that the federal government could itself become an impediment to Congress. That's how the men who wrote the Constitution interpreted it.



Hah.  Link?



			
				British Patrick said:
			
		

> Where are you getting this "Patrick" shit? Did I ever say my name was "Patrick?"



I don't recall you ever saying what your name might be.  Mine is actually Abraham.



			
				British Patrick said:
			
		

> Your employers competitors will change their behavior because multi-million dollar lawsuits are very bad for profits. There was recently a Stossel episode that showed a company that makes gas guns going out of business because of lawsuits.
> [/quotes]
> 
> But those suits don't take place till someone has already been hurt or killed.  You find that acceptable?
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 2, 2013)

Sigh.  I suppose it isn't enough that the huge lion's share of corporate campaign donations go to Democrats, many of whom are advocates for the global warming religion.  I accept that our warmer religionists here read none of the arguments about corporate subsidies and how they FAVOR the global warming religion.   I have long given up on anybody on the left having the will or integrity to objectively look at ANY evidence that does not support the global warming religion.

Not one of the warmers on this thread has even acknowledged the evidence put out there that all so-called oil company subsidies are non existent except for green energy programs, critical food production, assistance to low income families, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all of which most of our most passionate warmers support and would scream like stuck pigs if anybody on the right suggested such 'subsidies' should be ended.

And those of us who demand honest science, who demand that ALL the science be included in the research, who refuse to give up our liberties, options, choices, and opportunities to what could be bogus or deeply flawed science, continue to have to stay strong and keep beating the drum of reason.

The leftwing envinronmental wackos, like some other segments of society, will tear everything down we hold dear and precious if the rest of us don't stay strong.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion the government should do neither.  It should offer tax incentives to those who PRODUCE cleaner, cheaper energy to the greatest number of people.  It should not be fundng energy in any way, nor should it be funding research that will inevitably be tainted just to qualify for those government dollars.
> ...



"Worked well" to do what, pour $billions down a sewer?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 2, 2013)

Oil depletion allowance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 2, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Oil depletion allowance.



Sounds like depreciation.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Sep 3, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre -
> ...





The only realistic alternatives are oil and gas.  All these attacks on coal are financed by the petrocrats, who also create myths about other alternatives so people will be fooled into thinking that this is just a temporary theft of the coal industry's customers.  Of course, the younger generation of the oil-slimed 1% is leading the Green movement, not only to support class supremacy but because they are bored and spoiled rotten.  Truly a disposable class, they live for the touchy-feely fantasy of communing with Nature.  Devil's Island would have been a perfect and appropriately named place to dispose of all the Heirheads.

Nature is a pretty sight only to those sitting pretty.  To real Americans, it is a source of high-wage jobs and low-priced products.  The mutant preppy progs feel they have inherited superior genes and are born to rule, but they have such a passive, irrational, and primitive outlook on life that it is obvious they are unfit malignancies and must be deported or they will drag us down.  With their Daddy's Money, they can afford to be such brainless weaklings, but we can't afford them to have any influence on society at all.

OLD SCHOOL:  Paul Bunyan
NEW AGE:  Paul Lynde


----------



## PrometheusBound (Sep 3, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 3, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I am suggesting that the government give nothing to any company period.  There is zero reason to mix government and corporation unless you actually like a corporatocracy.  As soon as government gets involved they have a vested interest in the success or failure and you see what we have.  Personal handouts to favored companies and limited competition as the beg companies in each field make it essentially illegal to compete.  

If the government thinks that green energy is a viable tech then they can fund the research.  Just like they do with NASA.  I dont mind actual research but I do mind corporate involvement in the government.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 3, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I'm impressed as hell at your completely organized list of folks that have to die to validate your intellectual superiority --- but I'm not sure you're lucid enough to convince others.

There is some truth that the eco-frauds have no idea how the real world works. And no ability to evaluate the efficacy of shit that they DEMAND. That's not because they're spoiled rotten -- it's because they've been cheated out of thinking for themselves and a decent education.. 

There's a lot of sucking off "daddy's money" right now -- because innovation and risk-taking is vaporizing before our eyes. So is the standard of American life. Problem AIN'T the existing pools of money.. It's vision and leadership and will to CREATE.. 

People with fatalistic visions of "everyone else is the problem" are NOT visionary leaders who create.. OR --- in your case perhaps --- there's a 1% cabal that's standing in your way of terraforming the world in your own glowing image.. 



Perhaps if we all agree that having the Fed Govt pick all the winners and losers is counterproductive to ENCOURAGING the creation of smart new tech ventures, you'll be surprised to find who shows up to play the game and how many folks end up winning.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 3, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Gotta love that clean coal.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Sep 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It's either us or them.  Typically, you want us to ignore them and pretend that they don't have power over us.  And your proposal is contradicted by reality; you advocate the exact thing that is dragging us down:  ownership of corporate patents by investors instead of inventors.  And of course, you blindly continue with the demoralizing disincentive of getting a job by going years without a job, which doesn't affect the guillotine-fodder Heirheads with their fat allowances.  I am not afraid of them, I am not afraid to wage class warfare against upper-class parasites.  Only fools would see your pacifism as anything but protection of our natural enemies.  A country based on birth and not worth will self-destruct.  If your heroes believe they have a right to give unearned advantages to their Heirheads, then they must have gotten their own loot through luck or cheating.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 5, 2013)

There's a padded room down the hall on the left if you two would care to step down there and iron out your differences.

I love getting on the case of the "heirheads" because they think problems are all caused by someone else.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> There's a padded room down the hall on the left if you two would care to step down there and iron out your differences.
> 
> I love getting on the case of the "heirheads" because they think problems are all caused by someone else.



In other words, if you had been a high school baseball player, you wouldn't have minded if the prep schools got to start every inning with the bases loaded?  Of course you wouldn't have, what am I thinking, expecting you to care about unearned privileges!  Just like you don't care what it does to America to have the spoiled slime that oozes out of a Greedhead's trophy wife be put ahead of real Americans with a lot more talent, you wouldn't have cared if your team lost to the guillotine-fodder all the time.  It wouldn't affect your own stats, (which in real life are just brownie points, not the real achievement that would get you ahead in this analogy), and that's all that matters to a sociopath.  After all, there's no I in "team," so that makes it socialist, just like patriotism, if you ever told people what you really think of your fellow Americans. 

And if you were good, maybe you'd get a college scholarship or turn pro, since the scouts would just look at your own stats.  Then you'd become rich enough to have your own sons start every inning with the bases loaded.  So why shouldn't we take all the money that you've stolen from us, once we realize that it is only your own conceit, backed up by the predators, that makes you think you are necessary and valuable to the economy?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> In other words, if you had been a high school baseball player, you wouldn't have minded if the prep schools got to start every inning with the bases loaded?  Of course you wouldn't have, what am I thinking, expecting you to care about unearned privileges!  Just like you don't care what it does to America to have the spoiled slime that oozes out of a Greedhead's trophy wife be put ahead of real Americans with a lot more talent, you wouldn't have cared if your team lost to the guillotine-fodder all the time.  It wouldn't affect your own stats, (which in real life are just brownie points, not the real achievement that would get you ahead in this analogy), and that's all that matters to a sociopath.  After all, there's no I in "team," so that makes it socialist, just like patriotism, if you ever told people what you really think of your fellow Americans.
> 
> And if you were good, maybe you'd get a college scholarship or turn pro, since the scouts would just look at your own stats.  Then you'd become rich enough to have your own sons start every inning with the bases loaded.  So why shouldn't we take all the money that you've stolen from us, once we realize that it is only your own conceit, backed up by the predators, that makes you think you are necessary and valuable to the economy?



I gotta stop shooting for subtlety.  My point was that you criticize the "heirheads" for blaming others for our problems... which is you blaming the "heirheads" for our problems.  Get it?  You're doing just what you're criticizing the "heirheads" of doing.  Okay?  Clear?

Hey... not that I don't appreciate the psycho rant.  You stick to your guns.  

Here's one for you Promey...

*Marat/Sade*
4 years after the revolution
and the old kings execution
4 years after remember how
those portia took their final bow

String up every aristocrat
Out with the priests and let then live on their fat

Four years after we started fighting
Marat keeps up with his writing
Four years after the bastille fell
He still recalls the old battle yell

Down with all of the ruling class
Throw all the generals out on their ass

Why do they have the gold
Why do they have the power why why why why why
Do they have the friends at the top

Why do they have the jobs at the top

We've got nothing always had nothing
Nothing but holes and millions of them
Living in holes
Dying in holes
Holes in our bellies and
Holes in our clothes

Marat we're poor
And the poor stay poor
Marat don't make us wait any more
We want our rights and we don't care how
We want a revolution
Now

Four years he fought and he fought unafraid
Sniffing down traitors by traitors betrayed
Marat in the courtroom
Marat underground
Sometimes the otter and sometimes the hound

Fighting all the gentry and fighting every priest
The business man the bourgeois the military beast
Marat always ready to stifle every scheme
Of the sons of the ass licking dying regime

We've got new generals our leaders are new
They sit and they argue and all that they do
is sell their own colleagues
And ride upon their backs
Or jail them
Or break them
Or give them all the ax
Screaming in language that no one understand
Of the rights that we grab with our own bleeding hands
When we wiped out the bosses
And stormed threw the wall of the prison you told us
would outlast us all

Marat we're poor
And the poor stay poor
Marat don't make us wait any more.
We want our rights and we don't care how
We want a revolution
Now

Poor old marat they hunt you down
The bloodhounds are sniffing all over the town
Just yesterday your printing press was smashed
Now their asking your home address

Poor old Marat in you we trust
You work till your eyes turn as red a rust
But while you write their on your track
The boots mount the staircase
The doors thrown back

Poor old Marat in you we trust
You work till your eyes turn as red a rust
Poor old marat we trust in you

Marat we're poor
And the poor stay poor
Marat don't make us wait any more
We want our rights and we don't care how
We want a revolution
Now

   ---Judy Collins (I think)


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Oil depletion allowance.



The company spent the money first

See the difference


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Oil depletion allowance.
> ...



And so if they had only planned on staying in business for a single year, this would have been awkward and of little benefit.  ;-)

Did they benefit from this?  Yes.

Did this benefit reduce government revenues?  Yes.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> If you listened to the recording and this is all you have to say in response, why in god's name do you bother?  Is your existence so filled with ignominy and bleak despair that these tawdry bangles of other's wit are, to your mind, fitting?  Turn around.  See the sun.  Walk till your feet are wet.



This is why we don't take you seriously.

2013 conflict in Syria blamed on drought caused by global warming ? Flashback 1933: ?YO-YO BANNED IN SYRIA ? Blamed For Drought By Moslems? | Climate Depot


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



Yes, businesses benefit from writing off their business expenses.
For instance, they can write off employee salaries. Good thing too.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 7, 2013)

Is that comment supposed to have any relevance or is it just absurdist humor?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 7, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Is that comment supposed to have any relevance or is it just absurdist humor?



Weren't you whining about businnesses writing off their expenses?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)

The whole 97% thing is a total ruse.......

But don't take my word for it......see what the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says >>>>


"The consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. The survey methodology therefore fails to address the key points that are in dispute in the global warming debate."

If you still believe in 'climate change' read this? ? Telegraph Blogs



Lets remember.......the climate crusaders have a need to be in a perpetual state of angst over this stuff.....a search for meaning in their lives leads them to obsessing about shit that virtually nobody else cares about!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)

In 2013, the current state of climate crusader efforts.........


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)

God I love this forum!!!!


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Is that comment supposed to have any relevance or is it just absurdist humor?
> ...



I don't whine*.  I was explaining things to you that you appeared not to understand.

* But you snark almost constantly


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> The whole 97% thing is a total ruse.......
> 
> But don't take my word for it......see what the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says >
> The consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. The survey methodology therefore fails to address the key points that are in dispute in the global warming debate."
> ...



Webster's

RUSE: a trick, stratagem, or artifice.

Is that what the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation actually said?  Why NO.  And what is the Global Warming Policy Foundation?  Let's look and see what sort of places Skooker goes when he wants a good quote:

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

Hmmm... tch, tch tch.  We are not impressed... or amused.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > The whole 97% thing is a total ruse.......
> ...





That's right.......clearly, there are zero special interests involved in climate change science!!!!!


Bret Stephens: Climategate: Follow the Money - WSJ.com



And anyway.......presenting bogus data as scientific fact is gay.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Excellent! Business write off does not equal subsidy.

Glad we're on the same page.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > The whole 97% thing is a total ruse.......
> ...


Montford wrote the paper; it was published by the GWPF.

Here's the paper:  http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf -- not that you'll read it.

It's an interesting paper.  It shows how Cook _et. al._ started with their conclusion, then looked for data to support it.  The didn't mind outright lying, either:
This understanding of the Cook paper is confirmed by some surprising 
categorisations of individual papers, with publications by the most prominent critics 
of mainstream climate science said to endorse the consensus. For example, a paper 
by Nir Shaviv,8 in the past described by Skeptical Science as a denier,9 was classified 
as Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise global warming. 

Shaviv has rejected this classification of his work entirely:
it is not an accurate representation [of my work]. The paper shows that
climate sensitivity is lowI couldnt write these things more explicitly in the 
paper because of the refereeing, however, you dont have to be a genius to reach 
these conclusions from the paper.10​Similarly, Alan Carlin, formerly of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has 
criticised Cook et al.s classification of his paper as explicitly endorsing, but not 
minimising global warming, noting that the abstract makes clear his belief that 
carbon dioxide will produce very little warming:
The economic benefits of reducing CO2  emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate 
sensitivity factoris much lower than assumed by the United Nations because 
feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions 
reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.11​The treatment of the Shaviv paper is particularly interesting: its author did not 
actively downplay global warming in the text because this would have made it 
difficult to get the paper through peer review. So because of this silence on the 
extent of manmade influence, its classification as endorsing the consensus was 
correct according to the protocol set out for the raters. 

It can be seen from these comments that both these authors accept that carbon 
dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but believe that climate sensitivity  the amount of 
warming we should expect  is low. The example of endorsement given in the 
guidelines  Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes 
contribute to global climate change  would not have been contradictory in either 
paper. Again, one is left with the impression that the classification was correct, 
confirming the shallow nature of the consensus.​
Like the rest of climate science, this study was simply badly done.

But, hey -- the suckers fell for it.

Didn't you?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Out of over four thousand papers judged in this regard, your side of the argument has come up with a total of three authors that disagree.  And, of course, this says nothing about the author's self-assessment, which almost exactly matched Cook's survey of the literature.

But, hey, some folks just don't want to believe the evidence in front of their very eyes.

And why ANYONE would take Andrew Montford's word for ANYTHING is beyond belief.  He has no training or expertise in statistics or any of the climate sciences.

GWPF is a mouthpiece for Exxon/Mobil and lacks the scientific credentials to mow your grass.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> That's right.......clearly, there are zero special interests involved in climate change science



Clearly there is zero value in a Skooker post.



skookerasbil said:


> And anyway.......presenting bogus data as scientific fact is gay.



Skooker, on top of your other impressive qualifications for lucid and intelligent debate, are you also a homophobe?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sorry but no.  My page lacks the free-ranging hallucinations yours seems to sport.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Yep, I can tell you didn't read the paper.

Why are you so afraid of conflicting views?  I though you welcomed discussion.  You don't, actually.  You're terrified of it.

You're dismissed.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 8, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Oil depletion allowance.
> ...



What Abraham3 said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Your confusion about subsidies suggests the LSD user was you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

But I am suffering no confusion about subsidies.  If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group (say, the petrochemical industry, or wind farms, or nuclear power stations or coal mining companies) and by doing so either expends public funds or reduces revenues to the public exchequer, then I would lump that activity into the soup tureen currently under discussion.  It doesn't really matter how its accomplished - if the government spends our money on them, we need to know about it and we need to express our happiness or our displeasure at the practice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> But I am suffering no confusion about subsidies.  If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group (say, the petrochemical industry, or wind farms, or nuclear power stations or coal mining companies) and by doing so either expends public funds or reduces revenues to the public exchequer, then I would lump that activity into the soup tureen currently under discussion.  It doesn't really matter how its accomplished - if the government spends our money on them, we need to know about it and we need to express our happiness or our displeasure at the practice.



*If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group *

If the government allows every business to deduct their business expenses, to calculate taxable earnings, is that "an action that benefits a restricted group"?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > But I am suffering no confusion about subsidies.  If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group (say, the petrochemical industry, or wind farms, or nuclear power stations or coal mining companies) and by doing so either expends public funds or reduces revenues to the public exchequer, then I would lump that activity into the soup tureen currently under discussion.  It doesn't really matter how its accomplished - if the government spends our money on them, we need to know about it and we need to express our happiness or our displeasure at the practice.
> ...



Ordinary people can't deduct their work expenses on a non business form.  Why should businesses get special treatment for their expenses?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > But I am suffering no confusion about subsidies.  If a government takes an action that benefits a restricted group (say, the petrochemical industry, or wind farms, or nuclear power stations or coal mining companies) and by doing so either expends public funds or reduces revenues to the public exchequer, then I would lump that activity into the soup tureen currently under discussion.  It doesn't really matter how its accomplished - if the government spends our money on them, we need to know about it and we need to express our happiness or our displeasure at the practice.
> ...



Of course it is.  Note, however, that I did not condemn such practices.  I simply said citizens should be aware of them and should voice their opinion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



*Ordinary people can't deduct their work expenses on a non business form.*

What work expenses do you have that you feel you should be able to deduct?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



*Of course it is.*

Every business in the country is a restricted group?

*I simply said citizens should be aware of them and should voice their opinion.*

Based on the discussion here, the ones complaining about them have voiced their opinion and, for the most part, exposed their poor understanding.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Work clothes, tools, transporatation, lunches, whores.


----------



## daveman (Sep 8, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Ordinary people can't deduct their work expenses on a non business form.


Ummm...

Tax Topics - Topic 514 Employee Business Expenses

Topic 514 - Employee Business Expenses
If you are an employee, you may be able to deduct your work-related expenses as an itemized deduction (subject to limitations) on Form 1040, Schedule A (PDF). Additional information on this subject can be found in the Form 1040, Schedule A Instructions. Also, you may refer to Topic 511 for additional information on business travel expenses.​


----------



## Snookie (Sep 8, 2013)

daveman said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Ordinary people can't deduct their work expenses on a non business form.
> ...


I'm retired.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



You're a 10,000 volt ignoramus.  The income tax allows government to tax income.  For a business income is defined as revenue minus expenses.   "Work expenses" are not business expenses.  The IRS doesn't allow you to use them to calculate your income.  You may not like it, but take it up with the IRS.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



Work clothes (if not reimbursed by the employer and required) ARE deductible. 

Why isn't your employer reimbursing for tools and transport? 
If you are SELF-EMPLOYED -- you can deduct it.

I can't deduct lunches unless it's BUSINESS related even as a biz owner. If its biz, your EMPLOYER should subsidize it.

Whores are always deductible as long as they are consultants with a notepad.. 

Whattheflock you bitchin' about Snookie-poo?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If you are self employed you have to pay double ss taxes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

Snookie said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



You get to deduct half.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You have to pay half.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 9, 2013)

If you are self employed, the costs of doing business are not included in your adjusted gross income on your income tax form.

If you work for wages, you cannot use the required expenses associated with your job to reduce your adjusted gross income, the expenses you can deduct are pretty restricted, and you can only deduct the amount that exceeds 2% of your adjusted gross income which often means most won't be deductible at all.

And this has what to do with global warming?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> If you are self employed, the costs of doing business are not included in your adjusted gross income on your income tax form.
> 
> If you work for wages, you cannot use the required expenses associated with your job to reduce your adjusted gross income, the expenses you can deduct are pretty restricted, and you can only deduct the amount that exceeds 2% of your adjusted gross income which often means most won't be deductible at all.
> 
> And this has what to do with global warming?



Verbal discourse causing friction,  producing heat.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 9, 2013)

By the way, I was just reading that the arctic summer ice melt was way less than predicted and  just days before the winter freeze begins, the ice cover in the arctic is at near average levels.  The ice cover in the Anarctic is at record levels.

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

But to be fair, here is the rebuttal to that by the proverbial 97%:
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

And what appears to be a non-alarmist, reasoned discussion of arctic conditions here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 9, 2013)

Snookie said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



Yeah... Aint that a bitch? So what? THAT'S THE INDIVIDUAL RATE.. 
It's Kabuki theatre to think that "your employer pays the other half".. It comes out of your hide one way or another. 

How is it a BENEFIT FOR BIZ to have to do TAX COLLECTION for Fed/State/Local govts and PAY FICA taxes?? 

What does all this have to do with the RIDICULOUS claims of "oil subsidies" that aren't subsidies or UNIQUE tax breaks??? Treat ALL people the same.. Treat ALL businesses the same. 

I've seen claims that the US HIGHWAY system is a "tax break for the oil companies".. The numbers are ludicrously padded and fudged..


----------



## Vox (Sep 9, 2013)

there is no 97%.

it is 0.3%


----------



## Vox (Sep 9, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> who cares?
> 
> 
> The only % that matters is the 3% in blue there on the graph below!!! That little itty bitty blue sliver there that makes me laugh my balls off every time i see it!!!
> ...




good


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 9, 2013)

The 97% is demonstrably real.

The contention that they are PROBABLY correct, is unassailable.


----------



## daveman (Sep 9, 2013)

Snookie said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...


So?  You're also wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The 97% is demonstrably real.
> 
> The contention that they are PROBABLY correct, is unassailable.



Probably correct about what, exactly?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The 97% is demonstrably real.
> ...



If you asked 1000 scientists if spitting in the ocean would make sea level rise, probably at least 99% would say yes.  Then the global warming nutburgers would run around hysterically screaming that a "consensus of scientists" agreed that rising sea levels were going to wipe out civilization.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 9, 2013)

Is that really the best you've got?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 9, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Is that really the best you've got?



That's good enough to dispatch the swill you spew into this forum.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 10, 2013)

I'm sorry but it's really not.  

Five different studies find nearly identical numbers for AGW support among climate  scientists.  The criticisms you bring come neither from experts in climate science or statistics.  They invariably attack single surveys and seem to pretend the rest don't exist.  So... no, I'm not the one spewing swill into this forum.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I'm sorry but it's really not.
> 
> Five different studies find nearly identical numbers for AGW support among climate  scientists.  The criticisms you bring come neither from experts in climate science or statistics.  They invariably attack single surveys and seem to pretend the rest don't exist.  So... no, I'm not the one spewing swill into this forum.



The point is, Abraham, is that Bripat is right.  Spitting into the ocean DOES raise the ocean level just as a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather miles away.  All climate scientists worth their salt would agree with that.  But we have no instruments capable of even measuring, much less utilizing,  variables at that level and no scientist worth his salt would say that such variables are significant to any living thing that exists.

Now extrapolate the same concept to global warming.  Nobody, and I mean nobody would say that human activity does not affect the environment/weather/climate/global conditions.  It does as the activity of all living things affects environment/weather/climate/global conditions.

So to say that 97% or even 100% of scientists worth their salt agree that humankind is contributing to global warming is an accurate statement.  It is.  We do.

But the problem comes in when you ask the same number of scientists whether human activity is contributing to global warming in a way that is hazardous or significant to the well being of the planet and the creatures that live on it.  You will find a much MUCH lower percentage of scientists who will say that there is any conclusive or credible evidence of that, and almost all of those who do will be receiving grants from governments or groups who WANT there to be global warming.

Intelligent people take note of these facts.

AGW religionists wear blinders that keep them from even considering any other doctrine that what their religion preaches.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry but it's really not.
> ...



Certainly we are surviving today's level of AGW.  

There are many things left to ponder though.  

If we stopped today,  what would be the ultimate consequences of our present GHG concentrations? Especially considering positive feedbacks. 

We can't stop today,  so our choice really is,  how much of the carbon still in the ground should we leave sequestered? 

We have to progress to sustainable energy at some point.  Will we release all of the carbon that created a planet inhospitable to life the last time it was in our atmosphere no matter what we do? That would be utterly disastrous. 

There are thousands of affordable ways to slow down the rate of making things worse,  if,  in fact,  we still can avoid worse. 

The only way that we're going to find them is through the work of the IPCC.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere.  If that was the goal, the insane carbon credit schemes would never have been implemented, the countries that are the largest GHG polluters (China and India) would have been front and foremost as targets to rein in instead of giving them exemptions which they both got.

It is reasonable to be highly suspicious that the goal is to put the nations--at least the ones that they can hoodwink and manipulate--under one world law or international control.  

If the IPCC was as honest and honorably motivated as the AGW religionist want to believe it is, it would not need to resort to so many underhanded, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to further its religion in the world.

Freedom loving people must always question the motives of those who would control what libeties we are allowed to have and would dictate to us what choices, option, and opportunities we will be allowed.


----------



## numan (Sep 10, 2013)

'

Foxfyre is in favor of a mass suicide pact in defence of Liberty.

.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The 97% is demonstrably real.
> 
> The contention that they are PROBABLY correct, is unassailable.



REAL science is NEVER settled.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> Foxfyre is in favor of a mass suicide pact in defence of Liberty.
> 
> .


You're in favor of putting a bullet in everyone's head to save them.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The 97% is demonstrably real.
> 
> The contention that they are PROBABLY correct, is unassailable.



Still this 97% consensus exists only in the voices in your head --- AND in a full of baloney "study" produced and directed by the WORST science blog on the web.. 

skepticalscience.com

Who had to lie and CHEAT to promulgate the PERCEPTION that 97% of climate scientists agree with every little voice in your head.. 
It is a CRAPPY STUNT to study 1100 global warming papers and discard the 60% that gave NO EXPRESS OPINION on the anthro origins or magnitude of the threat ---- 

.... and then count ONLY the 40% that DID express ANY OPINION --- and claim that means 97% of ALL climate scientists are in "consensus".. 

If that's your level of dialogue here ---- you're not even gonna win the HS drop out demographic..


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 10, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> Foxfyre is in favor of a mass suicide pact in defence of Liberty.
> 
> .



Like most liberals, Numan is incapable of discussing a concept but rather resorts to idiotic and stupid ad hominem one liners.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry but it's really not.
> ...



The question, as understood by every person across the planet with the slightest interest in global warming, has ALWAYS been: are human GHG emissions the DOMINANT or PRIMARY or MAJOR factor causing global warming over the last 150 years.  To suggest that they are all responding to a "spitting in the ocean" scenario is unsupportable.  Most of the five surveys clearly ask about dominant causes and all five surveys accumulate nearly identical results.

Surely you people realize how far you are having to stretch to argue against this point.

  THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS HAS BEEN PREDOMINANTLY ANTHROPOGENIC IN NATURE.

To dispute that is to mark yourself as being interested in something other than the truth.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The goal of the IPCC is to manage and  report to the UN the ever on-going developing science of AGW.  The only reasons to believe otherwise are politically motivated.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The 97% is demonstrably real.
> ...



Define settled.  If  you mean static,  I agree.  If you mean something else,  what?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



I thought that that was the job of gunslingers.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The IPCC is fatally flawed, riddled with corruption and incompetence.

The proof is here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312288-is-this-sop-at-the-ipcc.html


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I mean what retards mean when they say the science is settled.

What do you mean when you say it?


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



  In the Dark Tower series, mostly, gunslingers are diplomats.


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The 97% is demonstrably real.
> 
> The contention that they are PROBABLY correct, is unassailable.








"that they are PROBABLY correct is unassailable".....

What a laughable statement....


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...









No, to dispute that statement is to reinforce the observation that climatology and climatologists who push that agenda are not dealing with reality or with facts.  They are dealing purely in propaganda.  There is zero empirical data to support their opinion.  All they have are computer models of proven incompetence.

Sceptics on the other hand have the foundation of the scientific method, the principle of uniformitarianism, and of course historical fact to support us.


----------



## daveman (Sep 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Nuh-uh!  Nuh-UH!!  NUH-UH, you big DOODYHEAD!!!

/Abraham3


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



And in rebuttal:



> It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
> 
> Dont look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respond The even larger climate shocks you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.
> ents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
> ...




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
> 
> H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
> 
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings.  Have a listen.  See what you think.  Tell us about it.
> 
> Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube
> 
> ...



Here's another You tube video that must, at all costs, be avoided by the denial community. And undoubtedly will be. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXaruC4vJCU&sns=em]Global Warming: Is the Science Settled Enough for Policy? - YouTube[/ame]

The truth of the IPCC is so simple and obvious, but the science has been victimized by the politics.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So, you have no idea what you are trying to say. 

As in every field, some thing's are certain and some not.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Glory be. Finally. Someone with the science that explains how GHGs cannot create AGW. I knew that if I asked enough times, someone would make up an answer. I can't wait.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I believe that it is a mistake to say that deniers care at all what scientists think. They don't. What they care about can be precisely stated as imposing their political will on the rest of the world. Science is merely an obstacle to that.


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings.  Have a listen.  See what you think.  Tell us about it.
> ...











What's amusing is the few predictions he made have all failed.  There was over 40 minutes of "I told you so" and appeals to authority with nothing actually being said.  What a sad, sad, state of affairs in the climatology world....


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...










That's not how science works idiot.  You have made a claim, you have to back it up with empirical data.  I don't have to disprove anything.  You are the one who has to PROOOOVE (sic) your hypothesis.

That's how the null hypothesis system works.  You clowns have failed completely so you are trying to rewrite the scientific system....just like Lyshenko did.

Pathetic....


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...









  You are so full of shit I'm amazed you can actually walk.  It is YOU and your fellow travelers who are trying to impose political controls on the world to enrich your corporate masters and entrench your political operatives by abrogating the individual rights of the citizens of this planet.

You will fail...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



"IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere"

You are absolutely right. It's not possible to reduce the GHGs that are already in the atmosphere. They might over hundreds of years decline naturally but mankind will play no role in that. 

The goal of the IPCC is to develop the scientific understanding of the impact to climate of GHGs at the current level and any possible predictable future levels. That's it. The whole story. 

Nobody knows yet what the current level will bring about in terms of AGW, mostly because the positive feedbacks are still unfolding. And will for decades. 

We know the rate at which the GHG concentrations are rising, but we don't know yet how mankind will respond to the threat.

We do know one thing though. When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life. 

So, what are the choices? We know without doubt that we will have to convert to sustainable energy someday. If we wait as long as possible to start that we will have put all of the sequestered carbon back where it was when the climate was inhospitable to life. 

What if we could do what has to be done someday, sooner. Could we leave some of that problematic carbon sequestered where it is? You betcha. But what consequences would that save us. We got science to answer that and we have the IPCC to work the science. 

Is there really any alternative to the path that we're on?


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









You haven't even demonstrated that there is a "threat" nimrod.  CO2 is the foundational building block of ALL life on this planet.  Only a fool who wishes to kill all life on this world of ours would try and reduce it.  It is a fact that if CO2 atmospheric concentrations are lowered to 200ppm NOTHING GROWS.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Can you be specific about predictions that he made in that speech that have failed?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Show us the science that says that atmospheric GHGs do not warm the planet.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Glory be. Finally. Someone with the science that explains how GHGs cannot create AGW. I knew that if I asked enough times, someone would make up an answer. I can't wait.



I've never said that doubling CO2 could not warm the atmosphere. You are waiting for something that won't ever happen because MOST skeptics have never said that.

The calculations for increased surface temperature for a doubling of CO2 from 250 to 500ppm are pretty trivial.. With some help -- you and your remedial science tutor might be able to handle it.. So in 2050 or whenever we reach 500ppm --- SCIENCE SAYS --- the surface MIGHT warm by 1.2degC from the 1850s.... (assuming there are not higher forcings at work from NATURAL effects or NEGATIVE feedbacks present)

THAT'S what CO2 will do to surface temp.. And THAT is more on the order of settled science than the arrogant and useless ranges of "amplication and feedbacks" that constitute the wishful thinking part of AGW theory.. 

BTW --- since the CO2 is logarithmic, not linear -- the next doubling after that will take the atmosphere 500 ppm higher --- not a mere 250ppm.

So --- you're done MISREPRESENTING at least MY position here. I ask you NOT to misrepresent it again...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Why else would you spend all of this political effort trying to discredit proven, certain science and proven competent scientists? 

You're either a sheep or a wolf.


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Show us the science that says GHG's other than water vapor do....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life. *

Before plants sequestered the carbon as coal and oil, the climate was "inhospitable to life"?

Damn, do you realize how stupid you sound?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Glory be. Finally. Someone with the science that explains how GHGs cannot create AGW. I knew that if I asked enough times, someone would make up an answer. I can't wait.
> ...



So your science new to the debate is to ignore positive feedbacks because you don't like the answer if they are considered. 

Politics. Pure power politics. Zero science. 

Start with what answer you want then only consider things that support that answer. 

You're a complete fraud.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 10, 2013)

Just for kicks I'd be curious about Dr. Dessler's salary at Tx. A&M. Does he oversee something like a federal grant that funds research for "global warming"studies? No Offense Doc, I'd probably fudge data and predict anything the federal government grant wants me to if it means putting my kids in the best colleges and keeping that Lexus in my gated community garage. If a science is scientifically accepted it should include 100% of scientists. What do the 3% of allegedly accredited (but unfunded?) scientists have to say about Dr. Dessler's hypothesis?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Look up Carboniferous Period. You'll be amazed at how much you don't know.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



GHGs are DEFINED as compounds that absorb longwave EM. *DEFINED*.

When are you going to stop asking and start showing any evidence at all that of what you want to be true, is?????


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No life in the Carboniferous Period?

You're right, I didn't know that.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Just for kicks I'd be curious about Dr. Dessler's salary at Tx. A&M. Does he oversee something like a federal grant that funds research for "global warming"studies? No Offense Doc, I'd probably fudge data and predict anything the federal government grant wants me to if it means putting my kids in the best colleges and keeping that Lexus in my gated community garage. If a science is scientifically accepted it should include 100% of scientists. What do the 3% of allegedly accredited (but unfunded?) scientists have to say about Dr. Dessler's hypothesis?




What was the last topic that you know of that 100% of any large group agreed on?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The stupid act is typically the last resort. 

What do you think inhospitable means.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Carboniferous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it's only Wikipedia, but it says.....


Terrestrial life was well established by the Carboniferous period. Amphibians were the dominant land vertebrates, of which one branch would eventually evolve into reptiles, the first fully terrestrial vertebrates. Arthropods were also very common, and many (such as Meganeura), were much larger than those of today. Vast swaths of forest covered the land, which would eventually be laid down and become the coal beds characteristic of the Carboniferous system. 

It also said.....Mean surface temperature over period duration.... ca. 14 °C  *(0 °C above modern level)*

You're right, it was too hot for life. 

Shit......everytime you make another claim, you actually sound dumber.
I didn't think it was possible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It means you're an idiot.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The Toddbot surrenders again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your idiocy makes me sad, it doesn't make me surrender.

So why exactly was the Carboniferous inhospitable?

Spell it out in your post.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Go back to Wikipedia and look up "mean". It was hot to begin with and as plant life lowered GHGs it got cold. Now we're going in the opposite direction. From cold to hot. Or at least warmer by a few degrees. 

I know that you're a little slow tonight but give that some thought.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



All that abundant plant and animal life made it unpleasant to have garden parties.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What happened to life after the Carboniferous Period when the climate that you want to recreate was replaced by a climate more like what we've adapted to?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Are you truly suggesting that the carboniferous period was inhospitable to life?  Do you even have a clue where coal and oil and natural gas comes from?   Do you honestly think it materialized out of the CO2 in the atmosphere?  Good grief, the public school system is worse than I thought.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



'' Do you honestly think it materialized out of the CO2 in the atmosphere?''

What do you think plants and animals are made of?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Plants breathe carbon dioxide and then convert it to oxygen.  

Good point.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Snookie said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



What do they do with the carbon?

They build themselves with it. 

Then they get eaten by animals who build themselves with the same carbon. 

When the carbon based life died in the Carboniferous period all of that carbon got trapped under ground. Until we dug it up and burned it back into the atmosphere where it came from originally.

It's too bad that carbon in that form is a greenhouse gas. Too bad, but not a surprise. We knew what it does and didn't care. Now we do. Except for conservatives who only care about themselves.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

New theory. 

This is the life that was around during theCarboniferous period. (From Wikipedia)

"Terrestrial life was well established by the Carboniferous period. Amphibians were the dominant land vertebrates, of which one branch would eventually evolve into reptiles, the first fully terrestrial vertebrates. Arthropods were also very common, and many (such as Meganeura), were much larger than those of today. Vast swaths of forest covered the land, which would eventually be laid down and become the coal beds characteristic of the Carboniferous system. A minor marine and terrestrial extinction event occurred in the middle of the period, caused by a change in climate.[8] The later half of the period experienced glaciations, low sea level, and mountain building as the continents collided to form Pangaea."

Why do you suppose conservatives want to restore the climate that nourished pre lizards?

Competition that they can outsmart.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Again, only Wikipedia......

*Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration

ca. 800 ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)*

The mean temperature was the same but the mean CO2 was twice our current level?

Wow, you keep looking dumber.......


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Show us your evidence that we aren't headed to 800 ppm.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You mean we might reach the 800 ppm level that gave the planet a mean temperature of 14 C in the Carboniferous?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

What If We Burn Everything?
by FRASER CAIN on NOVEMBER 2, 2005

If humans continue to use fossil fuels in a business-as-usual manner for the next few centuries, the polar ice caps will be depleted, ocean sea levels will rise by seven meters and median air temperatures will soar to 14.5 degrees warmer than current day.

These are the stunning results of climate and carbon cycle model simulations conducted by scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. By using a coupled climate and carbon cycle model to look at global climate and carbon cycle changes, the scientists found that the earth would warm by 8 degrees Celsius (14.5 degrees Fahrenheit) if humans use the entire planet&#8217;s available fossil fuels by the year 2300.

The jump in temperature would have alarming consequences for the polar ice caps and the ocean, said lead author Govindasamy Bala of the Laboratory&#8217;s Energy and Environment Directorate.

In the polar regions alone, the temperature would spike more than 20 degrees Celsius, forcing the land in the region to change from ice and tundra to boreal forests.

&#8220;The temperature estimate is actually conservative because the model didn&#8217;t take into consideration changing land use such as deforestation and build-out of cities into outlying wilderness areas,&#8221; Bala said.

Today&#8217;s level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 380 parts per million (ppm). By the year 2300, the model predicts that amount would nearly quadruple to 1,423 ppm.

In the simulations, soil and living biomass are net carbon sinks, which would extract a significant amount of carbon dioxide that otherwise would remain in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. The real scenario, however, might be a bit different.

&#8220;The land ecosystem would not take up as much carbon dioxide as the model assumes,&#8221; Bala said. &#8220;In fact in the model, it takes up much more carbon than it would in the real world because the model did not have nitrogen/nutrient limitations to uptake. We also didn&#8217;t take into account land use changes, such as the clearing of forests.&#8221;

The model shows that ocean uptake of CO² begins to decrease in the 22nd and 23rd centuries due to the warming of the ocean surface that drives CO² fluctuations out of the ocean. It takes longer for the ocean to absorb CO² than biomass and soil.

By the year 2300, about 38 percent and 17 percent of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of all fossil fuels are taken up by land and the ocean, respectively. The remaining 45 percent stays in the atmosphere.

Whether carbon dioxide is released in the atmosphere or the ocean, eventually about 80 percent of CO² will end up in the ocean in a form that will make the ocean more acidic. While the carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, it could produce adverse climate change. When it enters the ocean, the acidification could be harmful to marine life.

The models predict quite a drastic change not only in the temperature of the oceans but also in its acidity content, which would become especially harmful for marine organisms with shells and skeletal material made out of calcium carbonate.

Calcium carbonate organisms, such as coral, serve as climate stabilizers. When the organisms die, their carbonate shells and skeletons settle to the ocean floor, where some dissolve and some are buried in sediments. These deposits help regulate the chemistry of the ocean and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Earlier Livermore research, however, found that unrestrained release of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could threaten extinction for these climate-stabilizing marine organisms.

&#8220;The doubled-CO² climate that scientists have warned about for decades is beginning to look like a goal we might attain if we work hard to limit CO² emissions, rather than the terrible outcome that might occur if we do nothing,&#8221; said Ken Caldeira of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution and one of the other authors.

Bala said the most drastic changes during the 300-year period would be during the 22nd century, when precipitation change, an increase in atmospheric precipitable water and a decrease in sea ice size are the largest and when emissions rates are the highest. According to the model, sea ice cover disappears almost completely in the northern hemisphere by the year 2150 during northern hemisphere summers.

&#8220;We took a very holistic view,&#8221; Bala said. &#8220;What if we burn everything? It will be a wake-up call in climate change.&#8221;

As for global warming skeptics, Bala said the proof is already evident.

&#8220;Even if people don&#8217;t believe in it today, the evidence will be there in 20 years,&#8221; he said. &#8220;These are long-term problems.&#8221;

He pointed to the 2003 European heat wave and the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season as examples of extreme climate change.

&#8220;We definitely know we are going to warm over the next 300 years,&#8221; he said. &#8220;In reality, we may be worse off than we predict.&#8221;

Other Livermore authors include Arthur Mirin and Michael Wickett, along with Christine Delire of ISE-M at the Université Montepellier II.

The research appears in the Nov. 1 issue of the American Meteorological Society&#8217;s Journal of Climate.

Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has a mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy&#8217;s National Nuclear Security Administration.

Original Source: LLNL 

About Fraser Cain
Fraser Cain is the publisher of Universe Today. He's also the co-host of Astronomy Cast with Dr. Pamela Gay.


Read more: What If We Burn Everything?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Don't you have any answers at all? Just questions. 

Those who know have answers. Those who don't have only questions.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

*Those who know have answers. Those who don't have only questions.*

Life owns earth.

Humanity is the only life that is enabled to think and plan and do beyond merely survival issues. 

Humanity can choose among various futures, and create them, for good or bad. 

Climate is an essential component of all of those futures and, to some degree, given our capabilities, we can influence what's coming.

Humanity makes those joint decisions through political processes. Humanity bases those joint decisions on knowledge. 

In the case of climate, that knowledge comes from the IPCC. 

It is really that simple.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your answer was, higher CO2 will make the planet "inhospitable to life", like it was during the Carboniferous.
The Carboniferous, with the same mean temp as today, with double the CO2.
Quick, we must spend tens of trillions, to avoid the same temperature.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Well since I actually stayed awake in biology class, a living animal cell is composed of mostly Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen, and Calcium with lesser amounts of Sodium, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Sulfur, Chlorine, and Potassium and other trace elements.. 

A human being cannot survive more than six minutes breathing pure carbon dioxide but can survive sometimes for days breathing pure oxygen.  So it is good that the plants utilize the tiny percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere and breath out oxygen for the rest of us to use.

The average atmosphere of the Earth contains:  Nitrogen (78%); Oxygen (21%); Argon (0.94%); Carbon dioxide (0.04%). 

Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than exists today. Yet plant and animal life flourished through all that.  The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.

The early carboniferous period was essentially one season year round, but by the end of the carboniferous period--before human activity had any effect on the Earth or its climate--conditions had changed so that the Earth was experiencing different seasons.  At that time CO2 levels were believed to be about 1500 ppm parts per million, roughly comparable to CO2 levels today.   

So what greatly increased CO2 before human activity?  What reduced CO2 before human activity?   Maybe the Earth will do what the Earth has always done since its creation in the universe and there isn't a hell of lot any of us can do about it?   Certainly something to consider before we hand over our liberties, options, choices, and opportunities to people who don't like us very much and who likely won't have our best interest at heart as they exercise what very well may be bogus science.


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Defined?  How so?  There has been no demonstration in a laboratory how GHG's actually work.  The best guess as to how they work is as a blanket (H2O vapor) acting like a blanket to PREVENT heat being lost to the night.  Take a look at the temperature swings of planets who are gifted with exo-atmospheres only.  Four hundred plus degree swings are the NORM.  The Earth has a dense (though nowhere near as dense as Venus, thankfully) blanket that prevents the heat loss at night.

I have yet to see a compelling experiment that shows GHG's actually warm anything...


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Indeed.  You demonstrate how positively ignorant you truly are.  


"In addition to having the ideal conditions for the formation of coal, several major biological, geological, and climatic events occurred during this time. Biologically, we see one of the greatest evolutionary innovations of the Carboniferous: the amniote egg, which allowed for the further exploitation of the land by certain tetrapods. It gave the ancestors of birds, mammals, and reptiles the ability to lay their eggs on land without fear of desiccation. Geologically, the Late Carboniferous collision of Laurasia (present-day Europe, Asia, and North America) into Gondwana (present-day Africa, South America, Antarctica, Australia, and India) produced the Appalachian Mountain belt of eastern North America and the Hercynian Mountains in the United Kingdom. A further collision of Siberia and eastern Europe created the Ural Mountains of Russia. And climatically, there was a trend towards mild temperatures during the Carboniferous, as evidenced by the decrease in lycopods and large insects, and an increase in the number of tree ferns.

The stratigraphy of the Mississippian can be easily distinguished from that of the Pennsylvanian. The Mississippian environment of North America was heavily marine, with seas covering parts of the continent. As a result, most Mississippian rocks are limestone, which are composed of the remains of crinoids, lime-encrusted green algae, or calcium carbonate shaped by waves. The North American Pennsylvanian environment was alternately terrestrial and marine, with the transgression and regression of the seas caused by glaciation. These environmental conditions, with the vast amount of plant material provided by the extensive coal forests, allowed for the formation of coal. Plant material did not decay when the seas covered them, and pressure and heat eventually built up over millions of years to transform the plant material to coal."


The Carboniferous Period


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> *Those who know have answers. Those who don't have only questions.*
> 
> Life owns earth.
> 
> ...









Yes, it really is that simple.  Mankind is the first organism on this planet to have the ability to protect it from an exo atmospheric assault.  Asteroid strikes are the ONLY thing that we know of that can absolutely end life on this planet as they have almost done on at least two occasions.

You idiots whistle Dixie and ignore the very real threat from above while trying to pass legislation who's only effect will be to enrich rich people and take liberty away from poor people.







[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJCfB9OnoGw]Meteorite hits central Russia - Video Collection (16 minutes) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I thanked you for stating the conservative case so clearly.  But before I respond,  let me ask you,  are you talking about AGW or something else?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The conservative case?  Surely you jest.  The scientific commentary is basic 7th grade science.   (Or it used to be before our education system was trashed in favor of sociopolitical liberalism.)  The political commentary is just plain common sense regardless of ones sociopolitical ideology.

The thread is about AGW and I do try to stay on topic as much as possible.  But 7th grade science AND common sense are rather important components of addressing a subject like AGW, don't you think?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I agree with your "risk-opportunity" assessment.. 

1500ppm is about FOUR times what we measure today.. In the IPCC wildest dreams, 1000ppm would be close to DoomsDay.

Jumping to prehistoric conclusions about CO2 without controlling for water vapor is also not advisable.. THere is only a small window of absorption in CO2 that is NOT fully covered by water vapor.. The estimates of its power as GHG are probably much over-rated. After all -- we're dealing with a VERY SMALL shift in radiative flux here. From something like 300W/m2 long wave out --- CO2 increase is said to have caused retention of about 1.5W/m2 of surface temp. forcing. 

That's a SMALL number "for a blanket" and actually DEPENDS on KNOWING the exact CO-Concentrations of water vapor in any particular location.. When you are doing an estimates on a GLOBAL scale --- you could be off by a lot..

*CO2 causes more warming in the desert than it does over the oceans for instance.. *
That'll make some warmer heads explode --- but it's a true statement.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Well, it isn't my estimates.  It is 7th Grade (pre-AGW religion) estimates based on the best guesses that scientists can make from the paleontological record that we have.  But if it informs us of nothing else, it at least should provide some perspective to what we should be alarmed about and what we should accept as the normal climate shifts that have been occurring on Planet Earth since there has been a Planet Earth.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...









Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




Tell us,  with your 7th grade science,  which of the following statements is not true. 

Fossil fuels,  when burned,  produce as products of combustion,  primarily water and carbon dioxide,  which are normally released to the atmosphere. 

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas meaning that it absorbs long wave radiation,  rather than reflecting it or transmitting it. 

A body in space receives radiation from all bodies in space warmer than absolute zero,  in proportion to the fourth power of the emitters temperature and inversely proportional to the second power of their distance. 

A body in space must maintain radiative energy balance.  If more energy is received than emitted,  it will warm. Less,  it will cool.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The Toddbot says that the temperature at the beginning of the Carboniferous period, with all of the CO2 in the atmosphere that we are returning from fossil fuels today, was the same as today.

As usual, he's full of shit.

Climate during the Carboniferous Period

How come conservatives are compelled to lie all of the time!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



"There has been no demonstration in a laboratory how GHG's actually work"

"I have yet to see a compelling experiment that shows GHG's actually warm anything"

Do you believe that if you shutdown all of your senses, the world stays the same because you don't know what's changing?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > *Those who know have answers. Those who don't have only questions.*
> ...




Though the competition is pretty tough here, this is still a first class portrayal of ignorance, including the DK syndrome of having no idea what you don't know.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Water vapor isn't changing. CO2 is.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I will again refer you to that 7th grade science class discussing the carboniferous period.  If you do just a teensy bit of reading, you will see that the climate was MUCH more humid during the large part of that time than it is now. What is humidity?  It is the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.   Water vapor not only changes, but it changes almost hourly.  And it has intensely more affect on the temperatures we endure than does CO2 levels.  Also, the use of fossil fuels creates far more water vapor than it does CO2, so why is it only CO2 that the AGW religionist focus on?  Even if water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2, the sheer volume of it would overcome any differences in shelf life.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*The Toddbot says that the temperature at the beginning of the Carboniferous period, with all of the CO2 in the atmosphere that we are returning from fossil fuels today, was the same as today.*

No I didn't, not once. Why do you lie?

Thanks for the link. Where did it say  the Carboniferous was "inhospitable to life"?

*West Virginia today is mostly an erosional plateau carved up into steep ridges and narrow valleys, but 300 million years ago, during the Carboniferous Period, it was part of a vast equatorial coastal swamp extending many hundreds of miles and barely rising above sea level. This steamy, tropical quagmire served as the nursery for Earth's first primitive forests, comprised of giant lycopods, ferns, and seed ferns.

North America was located along Earth's equator then, courtesy of the forces of continental drift. The hot and humid climate of the Middle Carboniferous Period was accompanied by an explosion of terrestrial plant life. *

Not there. It sounds like life thrived during this time.

Let me know if you ever find a link that backs up your idiotic claim. Thanks!


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Interesting Toddster.  I had not read up on West Virginia though we did live there for a brief time.  But New Mexico is a fascinating study in the paleontological record.  We now live on high desert terrain, extremely dry and arid interspersed with confer forested mountains that barely exist in this dry climate.  We have less surface water than any of the 50 states with normal rainfall about 8 inches per year over desert terrain  Humidity normally stays under 15%--often under 10%--we have all four seasons with summer temperatures normally ranging between 90 and 100 degrees all over the state except in the highest terrain.

What was it like over 300 million years ago?

During the Carboniferous period, New Mexico was an archipelago of islands rising from the shallow, warm seaways. On land, lush vegetation grew in areas of dense forests and swamps, while clams, brachiopods, and other organisms inhabited the sea floor.  Humidity was high with near constant temperatures probably in the 80's farenheit.

And then when the climate shifted yet again, in the Early Permian, the climate became drier. The broad river floodplains were replaced by dune fields and a shallow, hypersaline sea. When more normal marine conditions returned during the Middle Permian, the huge reef at El Capitan in southeastern New Mexico developed.

Climate change has been occuring on Planet Earth since there has been a Planet Earth and nothng, and I do mean nothing, we puny humans are capable of doing is likely to change that in any way.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Where did all of that "much greater humidity" come from and go to? Was it imported/exported bucket by bucket from/to another planet? Were oceans deeper then? 

I don't blame you at all for not answering my questions. It would be mighty embarrassing for you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Absolutely right except for the fact that 7B energy hungry humans are recreating past climates by restoring that ancient atmosphere. 

During the Carboniferous period there wasn't one human here. Therefore we hadn't built civilization yet. 

How many different climates do you think we can adapt to when each one requires a different civilization?

Or, are you thinking that humanity is dispensable.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I keep forgetting that I'm dealing with the slow class here.

Put your finger on the chart that shows earth's climactic temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration historically.

Find the beginning of the Carboniferous Period. Tell the slow class what the global long term temperature was then and what the atmospheric CO2 concentration was. 

How do both compare to today?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

I guess the conservative world view is that there is some connection between climate, energy and their "freedom". And if we use science to better understand climate and energy problems and solutions that knowledge will cause them to lose their freedom. 

Is freedom of ignorance someplace in the Constitution? Is there a right to do things stupidly rather than intelligently?

Puzzling.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 11, 2013)

The intelligent world view recognizes the difference between those who are serious scientists trying to get it as right as is possible to do at this time versus those with an agenda that includes controlling other people's liberties, options, choices, and opportunities.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> The intelligent world view recognizes the difference between those who are serious scientists trying to get it as right as is possible to do at this time versus those with an agenda that includes controlling other people's liberties, options, choices, and opportunities.



Conservatives don't want science.  They want denial.  Why?  That way they can push the responsibility off on others.  Future generations.  Other countries. They want cheap energy for themselves. Expensive energy and mitigation of the problems they create on others.  

Time to boot them out of Congress,  never allow them back into the Whitehouse,  out of governor's mansions.  They are a blight on  America.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I keep forgetting that I'm dealing with the slow class here.

Put your finger on the chart that shows earth's climactic temperature and atmospheric CO2concentration historically.

Find the Carboniferous Period. Tell the slow class when during the Carboniferous the planet was "inhospitable to life".


----------



## daveman (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The intelligent world view recognizes the difference between those who are serious scientists trying to get it as right as is possible to do at this time versus those with an agenda that includes controlling other people's liberties, options, choices, and opportunities.
> ...


Boy, you're not even old enough to buy beer.  

Grow up, kid.  People disagree with each other.  Wishing the government would eliminate those who disagree with you is not a sign of maturity.

It is, however, a sign of progressivism -- the political philosophy of petulant children.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 PMS, I have a little picture to help you sort out your confusion. The Continental Divide now runs straight through the West, including NM: and hint: it represents a certain change in this North American Continent. Had you ever visited the Yellowstone National Forest and picked up even a child's book, you might understand how ocean floors became raised massively countless millennia ago, and sans the assistance of mankind.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I'm sure that there's a point to your post. Perhaps the point is to distract people from the problem that you are saddled with.  Being in a science debate with no science. A tough place to be. 

You lost the debate long ago but as knowing that would require learning you never will. 

America was once fooled by your politics but no more.  We just can't afford your nonsense. 

Keep advocating for standing still,  doing nothing,  knowing nothing.  Thats all anybody expects of your kind.  

We're moving on.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Old man,  the question is how did you get old without learning anything?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of all the  slugs here you are the best at avoiding relevance.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Science really has one goal.  Enabling progress.  

Believe it or not progress has enemies. 

They are like humans except without imagination or heart or vision,  so anything different than here and now frightens them terribly.

They have always been part of the human race.  Perhaps they explain where the Neanderthals went. 

Because they are what they are though the are completely ineffective at doing or accomplishing anything.  So while their incessant whining is annoying,  they never come close to halting progress.  They just fall further and further behind into irrelevance.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



During the Carboniferous the planet was "inhospitable to life".

OMG! 

Can you even tie your own shoes?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Science really has one goal.  Enabling progress.
> 
> Believe it or not progress has enemies.
> 
> ...



*Science really has one goal. Enabling progress. *

Liberal progress=spending tens of trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



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

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

You have already lost.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Science really has one goal.  Enabling progress.
> ...



We're stuck with the CO2 levels that we have now for 100s of years.  In fact the positive feedbacks are doing their thing so if we stopped FF dumping tomorrow,  the atmospheric GHG concentrations would continue to escalate for decades. 

No reduction possible. 

We will have to be on sustainable energy someday.  FF are limited. 

The only question is,  what transition will be the minimum cost between energy costs and AGW costs. 

We're working on the science of that.  Your working on the politics to avoid any responsibility for the future. 

We just aren't going to follow your have assed political non solution.


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








You're the poster child for DK asshat.  As far as the video go's it did more provable damage than all the global warming that has happened since 1850.


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...









What's the temperature like in Siberia?  How about the Gobi desert?  The Malay peninsula?
Tierra Del Fuego?  Scandinavia?  People and animals live in ALL of those places.  Mankind has developed anti freeze in his blood in Tierra Del Fuego..funny about that huh....Seems man can adapt really fast.

You honestly think a one degree rise in global temp is a big deal?  You're a loon.


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...







Here is the cause of that massive sea floor rise Freedombecki...  It is a huge suture in the Utah desert (and one of my favorite places to visit as an FYI, almost every year we go out) caused by continental plates colliding in an orogenic event....







Here's what it looks like from ground level...







The opposing viewpoint...






A more distant view...







One of my favorite images of the San Rafael Swell...


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








That's funny, all of your proposals consist of poor people remaining poor, returning humanity back to the bronze age (except for the rich of course), killing off billions of undesirables, and installing a totalitarian world government.  How exactly does that help the world?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2013)

In fact -- the Earth GLOBALLY doesn't have just one climate.

The whole "Global Warming" fantasy goes off the rails at the very beginning looking for stupid single numbers to describe Climate Change..


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> In fact -- the Earth GLOBALLY doesn't have just one climate.
> 
> The whole "Global Warming" fantasy goes off the rails at the very beginning looking for stupid single numbers to describe Climate Change..



Now, what you're left with, is to redefine climate as weather. That will confuse them. 

No, it won't. Climate is climate. Climate is the long term, global average of weather. It is what's impacted by the increase is atmospheric GHG concentration. It is what burning more fossil fuels changes. It's what makes sea levels change and rain fall patterns to modify. 

You can't define it away.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 11, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



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

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

Not anywhere near good enough.


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



\




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


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I'm thinking humankind has survived extreme floods, extreme drought, a hotter Planet Earth, cold periods, and ice ages.  There is a no reason to believe that humankind could not survive the lush climate and conditions of the Carboniferous period if we somehow DID re-create the climate of that time.  Just because humans hadn't yet evolved does not mean they could not survive a climate as great as that was.  As far as plants and animals are concerned, overall they do better during warmer periods than they do colder ones.

I am also acknowledging REAL science, and not manufactured science that supports the most idiotic concepts of global warming.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 12, 2013)

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

That would convince me


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I learned a couple of things you haven't:

1.  The scientific method.

2.  Not to blindly trust anyone on this earth.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It helps the world a great deal...if by "world", you mean "progressive elite ruling class".

The REALLY funny part?  The child PMS thinks he's one of them.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > In fact -- the Earth GLOBALLY doesn't have just one climate.
> ...


What is the ideal temperature for the planet?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Let's try a process of elimination.

It's not a million C.

It's not 0 Kelvin.

Must be something in between.

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

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

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


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...










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

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


----------



## Snookie (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Why is it necessary to hurl insults?  The poster did not insult you.

Now, please be mannerly and cordial, please.  I might even give you a cookie if you behave.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



There is none.  

However the lowest cost climactic future for mankind is the continuation of the one that civilization adapted to.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The factual basis for this rant is?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You don't get to vote for science that gives answers that support what you wish was true as real science. Science is real when it's done expertly and objectively.  There is no better example of that than the IPCC.  

That's why they have to work in your shit storm of political dirty tricks.  

And they do.  And they will. 

While that giant flushing sound is your movement swirling in the bowl.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You hit the nail on the head. 

Functional ignorance of the human race.  Taking advantage of that is conservative media's business plan.  And the reality of it is the foundation of their downfall.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 12, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Educated people have math to model science.  Do you think that the first nuclear bomb went off in a testube? 
Science and math reveal the certainty of AGW and it's consequences,  unaffordable climate change.

If you want to understand that you first need suitable education.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


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


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And yet despite a couple of decades of vastly increased wind and solar, restrictions on manufacturing, increased fuel standards on automobiles, and every developed nation reducing its CO2 output, the CO2 levels continue to increase at a steady rate.   And you know what?  We're all still here.  Thriving.  Doing fine.  In fact, the scientists who aren't paid to support AGW are pretty sure there has been no unusual increase in the average temperatures around the Earth for quite some time now.

You, PMZ, have already demonstrated a woeful lack of good science education.  I would strongly encourage you to read up--at unbiased scientific sites--on the stuff you post so your lack of scientific knowledge and understanding wouldn't be quite so glaring and obvious.

And then I would encourage you to appreciate the liberty, options, choices, and opportunity the Founders of this great nation intended for us all to have, and not be eager to give them away to powers that do not have your best interests at heart and probably don't like you very much.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



"If the government decides against the majority of the people, the people can do something about it"

Ahhhh, something that we agree on. The power of democracy. The reason for the downfall of conservatism

The rest of your post is merely the result of your inability to reason. Doing nothing is unaffordable. The world, excluding the deniers, has the facts of science as evidence of that. 

So the truth doesn't support the answer you'd like to be true. That doing nothing is cheaper than learning about and eventually solving the problem. So, to get your way, you deny science. Feel free, but most of us see that as acting ignorant.

Your choice.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Again the mantra that freedom requires ignoring science. 

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


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



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

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

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

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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Early man, and all animals, have only the power of their senses to understand their environment. Mankind was the first and only species to recognize that, and with the ability to, go beyond that limitation. 

Science and math give us the ability to model, and therefore understand, and therefore predict what is beyond our senses and our times. 

The basis of much of what conservatives want to be true, is that if we do nothing about energy, what we have today will just continue ad infinitum. 

But energy and climate science, like all science, has extended our senses to things that are future and can't be seen. Climate science has noticed subtle changes in our climate, and tracked them to their source, greenhouse gases in our atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. That allowed them to model and predict the consequences of doing nothing and all of our other alternatives. Great, right? Another triumph of mankind and our intellect. 

Not so fast. What science discovered is at odds with folks who believe that we can continue unchanged with consequences no different than today. 

Politics vs science. What people want vs what they can have. This is an ancient war. What's possible vs what people want to be true.

So, nobody should be in any way surprised at what goes on in venues like this. It's been going on since time immemorial. Politics vs science. 

My belief is that over time science has always won the contest. I can't think of any but temporary victories for politics. This case is no exception in that way either. Politics did slow down scientific progress for a decade or two, in what could turn out to be a critical delay. 

But, temporary always is, well, temporary, and now, progress is back on track in the science, engineering, doing, and business sectors.

Will we learn this time? Doubtful. Some people's politics will always be at odds with objective reality. But, mankind will always find a way to progress, to solve problems, to make two steps forward for every step back. It is our nature.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



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


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

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

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

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

To assume that none would use flawed science to accomplish that is naive at best, and dangerously ignorant at worst.  And the only ones these days using "science" as the method to coerce, brainwash, threaten, or control others are the warmers.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I take back what I said earlier, Becki.  PMZ does use similar posting style and syntax as some others here have used.
> 
> All I can tell you, PMZ, is that I agree that humans are the only known species on Earth who is aware of species and conditions outside their own immediate existence and/or who has the capacity to study them and care about them.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I take back what I said earlier, Becki.  PMZ does use similar posting style and syntax as some others here have used.
> 
> All I can tell you, PMZ, is that I agree that humans are the only known species on Earth who is aware of species and conditions outside their own immediate existence and/or who have the capacity to study them and care about them.
> 
> Also, humankind is the only known species on Earth with the capacity to dishonestly plot and plan ways and means to benefit by fooling, coercing, brainwashing, threatening, or forcing others to bend to its will and further its ambitions.



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

"Flawed science"

I assume that all works of mankind are to one degree or another flawed. The IPCC is no exception.

However, being a student of risk, I ask myself the question, is the "flawed science" of the IPCC likely to be more or less reliable than the zero science of denialists?

So, as long as the denialists community is unable to state any science that supports their politics, I will continue to see their point as least likely to be true.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Sweetie, you HAVE no experience in this.  Your ignorance of science demonstrates that in no uncertain terms.  You've bought into the religion and that is your right to do.  But that doesn't mean you get to play the rest of us for fools without getting called on it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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

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

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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



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

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

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

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

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

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

Sweety.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


There it is:  "GIve us trillions of dollars...for the children!!"

No.  Not until you prove your case.  And in case you didn't notice, the climate is not cooperating with your fear-mongering.


Abraham3 said:


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


I know nothing of the sort.  I know you Westboro Climate Church fundamentalists CLAIM it will, but so far, none of your predictions have come true.


Abraham3 said:


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


When you still have a job and electricity and your house isn't flooded or otherwise smashed by Angry Gaea, you can thank me.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


It's been both warmer and cooler since the beginning of civilization.  To which temperature are you referring?

Let me guess:  The one that will allow you to tax CO2 the most.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Your own claim that you implicitly and unquestioningly trust the IPCC and everything they say.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



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

It's obviously just another hysterical warmist bullshit theory.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



PMZ is the Emperor of the _Appeal to Authority_.  He doesn't even understand that it's a logical fallacy.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You don't get to vote for science that gives answers that support what you wish was true as real science.


That's exactly what you're doing.


PMZ said:


> Science is real when it's done expertly and objectively.  There is no better example of that than the IPCC.


"All hail the IPCC, Peace Be Upon Them!"


PMZ said:


> That's why they have to work in your shit storm of political dirty tricks.


Asking questions is not a political dirty trick.  But thanks for yet again demonstrating your utter ignorance of the scientific method.  


PMZ said:


> And they do.  And they will.


Incompetently and corruptly.


PMZ said:


> While that giant flushing sound is your movement swirling in the bowl.


Yeah, not so much.

The Reference Frame: RSS: a negative temperature trend in 16.67 years

At any rate, my preferred temperature record  the satellite-based RSS AMSU dataset  has approached a point in which the global warming trend in the recent 17 years is statistically insignificant and negligible. *In fact, if you include the latest 200 months i.e. 16 years and 8 months (from December 1996 through July 2013 included) into your calculation of linear regression, you get a negative warming trend!*​


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

Snookie said:


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



Impossible.  When we ask for the scientific basis of AGW, we're invariably referred to Tyndall's original experiment -- which had maybe 3 variables, tops.

We've been told this accurately models an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans (as well as the nearest star) with millions of variables.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...


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


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


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

Looks like you got that wrong, too.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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


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


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''
> 
> Thats why I didn't assume it.  I don't know why you did.


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

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


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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

Permian?Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



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


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



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

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

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


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



However, analysis of the fossil river deposits of the floodplains indicate a shift from meandering to braided river patterns, indicating an abrupt drying of the climate.[62] *The climate change may have taken as little as 100,000 years*, prompting the extinction of the unique Glossopteris flora and its herbivores, followed by the carnivorous guild.[63]​We must adopt world socialism NOW to save us from this imminent threat!!


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Son, you need to stop lying.  Now.

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

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

So you'll just keep lying.

Dumbass kid.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



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

And it's their usual Final one.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



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

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

What's next?  Alien invasion?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



So far,  you are the only one proposing that. 

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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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

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

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

Thanks!


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


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



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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Quick, let's spend tens of trillions, before we find out!!!!
> ...



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

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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


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



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

Look at communism as an example.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



It's collapsing already!


WASDE: Corn Yields Higher Despite Warm Weather [Teucrium Corn Fund, Teucrium Soybean Fund, Teucrium Wheat Fund] - Seeking Alpha


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


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



You support science only if it supports your politics. It doesn't.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Have you ever read the myriad theories of the Permian Extinction?  Probably a plurality of scientists go with a large asteroid strike.  Which would suggest that we would be more productive studying more of the sky for possible deadly approaching objects and figuring out a feasible way to destroy or deflect them instead of wasting trillions on trying to stop AGW.   One thing is for absolute certain--we have had devastating asteoid strikes in the past and we will have more in the future.

But back to the Permian extinction. . . .

Another sizable group of credible scientists go with a natural climate shift that melted the ice caps and stagnated (poisoned) the oceans for awhile.

Still another group goes with a massive series of volcanic eruptions creating devastating acid rain.

And some other lesser theories are thrown in there too.  Nobody with any serious scientific credentials can say with any degree of confidence what did cause the event.   But we can say with absolute certainty that humans had absolutely nothing to do with it.

We can also say with absolute certainty that even though the wide variety of plant and animal life on Planet Earth was severely depleted as a result of that event, life regenerated itself again, and evolution continued unabated to give us the subsequent coming of and then extinction of the dinosaurs followed by the evolvement of the ancestors of existing plant and animal life on Earth.  

Life is a resilent and persistent thing and we do far better if we adjust and adapt to the inevitable changing climate of our wonderful planet rather than think we can do a better job running things than God/nature.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> But we can say with absolute certainty that humans had absolutely nothing to do with it.
> 
> We can also say with absolute certainty that even though the wide variety of plant and animal life on Planet Earth was severely depleted as a result of that event, life regenerated itself again, and evolution continued unabated to give us the subsequent coming of and then extinction of the dinosaurs followed by the evolvement of the ancestors of existing plant and animal life on Earth.
> 
> Life is a resilent and persistent thing and we do far better if we adjust and adapt to the inevitable changing climate of our wonderful planet rather than think we can do a better job running things than God/nature.



I believe the point was that the changes experienced during the Permian extinction had a dire effect on the plantetary biosphere.  That man did not cause it is completely irrelevant.  I'm glad you admit that much of this planet's life died at that time.  I'm not so glad that you seem to just blow that off as it weren't important.

God has nothing to do with global warming just as it had nothing to do with the Permian Extinction.  You seem to be saying that if millions die because of this, it will have been God's will and we shouldn't question it.  IS that what you want to say?  Cause that's a whole different topic.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Am I supposed to take comfort in the notion that if we turn the Earth into a barren rock, it won't stay a barren rock forever?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But we can say with absolute certainty that humans had absolutely nothing to do with it.
> ...



Hear that whistling sound?  That's yet another point going flying over Abraham's (or whoever he is) head.

I still say it is something in the water that liberals drink that destroys a component of their reading comprehension function.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



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

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

I,  for one,  don't.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...






Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...




Here,  learn up on cap and trade. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yeah,  mankind was so much better off before government.  In fact Somalia is still reaping those benefits.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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

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

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

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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Maybe if the human race goes extinct we'll get replaced by something better.  No conservatives for example.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Here, learn up on cap and trade. *

I just want you to tell me how many votes it got in the Senate.

It must have been a lot, right after Obama was elected.
Because the entire world is behind your science.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...


I grow tired of your lies, boy.  It's been conclusively proved to you that the purpose of the AGW scam is massive worldwide wealth redistribution.

And nowhere...NOWHERE...have I ever advocated abolishing science.  That is simply a lie.

But I know, you can't help it.  Progressives HAVE to lie.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

In 1783, the Laki volcano erupted in Iceland, and within a year, the global temperature on Earth had dropped by 2 degrees.  The scientists going with the volcano theory for the Permian extinction use the example of a Laki erupting EVERY year for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.  The effect could have been devastating for many or most life forms on Earth.  The fossil record shows massive volcanic activity during the Permian period.

You can read a dozen different scientific analysis of that period and come to a dozen different conclusions of what probably caused the mass extinctions.   But Doug Erwin PhD at the Smithsonian probably gave us the real cause.   He described trying to nail down one single cause is similar to a murder mystery in which the victim has a dozen different knife wounds while a dozen different killers had conspired to murder the victim.  So he theorizes that it was just an unhappy coincidence that so many catastrophic events happened during one single ancient paleontological period and that there is no one single cause.

Since there is no way to know for sure, I'm going with his theory.

And I am also keenly aware of his educated scientific prediction.  Could it happen again?  Not only could it happen again, but it will happen again.  It is only a matter of when.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You're right, the bigger government the better.

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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Or we'll be replaced by something smarter. No liberals, for example.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...


Here's the thing, Joe.

Yes, the climate is changing.  _But no one here has ever been impacted by it_.

If you had real science on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to fear-mongering.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I said lots of people,  including me,  didn't support it.  Did you?


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Wrong, boy.  But don't let that stop you from worshiping your little tin god.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Lessor primates have no liberals now.  They live just like they've always lived.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The difference is democracy. 

Surprised?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Re Kyoto:



> in 1997, three years before Bushs electionwas a rare moment of bipartisan consensus on climate policy; the Senate voted unanimously (95-0) against its basic tenets, and the Clinton-Gore administration never submitted it for ratification. *(Even a little-known state legislator from Illinois named Barack Obama voted to condemn Kyoto and prohibit the state from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.)*
> 
> www.american.com/.../the-quiet-yet-historic-death-of-the-kyoto-protoco*


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



''It's been conclusively proved to you that the purpose of the AGW scam is massive worldwide wealth redistribution.''

I missed that post,  but as you are a conservative,  we know that what you favor are richer rich and poorer poor. In fact we imagine you would really prefer the return to Versailles of lavish wealth for the handful,  starvation for the people. 
Developed countries got wealthy from creating AGW.  Now you want the poor to pay for fixing it.  How noble. 

Tell them to just eat their cake.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Life is a resilent and persistent thing and we do far better if we adjust and adapt to the inevitable changing climate of our wonderful planet rather than think we can do a better job running things than God/nature.



Just curious what you actually meant when you wrote this.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The devil is in the details.  What's important to me is the science.  What's important to you are the politics.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Life is a resilent and persistent thing and we do far better if we adjust and adapt to the inevitable changing climate of our wonderful planet rather than think we can do a better job running things than God/nature.
> ...



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

Dificult concept to grasp I know.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Life is a resilent and persistent thing and we do far better if we adjust and adapt to the inevitable changing climate of our wonderful planet rather than think we can do a better job running things than God/nature.
> ...



I thought God gave us free will.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



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

There is no question that we will devote ''our resources to adapting to inevitable climate''. What the IPCC is charged with is determining the least cost path to do the necessary adaptation and the necessary conversion to sustainable energy.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



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


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Well, if the fate of humankind is in the hands of the IPCC scientists, given their track record of obfusication, manufactured evidence, refusal to include all scientific opinion, and allowing policy makers to use whatever data is produced in any politically advantageous manner, all I have to say to that is God help us.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


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


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I support science when it's honestly and openly practiced.

Climate science is neither honest nor open.  Any thinking person opposes that.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Thats not their track record. It's yours.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Actually,  that's about as unthinking an opinion as I can imagine.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I don't advocate conservatism because that's how lessor primates operate.  I believe that we're much better than that.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Boy, if you want to get rid of us, you need to step up.

NOTE:

Whining on the internet is NOT stepping up.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


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


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Negged for lying.  

This is where I proved it to you...and this is where you read the post.

Considering all your lies, boy, you don't need to be dictating what others believe.  You're incapable of forming your own opinions.

Get that?  You're nothing new.  You've given us nothing we haven't seen before.  

Boring.  Dull.  Even your unmerited arrogance is no longer fun to mock.

Bring your A game, kid.  Unless, as I suspect, you've redlined already.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


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


They're corrupt and incompetent.

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

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

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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I forgot that Obama is an anti-science Republican.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Kyoto didn't take into account the science?
Next you'll tell me it was a political document.......


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


And now you're an expert in primatology!

Let's see...expert in primatology, psychology, and climatology.

And all this before your 20th birthday!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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

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

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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



She's also an expert in spent fuel reprocessing, nuclear proliferation and the extinction of all life in the Carboniferous.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



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

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

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


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You said there was a "lack of scientific evidence that humankind is having any kind of long term detrimental effect on Planet Earth".  Whether it requires a thinking person or not and whether the effect is "local" or not, the Earth has suffered all the insults and injuries I noted and then some.  It has been ACTION by concerned individuals (primarily liberals if we want to be honest here) that have led us to a slightly less polluted world than the one in which we all began - one in which the accumulation of wealth does not as readily overbear maintaining the life and beauty with which the untainted Earth surrounds us.

Climate change - anthropogenic global warming is simply another process by which human industrialization has altered the Earth to the detriment of humanity and all the other life that calls this place home.  There is no implicit distinction between dumping gigatonnes of GHG into the atmosphere and dumping dioxin, BHA, DDT, organic mercury compounds, heavy metals and a thousand other synthetics that have no ready exit from the environment.  They all are the products of humans doing business as usual and all have long life spans and negative consequences.



			
				FoxFyre said:
			
		

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



I see what you are asserting here, but I think it is a gross oversimplification.  You're actually contending that a hankering to preserve the health and beauty of the world is a leisure activity.  You assume that feeding and sheltering oneself and one's loved ones requires raping the environment, particularly if done under a tight budget.  Well, I disagree.  The poor have every bit as much appreciation for the well being of the planet around them as do we - aesthetics is not purchased at a fine boutique.  It could easily be argued they have more - they tend to live in far more natural, unmodified surroundings than do the affluent.  The consumption of resources by the poor: of energy, food and material - the damage done to the world, by GHG's, fertilizers, insecticides, heavy metals, fossil fuel extraction and combustion, is a tiny pittance of that consumed by their affluent cousins.  The poor do not own or operate the world's automobiles.  They do not run the utilities burning coal, oil and gas to make our lights light and our cellphones recharge.  They do not own the massive corporations that have turned agriculture and animal husbandry into factory operations on a scale that would shame the pharoahs.  So... I am not certain that being well-off represents a cure to our ills when, currently, it makes up the cause.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



How old is PMZ?


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I said he wasn't old enough to buy a beer...and he didn't dispute it.  

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...should-listen-to-the-97-a-19.html#post7820705


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Actually you are doing a fine job yourself of ridding the world of the conservative plague. 

Keep up the good work.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



If you call that proof or even evidence it's a good thing that didn't plan to make a living as a lawyer.  Conspiracy theory is the playground of the paranoid.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Actually,  democracy has been very successful.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I knew you were too chickenshit to do anything about it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Ever hear of the IPCC? They're keepers of the scientific evidence.
> ...



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

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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



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


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


That was an IPCC official.  You believe everything they say.

So you now admit they're wrong?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



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


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



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


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > pmz said:
> ...



71


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I get it, you're bad at both.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


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

Idiot.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I'm curious:

What kind of head trauma have you suffered?


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Because they agree with us.

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


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Dyslexic, huh?


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You think our government is effective?

You DEFINITELY have head trauma.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









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


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

Snookie said:


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









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


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








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


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...








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

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


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


And they're ALL of proven crappyness:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312717-how-have-the-ipcc-s-computer-models-performed.html


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Quick, let's spend tens of trillions, before we find out!!!!
> ...









Really?  According to the paper produced by the IPCC they estimate for the expenditure of 76 trillion dollars we will be able to lower the global temperature by ONE degree in 100 years....maybe...

But hey don't believe a word I say... you can read it for yourself!

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



12 degrees was the upper limit of the IPCC's spread and was based on the likely worst case scenario of AGW plus positive feedbacks.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Why would anyone want to convince you.  You do science more good as a denier.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Absolutely worthless.  The models can't even predict PAST climate, when we have the temperature record to check them against.

Your "science" is based on crap, kid.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



So your recommendation I assume,  is to stick our heads in the sand,  declare ourselves not smart enough,  do nothing,  and hope for the best. 

While that probably is the best that you can do,  it not the best that we can do.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Only to those who don't have the education and experience to understand them.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Can you show us the particular quote from your reference that says that specifically?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I was referring to the United States of America.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...






Show it to us then.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...









You know you don't have to be even remotely clever to understand that when random guessing is more accurate than your computer models you have a problem.  I think even a person of below average intelligence can figure that out quite easily.  

Why you guys haven't been able to add two plus two is beyond me....maybe you're just really, really stupid?


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








No, I would rather you actually read something for once instead of always referring to the Cliff notes.  Not that you understand them either...


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You know what happens when you assume:

You're an ass.  

We need to explore alternative energy sources.  But contrary to current policy, they need to be practical, economical, and scalable.  The government needs to stop picking winners and losers; let the market determine which methods are successful.

You can not understand any of this, since it doesn't require the progressive elite to dictate to the little people what they should do.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


It doesn't take any education and experience to know when predictions aren't backed up by data, kid.

You've backed the wrong horse.  I understand you're desperate and bitter about it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Here's the thing that is beyond you, apparently.  You are representing you.  Your capabilities,  your education,  your experience,  your objectiveness,  your training,  your intelligence.  What I'm defending is science.  Not because of who I am,  but who the IPCC is. 

I can't tell you how easy my role is compared to yours. 

You don't see that,  and some others don't either and that's great.  

All I have to do to support the institution of science is keep you posting. 

What you accomplish for me is revealing the breadth and depth of both sides to the objective observer.  And they are all I care about.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








No, you are defending a pseudo-science.  In the course of this discussion alone I have received 3 PMs from fence sitters who have looked up what I presented and looked up your drivel and they have come over to the sceptic side.  Thank you for being the perfect target to show just how bankrupt and fraudulent climatology has become.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


But you don't want a United States of America.

Like all progressives, you want the USSR circa 1964.

Pssst:  My America defeated your Soviet Union.  Sorry, kid.  Tough luck.


----------



## daveman (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


As has been repeatedly shown, the IPCC are corrupt, incompetent ideologues.

And that's not science, kid.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That's why you didn't assume it?   You said it.  I quoted you saying it.  It is quoted again here.  You said specifically up there:  "The one fact in your post is correct. It would have been more accurate for me to be more specific and say inhospitable to higher forms of life."

And with that one statement you show yourself totally ignorant of what you pretend to know.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



So,  somehow you'd like to say that because I agreed with you on an improved wording on a statement about life in the Carboniferous Period,  I am ignorant. 

I'm afraid that thinking says more about you than me.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



No,  it's not science. It's politics.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Why are you so compelled to make up stuff that you wish was true? The truth isn't good enough for you?  No wonder you consider the IPCC your enemy. It's a truth factory and truth is what will put you out of business.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I was very sure that would be your answer.  Apparently lying is just your MO. Necessary,  when you're running against truth.


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








For once you are correct.  The IPCC decided long ago to ignore good science and instead now focuses on pseudo-science to further its political goals.


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








I don't need to lie.  Apparently that is your sole methodology based on your beyond sucking off goats rep.  But to your original point, read the paper.  It's from your IPCC for hecks sake.  Read it and learn.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No evidence. Conspiracy theory. You're just whining because they found that you're not right. We'll guess what? You're not.  Man up. 


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Why did you lie if you didn't have to? 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Show me where I lied mr. beyond sucks off goats!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*What I'm defending is science.*

Your claim would have more credibility if we ignored your many huge errors.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Mr. "science" was fooled by a video that was obviously a con.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No dear.  You first said that the Carboniferous period was inhospitable to life.  Earlier you accused us all of wanting to exterminate life on Earth because we wouldn't embrace the AGW religion with the implication that we were headed right back to that 'inhospitable' climate.   When I showed you how stupid that statement was, you then corrected your statement to be the Carboniferous period was inhospitable to higher forms of life.  And when I showed you how that statement was equally stupid, and that all higher forms of life now would be able to live and thrive quite nicely in the Carboniferous period, you then amended your statement a third time to say you never said it couldn't.

I'm afraid you are hopelessly clueless and dishonest my friend.  And the jig is up.  We all now know you've been bluffing this entire time.   You know little or nothing of the science you have pretended to embrace and you continue to misrepresent the purpose and intentions of the IPCC and the policy makers who use it for their political agendas.

 You really should be embarrassed but oh well.  Trolls and other intellectual sociopaths rarely ever are.   I just wanted to assure you that you have fooled nobody but your own alter egos.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 13, 2013)

There is a massive amount of evidence that the global warming that has been taking place for the last 150 years is primarily anthropogenic - enough to convince the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.  That warming presents a real and significant threat to human civilization.  Ignoring it is the most asinine of choices.

Climate is a very complex system.  The evidence appears to indicate that one feature of the system is a multi-decadal cycle that alters tropical wind patterns in such a way that a great deal of the trapped solar energy is shuttled from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.  That energy is not lost and it has not been made safe.  The heat content of the system as a whole is still rising.  The rise in _our_ temperature here on Terra Firma may well be delayed by this newly discovered process, but it is not eliminated.

What conditions were like and how life reacted during the Carboniferous period is completely irrelevant to our response to this issue.  This process is taking place at a rate much faster than the paleological changes deniers bring up in these conversations.  If a comparison is required, you'd be far more accurate to use the Permian Extinction or the Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary Event.

For what is coming - and because of people like you, it IS coming - life will not have the opportunity to adapt.  Tell your children you didn't want to spend the money.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 13, 2013)

Ms FoxFyre,

No response for the God and Nature conversation?


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> There is a massive amount of evidence that the global warming that has been taking place for the last 150 years is primarily anthropogenic - enough to convince the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.  That warming presents a real and significant threat to human civilization.  Ignoring it is the most asinine of choices.
> 
> Climate is a very complex system.  The evidence appears to indicate that one feature of the system is a multi-decadal cycle that alters tropical wind patterns in such a way that a great deal of the trapped solar energy is shuttled from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.  That energy is not lost and it has not been made safe.  The heat content of the system as a whole is still rising.  The rise in _our_ temperature here on Terra Firma may well be delayed by this newly discovered process, but it is not eliminated.
> 
> ...








There is?  Show us that evidence please.  There is NOTHING of an empirical nature that supports that assertion.  Absolutely none.  But, by all means show us what you got.


----------



## daveman (Sep 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> There is a massive amount of evidence that the global warming that has been taking place for the last 150 years is primarily anthropogenic - enough to convince the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.  That warming presents a real and significant threat to human civilization.  Ignoring it is the most asinine of choices.
> 
> Climate is a very complex system.  The evidence appears to indicate that one feature of the system is a multi-decadal cycle that alters tropical wind patterns in such a way that a great deal of the trapped solar energy is shuttled from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.  That energy is not lost and it has not been made safe.  The heat content of the system as a whole is still rising.  The rise in _our_ temperature here on Terra Firma may well be delayed by this newly discovered process, but it is not eliminated.
> 
> ...


If you had the science on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to fear-mongering and emotionalism.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Maybe you can suggest a non-biased site.  

Also, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have gleaned from the Principle of Uniformitarianism.  That human actions aren't the violent punctuations that lead to extinctions?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



The IPCC has had to,  and has,  advanced climate science by leaps and bounds. 

People like you have had to,  and have, regressed politics equally far.  
The truth of their science is an obstacle to your nefarious power grab. 

And mankind is the beneficiary of your frustration.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



A classic liars post.  Zero content.  Passionate whining about what you feel the universe owes you.  Political nonsense.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You demonstrate well why normal people avoid lying.  Because it leads to a lifetime of lies. Someone should have pointed that out to you earlier in life and perhaps you could have avoided your present fraudulence.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Why have you been unable to prove any?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You make a strong case for how entitled you feel to impose what your ignorance defines as what's best for you on the rest of the world. Fine. 

You have zero to offer on the science that's in the way of you achieving your political goals.  Thats  fine too.  Scientific ignorance is pervasive. 

Your fatal error is in the assumption that if you act bitchy enough your politics will trump the world's science.  

Ain't gonna happen sweetie.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Face it guys.  We have been had by a troll.  With this statement we should all now know that.  This is no attempt to discuss science or global warming.  This is a troll pulling our strings and snickering when he succeeds.

I for one will not take the bait again.  Kudos to the true science lovers on this thread and I will look forward to future discussions with you on these topics that interest us all.  And I pity PMZ and all his/her alter egos who have such empty lives as to devote so much time and energy to such a senseless exercise.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> There is a massive amount of evidence that the global warming that has been taking place for the last 150 years is primarily anthropogenic - enough to convince the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.  That warming presents a real and significant threat to human civilization.  Ignoring it is the most asinine of choices.
> 
> Climate is a very complex system.  The evidence appears to indicate that one feature of the system is a multi-decadal cycle that alters tropical wind patterns in such a way that a great deal of the trapped solar energy is shuttled from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.  That energy is not lost and it has not been made safe.  The heat content of the system as a whole is still rising.  The rise in _our_ temperature here on Terra Firma may well be delayed by this newly discovered process, but it is not eliminated.
> 
> ...



My assumption is that life can and will adapt.  At least some of it.  It will have to be at the expense of our comfortable,  economically advantaged lives though.  

Most of the clues now support that our democracy is smart enough to avoid the worst case scenario. Conservative nonsense is getting the boot that democracies are noted for. I'm personally confident that science and common sense will prevail in the US. 

It's a global problem though and other countries don't have governments as effective as ours.  

Being the only country in the world to navigate around the problem will be a risky position for us to be in.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > There is a massive amount of evidence that the global warming that has been taking place for the last 150 years is primarily anthropogenic - enough to convince the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.  That warming presents a real and significant threat to human civilization.  Ignoring it is the most asinine of choices.
> ...



There are many kinds of evidence.  There is a mountain of evidence in every category including empirical.  You either choose to,  or are unable to,  understand it.  

That is exclusively your problem.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



He did.  Remember the experiment you endorsed that supposedly demonstrated the greenhouse effect?  What it actually demonstrated is that you're an incredibly pompous fool who doesn't know the slightest thing about science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Believe it or not,  scienceofdoom.com is the most objective,  most science based source.  It takes some patience to navigate as it leads the reader through a very understandable translation of complex science to the level of basic college science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > There is a massive amount of evidence that the global warming that has been taking place for the last 150 years is primarily anthropogenic - enough to convince the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.  That warming presents a real and significant threat to human civilization.  Ignoring it is the most asinine of choices.
> ...



Actually,  the opposite is true.  Using science to understand the problem thoroughly is fear resolving.  Screaming that there is a global conspiracy to rob America's treasury and turn us into a Godless Communist haven is inciting fear.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You think the world has a hard time keeping fissile material from terrorists...no proof.
You think chemical reprocessing creates fissile material...no clue.
You think all but a few conservatives agree with you...no vote on Cap & Trade.
You think all but a few conservatives agree with you...95-0 against Kyoto.
You think the planet was "inhospitable to life", during the Carboniferous...no clue.
You think the government must force us to move to "green" energy...no economics.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 13, 2013)

Global warming is a red herring created by fosslol fuel interests to take the attention away from the real problems with fossil fuels, namely, Pollution.

Asthma cases are rising daily, choke, choke.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Here, from Joe Normal, on another thread, is a great explanation of the IPCC science that deniers have to deny to make their political imposition case.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ion0QQmzOeo]Lecture 7 - Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere - YouTube[/ame]

It reveals either their ignorance or the extent to which they'll lie to achieve their domination of the country goals. You pick.

Here's another that clearly demonstrates at the middle school level of science the truth that is the impossible obstacle to their denial.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw&desktop_uri=/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

Sweety, you are surrounded by inconvenient truth that the only escape from is to declare me a troll and run, run, run from. 

So be it.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 13, 2013)

I wonder how many people here know of someone with asthma.  I know of many.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Global warming is a red herring created by fosslol fuel interests to take the attention away from the real problems with fossil fuels, namely, Pollution.
> 
> Asthma cases are rising daily, choke, choke.



AGW is a herring. Not sure it was created by Exxon Mobil... 

And you're correct about our priorities and emphasis.. How many folks you know are medicated or hospitalized for CO2 exposure ???


----------



## Snookie (Sep 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is a red herring created by fosslol fuel interests to take the attention away from the real problems with fossil fuels, namely, Pollution.
> ...



Carbonated beverages are full of carbon dioxide.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is a red herring created by fosslol fuel interests to take the attention away from the real problems with fossil fuels, namely, Pollution.
> ...



How can anyone in this day and age not understand,  to the degree demonstrated here,  the causes and consequences of AGW?  

It's mind boggling.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 13, 2013)

Snookie said:


> I wonder how many people here know of someone with asthma.  I know of many.



As do I.  My sister almost died from it.  I have a rare form of it that is triggered randomly and only occasionally by vigorous physical activity.  Most asthma is caused by cold air, stress, respiratory infection, and allergic reaction to air pollutants, most commonly dust and pollen.  I have never seen a single case of somebody having an allergy to oxygen or carbon or CO2, however.  

If fossil fuel generated air pollution was a serious issue with asthma, you would have seen a sharp reduction in cases of asthma as we have steadily cleaned up the air quality for the last 50 years or so.  Instead there is a higher degree of asthma and other allergy sufferers so I rather think the cause is in grossly processed foods we eat and other products we use.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



You mean why isn't everyone a gullible drone like you with all the massive propaganda being pumped into them on a daily basis?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many people here know of someone with asthma.  I know of many.
> ...



Pollen makes asthma unbearable.  Not long ago they had a Peat moss fire in NC that smouldered for a year.  The smoke blew all the way to Virginia.  Where there is fire there is smoke.  Smoke is not good for the air. 

There are more electrical users due to the increase in population, thereby needing more fossil fuel generation. 

Nobody really knows about asthma yet.

Pollution causes cancer.  Hydrocarbons are deadly.  They are linked to causing cancer.

Hydrocarbon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Snookie (Sep 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Was that insult necessary?  He didn't insult you.  I can see using an insult for retaliation, but that was uncalled for.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2013)

Snookie said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



So are you....


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 13, 2013)

Snookie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



He insults me every time he uses the term "denier."  He accuses everyone who disputes his abracadabra of being brainwashed and taking orders from Rush Limbaugh.   He/she is a pompous ass.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2013)

Snookie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You arent' around when the troll DOES insult everyone of us.. 
It has personally compared me to monkeys and Jim Jones and impugned my honor... 
It is annoying and repetitive and misinformed.

And it hears voices in its head regularly.. 

Don't think you're gonna be an effective mediator in this troll episode unless you're licensed to treat head cases..


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 13, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



Well I don't know how many different concepts, points, and messages can be interspersed into one short post, but you must have hit a near record with this one.  

Didn't take long to shift from asthma to cancer to chemical compounds did it?   (I still say this phenomenon is related to the water you guys drink.)

Yes hydrocarbons can be deadly as is Vitamin A and D in very large doses as can be alcohol (which is a hydrocarbon by the way) as can be probably 90% of the substances on Earth be carcinogens in certain forms and/or concentrations.  Many MANY things that are essential to our lives and health can be poisonous in excessive doses or otherwise misued.  

Scientific R & D projects are currently working on processes that could convert CO2 directly into hydrocarbons to use for fuel and thereby bypass the very lengthy process for plants and animals to be naturally processed into fuels.

Some pretty exhaustive studies have been done in various occupational fields and remarkably, though the work itself can be dangerous, those working in the oil fields and refineries tend to be healthier in every category than the general population including cancer rate, respiratory diseases, and other anticipated occupational hazards.  Here is one of those studies:
oem.bmj.com &#8250; Volume 57, Issue 6.  This would suggest that we should really be concerned about a whole lot of other things ahead of the hydrocarbons we are exposed to.

And though it is a fact that neither human or plant life can live in a very high CO2 atmosphere, we need the CO2 that is present and the .04% CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is not going to be a hazard to anybody or anything.  Nor will doubling or tripling that tiny percentage be a hazard to anybody or any thing.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many people here know of someone with asthma.  I know of many.
> ...



''if fossil fuel generated air pollution was a serious issue with asthma, you would have seen a sharp reduction in cases of asthma as we have steadily cleaned up the air quality for the last 50 years or so. '' 

We have cleaned the air in many ways but CO2 levels have continously increased for 150 years. 

CO2 is not,  of course,  directly a pollutant.  It is though a GHG and the main chemical ingredient for photosynthesis. We also have no idea what concentration we will reach before it stabilizes at it's permanent level.  Knowing that would require knowing what mankind will choose to do about the transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy. 

I haven't heard any one even guessing what various ultimate levels will do to pollen levels.  It's an interesting question though.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



One would think that you're not proud of denying science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



People who threaten to bring the US down by weakening our government, and lowering our intelligence by discrediting science and reducing funding for education are going to get from sensible citizens exactly the disrespect that they've earned.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 13, 2013)

Hear, hear.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



What a bunch of simian poo-flinging .. 

What is the "weakening our govt" crap? How STRONG a govt do you want? Maybe Pol Pot category? I'd even accept HONEST, EFFICIENT, and COMPETENT in their CONSTITUTIONALLY prescribed duties.. 

Is that a threat to you ??? 

You seem to think of yourself protected by vast smarms of Borgs who think like you do.. 
Don't look now ---  but it's just you and that old CRT monitor in the basement (or maybe the day nurse at the assisted living).


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many people here know of someone with asthma.  I know of many.
> ...



When I was in Beijing, where they use a lot of coal and the air hangs heavy with ugly brown pollution, my asthma kicked up really bad in response to the bad air there.  Asthma may still be on the increase, but from personal experience, I believe there is still less of it than there would be if our air was like Beijing's.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Hear, hear.



Har, har.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 13, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



And...?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Hear, hear.
> ...


Now THAT is some clever repartee.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 13, 2013)

Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.

Deniers do not have an alternative causation that can explain the climate's behavior for the last 150 years.

Reducing GHG emissions and moving away from fossil fuels have significant benefits aside from minimizing dramatic climate warming.

We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.
> 
> Deniers do not have an alternative causation that can explain the climate's behavior for the last 150 years.
> 
> ...



We should and we are.  Conservatives may want to risk the future to save money today but they are a definite minority.  Responsible people will prevail.  Science will prevail.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.
> 
> Deniers do not have an alternative causation that can explain the climate's behavior for the last 150 years.
> 
> ...



*We should listen to the 97% and work to cut down GHGs. *

More nukes, yes.
More windmills, no.
More solar, only if you use your own money.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.
> ...



*Conservatives may want to risk the future to save money today but they are a definite minority.*


----------



## Snookie (Sep 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I'll stick to water.  You can have the hydrocarbons.

Hydrocarbons: The Deadly Poison Found in Everyone&#8217;s Home &#8250; Connecticut Poison Control Center

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1010734-overview

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2601242/


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Do you know of other groups in favor of risking the earth's future?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The vote on Kyoto was 95-0, looks like the entire US Senate.

Cap & Trade hasn't been introduced, so Obama must be in on it too.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I don't know how the details if Kyoto reflect the simple threat of our additions to GHGs. 

You are reflecting on a time when conservatives had misled Congress.  That's been cleared up.  Cap and trade will pass before 2016.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 13, 2013)

You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*You are reflecting on a time when conservatives had misled Congress. *

Clinton was President and Kyoto received zero votes in the Senate.

Why will Obama bring up Cap & Trade in the last 2 years of his term?
He'll be an even lamer duck than he is now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.



Everyone who doesn't want to waste tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in CO2.

Still think reprocessing spent fuel creates fissile materials?
Or that Plutonium isn't for reactors?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 13, 2013)

Todd - 

I've been meaning to ask - do you support subsidies paid to energy companies?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why do you keep bringing up things unrelated to the topic of this thread?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.
> ...



Yes.  I proved it to you. Why do you think that we don't do it?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.
> ...


Plutonium is the by product of nuclear reactors.  It is one of the most toxic substances known to man.  It takes a hundred thousand years to break down.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



A good article on why nuclear reprocessing is so debatable. 

http://www.psmag.com/environment/eprocessing-nuclear-fuel-3694/


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.








There has been no compelling evidence that a warm Earth is bad.  In fact the historical record is very clear that number one the Earth has been MUCH warmer for the vast period of its existence (75% of the Earths life has been much warmer than today) and secondly the time when it was much warmer in the past, the PETM witnessed, an explosion of life all over the planet.

The claim that a warmer world is bad, is simply not born out by fact.  On the other hand, the asteroid impact possibility is very real and that we know has the ability to do exactly what you claim warm will do.  And you idiots whistle Dixie about it because you can't make money off of it.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








It also occurs naturally.

Do transuranic elements such as plutonium ever occur naturally? : Scientific American


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> I've been meaning to ask - do you support subsidies paid to energy companies?








No, we don't.  They don't get subsidies, they get tax breaks, but we don't approve of those either.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

green energy.....just another progressive ruse in an effort to reach the ultimate goal: destruction of capitalism and power to the statists.

'Clean Energy' Is Cooling The Economy And Damaging The Environment - Forbes


----------



## Snookie (Sep 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's misleading.  They do not occur in potent quantities, naturally.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.
> ...



The compelling evidence is that the more the climate changes from what we built civilization around the more we'll spend adapting to the new one.  

You hope that by denying that proven fact you can get others to pay for your lifestyle. 

Your plot to overthrow the country by denial lies, to impose that BS on all of us, is obvious now.  

It's not happening.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 14, 2013)

Holston's home sweet home.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

I could make money off the fear of asteroid impact.  I have helmets.  You're worried about it, Dave.  I think we can do business.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Holston's home sweet home.




Sorry to be dense, but can we assume that you oppose this fellow's attempt to take over this town?  It's not obvious from your post.  But, like I said, I may be too dense here for the subtleties.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 14, 2013)

picture of holston.

http://news.yahoo.com/guy-wants-build-neo-nazi-colony-north-dakota-105600657.html


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> green energy.....just another progressive ruse in an effort to reach the ultimate goal: destruction of capitalism and power to the statists.
> 
> 'Clean Energy' Is Cooling The Economy And Damaging The Environment - Forbes



Conservatism is the current in a long line of ism's that believe that the democracy that the American people constructed over the last, 230+ years is flawed by the fact that they don't have complete control. 

They will be taught the same lessons that the others were.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I could make money off the fear of asteroid impact.  I have helmets.  *You're worried about it, Dave*.  I think we can do business.



Good Gaea's gargantuan gazongas, but you're a dumb bastard.

_I haven't discussed asteroid impact._

If you were as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't keep confusing posters.  

Dumbass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> I've been meaning to ask - do you support subsidies paid to energy companies?



Why don't you list some and I'll let you know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Why do you keep claiming the majority agree with you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What do you imagine you proved to me? Be specific.

We don't do it because an idiot, Jimmy Carter, was afraid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



How toxic? Any numbers?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

People who know have answers. People who don't, have only questions Todd.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Holston's home sweet home.
> ...



Holston personifies conservative freedom. The freedom for them to impose what they've been told is best for them, on everybody else.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So, your idea is to not fear nuclear terrorism?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

You can bet that every card carrying Communist in the world became so by falling for a slick sales pitch showing how Communism would make their personal life not so miserable. 

Just like the card carrying conservative, here. 

Power is very seductive, so empowering folks to impose what's good for them on others is an easy sell to those unable to grasp the big picture.

We are protected from both communism and conservatism here by democracy but only as long as we maintain an adequately informed electorate. Support education. Support science. Support a legitimate fourth estate. Resist gerrymandering and voter suppression. Get the Grover Norquists and Karl Roves and Donald Trumps of the world out of DC.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> People who know have answers. People who don't, have only questions Todd.



And people like you think plutonium is created in a chemical reaction. Dumb people.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You said we have a hard time keeping fissile material from terrorists.

Like so many of your claims, ridiculous.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Rediculous only if you are not smart enough to worry about nuclear terrorism.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > People who know have answers. People who don't, have only questions Todd.
> ...



The Toddster is desperate enough to have to make up shit again. It's happening almost every day now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You must think that spent fuel is more secure in pools at dozens of reactors around the country, instead of reprocessed and consumed in the reactor.


----------



## daveman (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> People who know have answers. People who don't, have only questions Todd.



The idea that people who don't know enough also don't know enough to realise that they don't know enough ("Dunning-Kruger effect" is so much simpler to get your tongue around) isn't particularly new. Bertrand Russell in The Triumph of Stupidity in the mid 1930s said that "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." Even earlier, Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man in 1871, stated "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I can't make up your idiocy.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...bal-warming-is-a-religion-31.html#post7815776

3 idiotic comments in one post.
Great job!


----------



## Snookie (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



One thousand of a gram will kill you instantly.  One million of a gram will kill you in 5 years.

I did a paper on it in college.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You are so full of hubris that you remind me of a blood gorged flea so full of hubris that it explodes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



One milligram where? Lung, stomach, bloodstream?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Yeah, reading the idiocy PMS posts does make me feel smarter.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're the only one who'd know if you "feel smarter". All we can observe is that you act dumber.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It is if it hasn't been reprocessed.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Who the fuck do you think I am,  Doctor Gupta?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...


Correctomunga.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



They are running from the truth but can't hide their ignorance. They were promised that they'd get their way by the cult leaders. That was only one of the things that their leaders lied about.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Sep 14, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > If you listened to the recording and this is all you have to say in response, why in god's name do you bother?  Is your existence so filled with ignominy and bleak despair that these tawdry bangles of other's wit are, to your mind, fitting?  Turn around.  See the sun.  Walk till your feet are wet.
> ...





Notice the use of "Moslem" instead of "Muslim" (as if copycats who go on the Internet are capable of noticing anything they are not told to notice).  "Moslem" was the word used in Old School days. 

 You can memorize every word of _1984_ and not be capable of recognizing that this is the real-life version of Newspeak, which our ruling class started implanting in the 1960s.  In this case, they wanted us to take a different attitude towards their OPEC allies and discredit any history dealing with Moslems by changing words.  Also, we have to kowtow to these foreigners from now on and use the names they demand we use. 

 Why do you think the 1% even allowed us to read _1984_ at all? First, because they wanted us to think it was only about Communism, though Orwell himself was a Socialist.   Second, because they knew that, by dumbing us down, they could cripple our ability to make analogies, so if they don't indoctrinate us into using the exact words of the novel's Newspeak or have TVs everywhere telling us that BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, then we wouldn't notice how our mind is being pushed into the direction our self-appointed rulers want us to go.  And we are taught to think that it has to be the same process, when just the act of us watching TV so many hours from childhood on makes us passive, no matter what the content.  Likewise, with the _Matrix_, we can't make the cognitive transition from a false real life being put into our heads in the Matrix and false conclusions being put into our heads in real life, such as that 9/11 meant Attack Iraq as the logical retaliation.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You can bet that every card carrying Communist in the world became so by falling for a slick sales pitch showing how Communism would make their personal life not so miserable.
> 
> Just like the card carrying conservative, here.
> 
> ...



You can thank our anti-democratic Sacred Cow Constitution for that.  It was written *behind closed doors* by slick lawyers for the 1% of that time, ratified by the state legislators representing only their own states' 1%.  The people never voted on it, just like we don't vote on Amendments.  Notice how the Right Wing scribbling prostitutes for the plutocracy are the ones who worship it the most?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 14, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > You can bet that every card carrying Communist in the world became so by falling for a slick sales pitch showing how Communism would make their personal life not so miserable.
> ...



Thank god the vast mass of numskulls weren't allowed to have any say in the Constitution.  If they had, the US would have descended into chaos 100 years ago.  

BTW, thanks for announcing to the entire forum that you despise the Constitution.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 14, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



And I wonder how many besides me interpreted this post as something inspired right out of the Alinksy playbook?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 14, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > You can bet that every card carrying Communist in the world became so by falling for a slick sales pitch showing how Communism would make their personal life not so miserable.
> ...



Well, we do have the bill of rights in it.

Almost, anyway.

Sort of, but it's for corporations, now too, thanks to the Roberts Court.

Well, maybe.

Someday.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 14, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



So what?  It's a free country, sort of, almost, maybe, anyway.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Certainly you're right that the wealthy white educated males who wrote the Constitution favored themselves with a grand plutocracy in the fashion of those days. 

But we,  the people,  over the next 150 years turned it into a democracy.  Then insisted that all citizens have equal rights under the law. 

Conservatives want to undo what we,  the people did. 

The answer is no.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Jake? Izzatyou?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



I've always thought of Alinsky as the Rush Limbaugh of his time.  Certainly a different constituency,  a different media,  a different worldview and a different motivation,  but the same message. Take what you want and it doesn't matter how. You are entitled.  

Alinsky organized people face to face at the city level,  and Rush impersonally over the radio at the national level,  so has had a much broader reach.  

Both did a lot to damage the country.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"Thank god the vast mass of numskulls weren't allowed to have any say in the Constitution."

This is what conservatism is based on. It is the opposite of democracy. It is tyrannical. It is best exhibited in countries like Afghanistan.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...






Still waiting s0n.....on how the science is mattering?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PrometheusBound said:
> ...



''Still waiting s0n.....on how the science is mattering?''

Gee dad,  that's a strange question. Science always matters.  It's always a revelation about the truth of the universe. How can that not matter? 

And it leads to solutions.  Humanity doesn't have to just accept problems.  We can solve them. How cool is that? 

Progress. 

Thanks dad for asking.  Good talk.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



According to this guy, you should have failed.

The dangers of plutonium are analyzed in detail in a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report that is available on the web at www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/118825.html. Here are the key facts:

Plutonium is toxic both because of its chemical effects and because of its radioactivity. The chemical toxicity is similar to that of other "heavy metals" and is not the cause for the widespread fear. The dangers are different for ingestiion and for inhalation. 

Ingestion. For acute radiation poisoning, the lethal dose is estimated to be 500 milligrams (mg), i.e. about 1/2 gram. A common poison, cyanide, requires a dose 5 times smaller to cause death: 100 mg. Thus for ingestion, plutonium is very toxic, but five times less toxic than cyanide. There is also a risk of cancer from ingestion, with a lethal doze (1 cancer) for 480 mg.

Inhalation. For inhalation, the plutonium can cause death within a month (from pulmonary fibrosis or pulmonary edema); that requires 20 mg inhaled. To cause cancer with high probability, the amount that must be inhaled is 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms. The lethal dose for botulism toxin is 0.070 micrograms = 70 nanograms, a factor of 

How easy is it to breathe in 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms? To get to the critical part of the lungs, the particle must be no larger than about 3 microns. A particle of that size has a mass of about 0.140 micrograms. To get to a dose of 80 micrograms requires 80/0.14 = 560 particles. 

Light


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



That would hurt, if all life on Earth hadn't ended during the Carboniferous.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



No.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



I think you're Dr Hook.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Are you arguing that because it's not the most toxic substance in the world, it's not toxic?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



A classic example of you acting dumb. Does it make you feel smart?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...





Actually......in terms of climate science, nothing is mattering. Like I said.....its nothing more than a hobby.......like a bit old group navel contemplation session. There are no solutions. Never were.......never will be. The "solutions" are nothing but hail Mary pass guesses.( so-called green fantasies) As such, they are having zero effect on public policy that would possible create those "solutions". The best the climate k00ks have now is wind and solar power.......which are laughable.


What the nutters never understand that there is an absolute truth linking politics and science. The dreams of the green nutters like we have on this forum is a world that is not possible.......100% certainty. Why? Because the world runs on fossil fuels and nothing else......well.....I lie.....3% of energy use is via renewables. Just enough to keep the Al Gores of the world building their mega-estates and flying all over the world in Lear jets.


As Ive said in the past.......nobody cares about the science. To the public, its akin to a fly on the ass of an elephant. When might that change? Well......if sometime in the future, we see reports of 70 degree temperatures in central Alaska in the middle of January for a period of 3 weeks. Not a moment sooner. When we see waterskiing going on in Buckland Alaska in mid-January, MAYBE people will take notice.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

I love this forum.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



I believe that your point is that nothing matters to you. After all, you are the only one that you can speak for. 

I'll bet though that nobody is surprised that nothing matters to you. In fact, it's in my experience, not an atypical conservative worldview. Maybe it's even a requirement in order to be a conservative.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 14, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> I love this forum.



Me too!


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

Snookie said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...








Neither does U235.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









You have zero evidence to support that.  Absolutely none.  What you do have is the requirement that we squander 76 trillion dollars in the vain hope that it will reduce the global temps by one degree in 100 years.....maybe.  That's ALL you've got.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








meh



I only care about whos not winning!!!



In recent years, conservatives are getting their clocks cleaned on most everything. But not on the issue of climate science. It is utter domination of the progressive nutty-asses. In the past 7 years, they've moved the goalposts exactly zero = losing.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I could make money off the fear of asteroid impact.  I have helmets.  You're worried about it, Dave.  I think we can do business.








Yeah sure.  You watch this video and let us know how effective your little tin hats are fool.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTmwbhyNBtA]Meteorite hits Russia impact Video Collections of meteorite explosions - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I could make money off the fear of asteroid impact.  I have helmets.  You're worried about it, Dave.  I think we can do business.
> ...



God are you stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



No, I am arguing that Snookie's claim that one milligram, anywhere, will kill you instantly, is wrong.
Nader should have taken the dare. Wimp.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No, acting like you does not make me feel smart.


----------



## westwall (Sep 14, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








I know!  And yet, compared to you, I'm a certifiable genius!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Sorry, dummy, plutonium isn't created by chemical processing.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Reprocessing spent fuel rods is more a mechanical process (think centrifuges).  And plutonium, like any other chemical, can certainly be manipulated (isolated for instance) by chemical processes.  It's not magic.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Tell that to the Japanese.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 15, 2013)

Snookie is absolutely correct.  Plutonium (or any other potent alpha-emitter) is incredibly deadly INSIDE your body.  Interestingly, it is not particularly deadly outside your body - at least outside your anti-C suit.

Alpha-emitters do nasty things to your wet parts.  Plutonium is, like, the champeen of the world at emitting alpha particles.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Manipulating and isolating is not creating.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



What does your huge error have to do with the Japanese?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Snookie is absolutely correct.  Plutonium (or any other potent alpha-emitter) is incredibly deadly INSIDE your body.  Interestingly, it is not particularly deadly outside your body - at least outside your anti-C suit.
> 
> Alpha-emitters do nasty things to your wet parts.  Plutonium is, like, the champeen of the world at emitting alpha particles.



*Plutonium is, like, the champeen of the world at emitting alpha particles. *

It's, like, not even close to being champion.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie is absolutely correct.  Plutonium (or any other potent alpha-emitter) is incredibly deadly INSIDE your body.  Interestingly, it is not particularly deadly outside your body - at least outside your anti-C suit.
> ...



You say it's not the best
Well, name the rest.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

Todd - 

Do you ever wonder if the reason why you struggle to understand these topics is because you ignore the information other posters present for you, in favour of laughable attempts at oneupmanship?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 15, 2013)

From Wikipedia's article in Plutonium

Plutonium is the heaviest primordial element by virtue of its most stable isotope, plutonium-244, whose half-life of about 80 million years is just long enough for the element to be found in trace quantities in nature.[3] Plutonium is mostly a byproduct of nuclear reactions in reactors where some of the neutrons released by the fission process convert uranium-238 nuclei into plutonium.[4]
Both plutonium-239 and plutonium-241 are fissile, meaning that they can sustain a nuclear chain reaction, leading to applications in nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. Plutonium-240 exhibits a high rate of spontaneous fission, raising the neutron flux of any sample containing it. The presence of plutonium-240 limits a sample's usability for weapons or reactor fuel, and determines its grade.
Plutonium-238 has a half-life of 88 years and emits alpha particles. It is a heat source in radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which are used to power some spacecraft. Plutonium isotopes are expensive and inconvenient to separate, so particular isotopes are usually manufactured in specialized reactors.
A team led by Glenn T. Seaborg and Edwin McMillan at the University of California, Berkeley laboratory first synthesized plutonium in 1940 by bombarding uranium-238 with deuterons. Trace amounts of plutonium were subsequently discovered in nature. Producing plutonium in useful quantities for the first time was a major part of the Manhattan Project during World War II, which developed the first atomic bombs. The first nuclear test, "Trinity" (July 1945), and the second atomic bomb used to destroy a city (Nagasaki, Japan, in August 1945), "Fat Man", both had cores of plutonium-239. Human radiation experiments studying plutonium were conducted without informed consent, and several criticality accidents, some lethal, occurred during and after the war. Disposal of plutonium waste from nuclear power plants and dismantled nuclear weapons built during the Cold War is a nuclear-proliferation and environmental concern. Other sources of plutonium in the environment are fallout from numerous above-ground nuclear tests (now banned).

Alpha decay, the release of a high-energy helium nucleus, is the most common form of radioactive decay for plutonium.[7] A 5 kg mass of 239Pu contains about 12.5×1024 atoms. With a half-life of 24,100 years, about 11.5×1012 of its atoms decay each second by emitting a 5.157 MeV alpha particle. This amounts to 9.68 watts of power. Heat produced by the deceleration of these alpha particles makes it warm to the touch.[8][9]

*[Metallic plutonium produced by a chemical reaction] *
Metallic plutonium is produced by reacting plutonium tetrafluoride with barium, calcium or lithium at 1200 °C.[30] It is attacked by acids, oxygen, and steam but not by alkalis and dissolves easily in concentrated hydrochloric, hydroiodic and perchloric acids.[31] Molten metal must be kept in a vacuum or an inert atmosphere to avoid reaction with air.[15] At 135 °C the metal will ignite in air and will explode if placed in carbon tetrachloride.[32]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Radium-224 Half Life 3.6 days
Radon-222 Half Life 3.8 days
Polonium-210 Half Life 138 days
Thorium-228 Half Life 1.9 years
Plutonium-238 Half-life 87.7 years 
Plutonium-240 Half Life 6,560 years
Plutonium-239 Half Life 24,100 years


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Do you ever wonder if the reason why you struggle to understand these topics is because you ignore the information other posters present for you, in favour of laughable attempts at oneupmanship?



Pointing out the errors in those claims is not a struggle at all.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Half-life is not an alternate measure of alpha decay rates.  Plutonium decays by alpha, beta and gamma decay.  The Wikipedia article explicitly states that it is a more powerful alpha emitter than is radon.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I didn't see radon in that article or in your post.
What did it say?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



Then why are you always wrong?

Most of your schtick seems to be attacking claims no one ever made - as you are doing here again now with the half-life discussion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Show where I've been wrong.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 15, 2013)

Todd - 

Has the coal industry ever received subsidies?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Has the coal industry ever received subsidies?



You keep claiming they do, so show me.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Has the coal industry ever received subsidies?



It has received far less subsidies than the warmist cult members claim.  It also only received subsidies 200 years after it started.  if an industry can't survive without subsidies, then it's doomed to fail.  It's nothing but a burden on consumers and taxpayers.  Why would any rational person want to enable that?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



Are you saying that the coal industry is doomed to fail?


----------



## daveman (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


It is if the warmist cult gets their way and shuts it down to replace it with empty promises of wind and solar.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If you are that stupid, then I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you.  Gotta draw you people pictures, for crist sake.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Only you have zero evidence.  Science has a great deal. Compelling. 

The fact that you ignore it has no effect on it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



How much has been spent in the last year on fossil fuel power plants in the world?  How much on sustainable power? How many new muscle cars vs high mpg. How's the market for light bulbs that make more heat than light? How about low efficiency appliances? 

I'd you think know that the world hasn't changed because you have't,  you need to come out of your hole.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He didn't say instantly.  That's not how radiation works.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Only in your mind.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You seem to have two modes. Not answering or answering a different question than asked.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Nobody said it was asshole.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



Normal is it useful to anyone. Nor is it topical.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 15, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



Shows us what's been claimed by warmist cult members.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



You said 1 mg kills instantly.
Not my fault you're wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*One thousand of a gram will kill you instantly. One million of a gram will kill you in 5 years.

I did a paper on it in college. *

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...should-listen-to-the-97-a-55.html#post7833050


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Todd "Still think reprocessing spent fuel creates fissile materials?"

PMZ "Yes. I proved it to you."

It's right there, above your comment.
ESL?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Besides you, idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Your errors are certainly topical.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Here's the quote from Saigon's signature:

_"In the US, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion."​_


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



My goof, it was radium.  Mea culpa.

_In the case of human subjects, this involved injecting solutions containing (typically) five micrograms of plutonium into hospital patients thought to be either terminally ill, or to have a life expectancy of less than ten years either due to age or chronic disease condition.[70] This was reduced to one microgram in July 1945 after animal studies found that the way plutonium distributed itself in bones was more dangerous than radium.[71]_


----------



## westwall (Sep 15, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








And to date you have never presented a single measurable item.  Why is that?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 16, 2013)

Because your grasp of reality is so ineffably tenuous.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



That statement is simply what you wish was true.  It's disconnected from reality.  

The proof is all around and equally available to all of us.  Everybody who cares,  except deniers,  has taken the time and made the effort to keep up with the IPCC and science.  You've chosen to maintain a closed mind in hopes of advancing your political objectives.  Control of US climate policy.  

The failure of this political strategy is just one more in a long line of failures of conservative politics.  

Democracies don't reward failure.  The consequences of that are upon you.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Sep 16, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Constitutionazis make the Land of the Free just like a theocratic dictatorship with the Constitution as its Bible.  Supreme laws and Supreme Courts  are for Supreme Beings, and not believing in the Constitution is no different from not believing in Supreme Beings.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Sep 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Look at its competition, the oil industry.  All the anti-coal propaganda was financed by the oil industry.  All the Warmie propaganda also, because it shuts down oilfields and creates an artificial scarcity and consumer desperation, allowing the oil-slimed 1% to charge us 20 times what the production costs are.  Remember, crude oil is used for plastics, fertilizer, and other high-profit margin products.  That more than covers the cost of oil, so the gasoline they gouge us on costs them nothing.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Sep 16, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...




Typical worthless contribution from a John Birch Society fanatic who thinks anyone who doesn't follow his slavish worship of the rich must be some kind of Commie.  Since you are in a mindless cult, you think everybody else must be the slave of some guru too.  Your paranoia is a sure sign of denial; you know perfectly well what a bootlicker on your way to being a jackboot thug you are.  You are a worm studying to be a snake.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 16, 2013)

It's been my observation that your typical devout conservative is about ten times as familiar with Saul Alinsky as is the typical devout liberal.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> It's been my observation that your typical devout conservative is about ten times as familiar with Saul Alinsky as is the typical devout liberal.



Reminds me of how familiar the left is with rush an Hannity 

Fanatics of AL stripes are very similar, arent they.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 16, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PrometheusBound said:
> ...



"Constitution nazis?"  Really?  That's a whole lot better than bonafide communists like you.  What do you believe in, Das Kapital?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 16, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PrometheusBound said:
> ...



Whoa!  Can we say   O V E R - T H E - E D G E ???


----------



## Snookie (Sep 17, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > It's been my observation that your typical devout conservative is about ten times as familiar with Saul Alinsky as is the typical devout liberal.
> ...



Unlike right wing nutters who only gather news from right wing web sites, liberals get their news from all different sources, therefore making us more intelligent than nutters.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 17, 2013)

IPCC revises all their AGW Models downward = Why we should IGNORE the 97%


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 17, 2013)

Snookie said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Jon Stewart is not a news anchor


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

Snookie said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Bullshit.  None of the libs in here bothered to read McIntyre's paper about the Hockey Stick even though I posted a link to it.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 17, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



You're kidding, right?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 17, 2013)

Snookie said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...





You are outright delusional.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



I did.  I even saved it to my computer and bookmarked it. hugs.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Snookie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



The civil courts have evaluated the evidence and preliminarily judged that the slander trial should go forward.  They will decide whether Mann's research was valid or not.  If they judge that it was professionally done then the question is was the criticism valid science or personal slander.  

Then we'll know.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



A judge isn't qualified to determine whether Mann's work was "valid."  A judge isn't a scientist.  Even if the judge was a scientist, he/she still wouldn't have the qualifications to determine that.  Your claim is just another appeal to authority.



PMZ said:


> If they judge that it was professionally done then the question is was the criticism valid science or personal slander.



Even if the judge rules that it was "professionally done," that still won't win Mann's case.  Mann is a public figure, and the press therefore has the right to say virtually anything they want about him.    This case should have been thrown out under D.C.'s SLAPP statute.  The only reason it wasn't is the fact that the original judge is a Clinton appointed hack who was in the tank for Mann.  That judge was removed for precisely that reason.



PMZ said:


> Then we'll know.



We already know that Mann is a fraud.  McIntyre proved it.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Another paranoiac from the John Birch Society.  You think everybody not in your cult is a Commie out to get you.  That is a sign that you secretly know, whether we are Commies or not, we should be out to get you.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 17, 2013)

From an EPA email to me.  I will try to be there.


"CONTACT: 
press@epa.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 17, 2013

TOMORROW: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz to Testify Before House Energy & Commerce Committee on Climate Change

WASHINGTON &#8211; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz will testify before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce&#8217;s Subcommittee on Energy and Power tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. EDT at a hearing to discuss President Obama&#8217;s climate change policies.

Hearing details: 

WHO:   
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy 
DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz

WHAT: Testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce&#8217;s Subcommittee on Energy and Power

WHEN: 10:00 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, September 18, 2013

WHERE: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

More information on climate change: Home | Climate Change | US EPA and Climate Change | Department of Energy

R153 '


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2013)

Snookie said:


> From an EPA email to me.  I will try to be there.
> 
> 
> "CONTACT:
> ...



  

Lemme save you some time.. 40 minutes of opening grandstanding by politicians. 30 minutes of prepared lying and distortion, 40 minutes of contentuous back-biting --- 

ZERO information or science.. 

Why would you care? Everyone there is a statist moron trying to look important..


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PrometheusBound said:
> ...



No, I don't think that, but you obviously are a commie.  It's not a secret.  You give yourself away with every post.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Multiple surveys of scientists and their peer reviewed publications indicates they overwhelmingly believe AGW to be valid and agree with the IPCC's position on climate change.
> ...



See Todd.. I know for a fact that Abraham already pretty much agrees with all that from previous conversations with him.. He can't really contend that YOU and I are standing in the way of fixing any of this --- because we ALL AGREE on what COULD be done to nullify the ficticious Global Warming "disaster".. 

He really doesn't have a charge against us.. YET -- he STILL insists that we capitulate to his "consensus" that exists only in his head. 

Why don't we all work to refocus a REAL energy policy? Because the dupes on the left want to call all the shots and COULDN'T get approval from their base for a Nuclear energy Revival in this country.. They are mentally strapped into 60 year old technology and some bad 70 year old policy decisions...


----------



## mamooth (Sep 17, 2013)

Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?

That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.

In contrast, AGW science is real science, hence it is falsifiable. Lowering global temps (the whole globe, including the oceans) would falsify it. A negative radiative balance would falsify it. Many things would falsify it.

Take a hint, denialists, as to what real science looks like. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to state the things that would falsify denialism. Be both specific and realistic. But I doubt that will happen, as denialists know they won't be able to move the goalposts later if they make a specific prediction now.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?
> 
> That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.



You and your fellow cult members are the ones with a theory, dipstick.  I am not required to disprove the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming any more than I'm required to disprove the existence of big foot.    There is no such thing as a Bigfoot "denialist."  There are simply people who howl with laughter whenever some deluded rube starts telling people about BigFoot - the same way we laugh whenever you start your slavish devotion to the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.



mamooth said:


> In contrast, AGW science is real science, hence it is falsifiable. Lowering global temps (the whole globe, including the oceans) would falsify it. A negative radiative balance would falsify it. Many things would falsify it.



It that's the case then it's already been falsified.  Temperatures have been flat or declining for the last 15 years.



mamooth said:


> Take a hint, denialists, as to what real science looks like. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to state the things that would falsify denialism. Be both specific and realistic. But I doubt that will happen, as denialists know they won't be able to move the goalposts later if they make a specific prediction now.



Done.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



Any judge is certainly better qualified than you are.  At least the judge knows the law.  It's up to the attorneys to fill him in on the rest.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?
> ...



If you kept up with IPCC science instead of conservative politics you'd know what's behind all of the data.  Or at least be exposed to the truth.  However,  because the truth is still inconvenient for you,  you would continue to deny it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?
> ...



Where?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?
> 
> That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.
> 
> ...



It's not my job to make climate predictions.. And I don't hold my breath to see climate predictions revealed.. Because, they are NOT infallible.

As far as "stating the things that falsify denialism".. that's not required. 
I'm not required to explain "personal auras" if I believe they are not altered by exposure to spiritual crystals. 

Can't create the proper science to fill the gap if it doesn't yet exist.. BUT -- I can be more humble about what the EXPECTATION should be for "models, predictions, and theories".. 

Humble and humility aint' in the Warmer lexicon.. When the cameras turn off, and the hype dies down, MAYBE we'll get some REAL science for the Climate discipline..


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > From an EPA email to me.  I will try to be there.
> ...



Sounds like Fox News.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



Or a content analysis of YOUR typical post.. 

Fox does play to one side of the arguments. BUT --- doesn't mean they are not informative or 1/2 correct.. 

OTHand --- your typical post.......................................


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



The fact that you can't get around the Fox News of a ''ficticious Global Warming "disaster"''puts you very much at odds with science and very much aligned with those heavily profiting from the status quo. 

In other words bought and paid for.  

Sucker.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?
> 
> That's how we know denialism is kook conspiracy pseudoscience, because it's unfalsifiable. Temperatures keep rising? Just say "Natural cycles!". Radiative balance positive? Yell about cosmic rays and clouds. Whole world disagrees with them? Call it a socialist conspiracy! And so on. No matter what data supports AGW, denialists simply wave their hands around and make up a reason why it doesn't matter.
> 
> ...








We don't _have_ a theory silly person.  We have 4.5 billion years of history and at least 3,000 years of written history OBSERVING the world around man.  It is YOU who have promulgated a theory....a theory that has failed every metric so in the finest traditions of the pseudo-scientific nutbags you no longer give measurable metrics.

Sylvia Brown has a better track record than you clowns, and she is a well known charlatan.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



 Policy leaders around the world are focused on a '' REAL energy policy''.  They have the IPCC doing the science to base it on now.  It will probably be quite different than yours based on what you wish was true.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...










You mean these idiots?


*IPCC In Crisis As Climate Predictions Fail*

"To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering. --Ross McKitrick,"




IPCC In Crisis As Predictions Fail


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Policy leaders around the world are focused on a '' REAL energy policy''. *

What do we need? Solyndra!
When do we need it? NOW!

Great energy policy you have there. LOL!


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



"REAL energy policy" is obviously the kind that transfers trillions of dollars from the people who earned it into the hands of useless parasites and government bureaucrats.  What they have the IPCC doing is laying the groundwork for a colossal con.  They depend on suckers like you to propagate the misinformation.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 17, 2013)

I have a solution to solve the energy problems.

*Pig Shit1*

Am I a genius, or am  I a genius?

Master Blaster!

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80B9srKQnI0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80B9srKQnI0[/ame]


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?
> ...



The fact that you obviously don't have a very deep understanding of any science,  much less climate science,  presently the one expanding the fastest,  has absolutely nothing to do with the science.  There's no scientific principle or theory or data or experiment that requires anything from you. Certainly not your agreement or advice. 

The fact that you feel entitled to be in the middle of it without any of the investment and work as those qualified to practice it is a huge insult to their profession. 

The fact that your ego would like you to be educated is simply not sufficient.  You have to do the work.  And you have a long,  long way to go.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Could any denialists tell us what could falsify their theory?
> ...



How many years from earth's past had 7B energy guzzling humans on earth.  The hardest lesson for conservatives is that we've never been here before. So their worship of what was is useless to everyone.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


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



Here's the deal.  Nobody bringing about our energy future is listening to you because you're so easily misled.  Perhaps somebody told you in the past that you needed to develop critical thinking skills.  That doesn't mean whining more.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



REAL energy policy is one based on science.  Not one based on what big oil pays the Fox boobs and boobies to sell to you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



*Here's the deal. Nobody bringing about our energy future is listening to you because you're so easily misled. *

PMZ said, to himself.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


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







Who cares.  We KNOW that the temperature of the Earth was much warmer for 75% of its existence.  What caused that?  Whale farts?  Al Gore's Tennessee house?  

No dumbass, we know you want to murder billions of people..... that much is very clear...but the environment is no longer a legitimate excuse for you to murder people.  You're just going to have to kill them and hope you outlive your war crimes trial...


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Good!  Tell Big Oil to stop pumping money into your green energy BS.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> It's not my job to make climate predictions.



Yes it is, if you don't want to be considered merely a pseudoscience-embracing crank.

The AGW side has decades of successful predictions behind it. That's why they have such credibility. You won't make any prediction at all, much less a successful one. And that's why your side is correctly considered to be a political cult.

So, I still can't get a single denialist to tell me what would disprove their theory. Hence, it's unfalsifiable, obviously making it pseudoscience. Astrologists, dowsers, homeopaths, antivaxxers, 9/11 truthers and birthers all have more scientific grounding behind them than denialists do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > It's not my job to make climate predictions.
> ...



*The AGW side has decades of successful predictions behind it.*

That is awesome! When did they predict the recent leveling off?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Leveling off of what?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > It's not my job to make climate predictions.
> ...



One of the reasons the debate will go on endlessly, even while the problem is being solved, is that it's politics vs science. 

It's a very well known tenant of politics that there is no truth.  Whatever can be sold is true enough.  

It's a very well known tenant of science that absolute truth is the goal. 

While that makes the issues between science supporters and flat earthers unresolvable ,  heretics have never won such a debate yet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



You don't know?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



How many developed human civilizations were there all that time that the earth was warmer?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



This post requires explanation.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No,  I said it to you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




LOL        Im not at homebase so I cant post the story. But when any1 pins hopes on the UN I think of the famous UN FOOD RIOT.

A labor dispute  closed the food services for a day.  The members and staff raided the kitchens and liqour lockers destroying a lot of equipment and dinnerware.PILLAGED and stole anything in sight. 

These are the morons that botched the Oil for Food program and virtuualy every mission theyve undertaken. And evidentally, they are not very civilized.



((DAMN TABLET toy. Its like the Fischer Price version of a  REAL work tool.))


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No.  Leveling off of what?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So you see a connection between UN food workers and the IPCC? 

Tell us how they're connected?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You're awfully slow.. No not the food workers... THE DELEGATES, BUREAUCRATS and their assistants TRASHED AND PILLAGED the place.. 



> *Food Fight - TIME
> 
> But as tensions grew and stomachs growled, a high-ranking U.N. official boldly ordered that all the cafeterias open their doors for business even without staff. The restaurants had been locked shut by security until about 1:00 pm when the doors flung open.
> 
> ...



Barbarians...


----------



## westwall (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"Nor does a quick review of the numbers quite undermine both companies claims.

According to figures released recently by the American Petroleum Institute (API), a trade group, Big Oil is the biggest investor in the race to create green fuels.

The API says that in the last decade the industry has put $71 billion into zero- and low-emission and renewable energy technologies. In contrast, the U.S. government has spent about $43 billion on similar efforts over the same period."

"For a start, most of the $71 billion figure touted by the API went toward making oil companies existing fossil-fuel business more environmentally friendly. Only $9 billion went toward renewable energy investment. And even if all that money had been sunk into renewable technology it would still only be a drop in the ocean compared to what Big Oil spends on its core business."


Is Big Oil Really Serious About Renewables? | The Energy Collective


Investing in Green Energy Through Big Oil


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> How many years from earth's past had 7B energy guzzling humans on earth.  The hardest lesson for conservatives is that we've never been here before. So their worship of what was is useless to everyone.



Ask a more difficult question....How many years from earth's past has had a mean global temperature considerably higher than the present and what does that say regarding our energy guzzling and corresponding meager contribution to a trace atmospheric gas?






In case you can't read a graph, the answer to the question is most of them.  For the vast bulk of earth's history, the temperature has been higher than even the most dire predictions from your priests without 7B energy guzzling human beings.  A quick look at the graph should tell you that we are in a cold period and the earth is going to come out of it with or without us.

What you don't seem to grasp is that the high priests of climate science know this and like the priests in the old days, are trying to use that knowledge to extort obedience from the uneducated masses...you being one.  The problem is that things aren't going on schedule and like the priests of old, when their predictions fail, they lose power and must run for the tall grass.

Interesting that you haven't noticed the change in the narrative over the past few years.  It used to be CO2 is the control knob...now it is a complex system with complex natural variables.  Soon it will be as if warmers never existed because no one will admit to having been one just like no one will admit to having supported eugenics even though at one time it was mainstream consensus science.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Leveling off of what?



The ignorance and level of denial is stunning.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:
			
		

> Soon it will be as if warmers never existed because no one will admit to having been one just like no one will admit to having supported eugenics even though at one time it was mainstream consensus science.



Keep your running shoes handy old man.  Mobs can be quick.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Leveling off of what?
> ...



Leveling off of what?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > How many years from earth's past had 7B energy guzzling humans on earth.  The hardest lesson for conservatives is that we've never been here before. So their worship of what was is useless to everyone.
> ...



You do realize that the issue with FFs is that we are recreating the climate from before they were formed,  right? Before there were humans.  Before humans built an advanced civilization adapted to the climate that we're leaving behind.  Before there were 7B of us. 

There's no question in my mind that some will survive the new environment.  Some might even benefit.  The pissed off losers will be those with either not enough,  or too much water.  

Ask the folks around Boulder.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Leveling off of what?
> ...



He's trying to make a point.  Nothing is leveling off.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > How many years from earth's past had 7B energy guzzling humans on earth.  The hardest lesson for conservatives is that we've never been here before. So their worship of what was is useless to everyone.
> ...



''It used to be CO2 is the control knob...now it is a complex system with complex natural variables.''

It's always been about CO2.  Thats what FFs took out of the atmosphere when they were formed and we're putting back in. 

Want you want is a favor from God that they won't do now what they did then. 

What we accept from science is that they will do now what they did then even though it's inconvenient to man.  Not to mention grossly expensive.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One of the numerous consequences of AGW is that the human losers to a new climate will not go quietly into their good nights. 

I'm pretty sure that they will fight for survival.  Literally.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The folks around Boulder are in trouble because of CO2 levels?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 18, 2013)

EPA News Release.

[quote
CONTACT:
press@epa.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 18, 2013


EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy Testimony Before House Committee on Energy and Commerces Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

WASHINGTON -- As prepared for delivery. 

Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

In June, the President reaffirmed his commitment to reducing carbon pollution when he directed many federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to take meaningful steps to mitigate the current and future damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions and to prepare for the anticipated climate changes that have already been set in motion.

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Based on the evidence, more than 97% of climate scientists are convinced that human caused climate change is occurring. If our changing climate goes unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the United States and the planet. Reducing carbon pollution is critically important to the protection of Americans health and the environment upon which our economy depends.

Responding to climate change is an urgent public health, safety, national security, and environmental imperative that presents an economic challenge and an economic opportunity. As the President has stated, both the economy and the environment must provide for current and future generations and we can and must embrace cutting carbon pollution as a spark for business innovation, job creation, clean energy and broad economic growth. The United States success over the past 40 years makes clear that environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand. 

The Presidents Climate Action Plan directs federal agencies to address climate change using existing executive authorities. The Plan has three key pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America; preparing the country for the impacts of climate change; and leading international efforts to combat global climate change. 

Cutting Carbon Pollution

EPA plays a critical role in implementing the Plans first pillar, cutting carbon pollution. Over the past four years, EPA has begun to address this task under the Clean Air Act. 

Our first steps addressed motor vehicles, which emit nearly a third of U.S. carbon pollution. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, along with the auto industry and other stakeholders, worked together to set greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for Model Year 2012 to 2025 light-duty vehicles. Over the life of these vehicles, the standards will save an estimated $1.7 trillion for consumers and businesses and cut Americas oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons.   

EPAs and NHTSAs standards for model year 2014 through 2018 heavy-duty trucks and buses present a similar success story. Under the Presidents Plan, we will be developing a second phase of heavy-duty vehicle standards for post 2018 model years.

Building on this success, the President asked EPA to work with states, utilities and other key stakeholders to develop plans to reduce carbon pollution from future and existing power plants, which are responsible for about 40 percent of Americas carbon pollution. 

EPA will soon issue new proposed carbon pollution standards for future power plants, reflecting new information and the extensive public comments on our 2012 proposal. For existing plants, we are engaged in outreach to a broad group of stakeholders with expertise who can inform the development of proposed standards, regulations, or guidelines, which we expect to issue in June of 2014. These guidelines will provide guidance to States, which have the primary role in developing and implementing plans to address carbon pollution from existing plants. This framework will allow us to capitalize on state leadership and innovation while also accounting for regional diversity and providing the necessary flexibility.

The Plan also calls for the development of a comprehensive, interagency strategy to address emissions of methane  a powerful greenhouse gas that also contributes to ozone pollution, but which has substantial economic value. EPA will work with other agencies to assess emissions data, address data gaps, and identify opportunities to reduce methane emissions through incentive-based programs and existing authorities.

Preparing for Impacts of Climate Change

Even as we work to avoid dangerous climate change, we must strengthen Americas resilience to climate impacts were already experiencing and those that can no longer be avoided. The Presidents Plan calls for a broad array of actions on this front. EPA will incorporate research on climate impacts into the implementation of our existing programs, and develop information and tools to help decision-makers  including State, local and tribal governments  to better understand and address these impacts. Further, EPA is working closely with our federal agency counterparts on several other aspects of building our national resilience, including developing the National Drought Resilience Partnership, ensuring the security of our freshwater supplies, protecting our water utilities, and protecting and restoring our forests in the fact of a changing climate.

International Efforts

Our changing climate is also a global challenge, and the Presidents Plan recognizes that the United States must couple action at home with leadership abroad. Working closely with the State Department, EPA will continue to engage our international partners in reducing carbon pollution through an array of activities.. These include public-private partnership efforts to address emissions of methane and other short-lived climate pollutants under the Climate and Clean Air Coalition and the Global Methane Initiative, as well as bilateral cooperation with major economies.

Conclusion

The Presidents Plan provides a roadmap for federal action to meet the pressing challenge of a changing climate promoting clean energy solutions that capitalize on American innovation and drive economic growth. EPA looks forward to working with other federal agencies and all stakeholders on these critical efforts.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering your questions.

R154
EPA Seal	
You can unsubscribe or update your subscriptions or e-mail address at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. All you will need is your e-mail address. If you have any questions or problems, please e-mail support@govdelivery.com for assistance. 

This service is provided to you at no charge by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 




 Visit Us on Facebook	 Visit Us on Twitter
 Visit Us on YouTube	 Visit Us on flickr
][/quote]


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



May of 2003.

How about the barbarics of WWI?  Or Ghengis Khan.  Want to throw them in too.  

You must be completely out of pertinent points.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

Snookie said:


> EPA News Release.
> 
> [quote
> CONTACT:
> ...


[/QUOTE]

You should stop breathing, you're causing "carbon pollution".


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And that is surface temperature.  The lagging indicator of energy imbalance.  The reason why we won't know the results of today's GHG concentrations for decades. 

The earth is compelled to warm to compensate for our restricting outgoing longwave by using our atmosphere as a dumping ground.  

How does warming happen?  The answer is different for every sq ft of earth's surface,  and involves energy exchange between water,  land,  ice,  and atmosphere. And life.  

Conservatives are confident that they can guess the final scenes from only the opening scenes because they want so badly a happy ending for themselves.  

Liberals are much more realistic.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The folks in Boulder are in extreme weather trouble as are more and more people every year. This rain storm beat the previous record by 2X.

Inquiring minds ask,  what is changing?  Scientific minds respond CO2.  Conservative minds slam closed waiting for a more convenient answer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*This rain storm beat the previous record by 2X.*

Over what time frame?

*Inquiring minds ask,  what is changing?  Scientific minds respond CO2. *

Yeah, and Katrina was caused by CO2.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Snookie said:


> EPA News Release.
> 
> [quote
> CONTACT:
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Conservatives claim that they have stopped progress in favor of their usual solution,  doing nothing.  

I say that we let them continue to do nothing as in the few times in history when they did do something,  it was wrong. 

Leave them here seems to be the growing choice of the American electorate.  Even the GOP is agreeing for the most part.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It was caused by toads like you.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I'll bet you wish that you were educated enough to understand that the right question to ask when effects change is how has the cause changed. 

And further,  knew enough statistics to understand random vs assignable cause variability. 

Life in the absence of science is a bunch of guesses.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So was that a yes, Katrina was caused by our CO2?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly the mentality of warmists.  Good to see you admit it.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ''It used to be CO2 is the control knob...now it is a complex system with complex natural variables.''
> 
> It's always been about CO2.  Thats what FFs took out of the atmosphere when they were formed and we're putting back in.
> 
> ...



Guess you are unaware that the atmosphere is postively starved for CO2 at present relative to the rest of earth history.  As the climate warms, CO2 follows.  Billions of years of history bears this out.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Increased atmospheric instability is caused by excess global energy. 

Do you really think that it's possible to identify which ones would have occurred in our old climate and which only in our new climate? 

Lots of luck with that science.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No, it's not possible identify extreme weather events caused by global warming.  Nevertheless, that hasn't stopped your fellow cult members from saying that global warming caused the flooding in Colorado.  That leads rational people to conclude that you're all a bunch of hacks.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ''It used to be CO2 is the control knob...now it is a complex system with complex natural variables.''
> ...



Billions of years over which only nature had the capability. 

Now humanity can recreate what nature created and uncreated in the past.  Pre-carboniferous CO2 concentrations. 

If we had followed conservatives and stayed in the caves and not had babies and the Industrial Revolution,  we'd be fine.  

Some of us will be fine.  Others will be dead by our own common hand adapting to a new climate. 

I'll bet there are some new believers in science in Boulder now.  As well as a few ''told you so's''.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So you're in favor of an 80% infant mortality rate, occasional famines, non-existent medical care and all the other creature comforts that our stone age ancestors enjoyed?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Do you really think that it's possible to identify which ones would have occurred in our old climate and which only in our new climate? *


Warmist idiots do it all the time.
Some even blamed the rain in Colorado on CO2.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


He didn't say that, you dumb fuck.  You just did, though.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

Snookie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Sure he did.  he said if we had continued the stone age way of life, "we would be fine."  All the things I listed are part of the stone age way of living.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




If only that was REALLY the official surface temp. graph and not a lying fabrication from the worst science website on the planet ---- you might have a point.. In additiion.... 

1) skepticalscience.com is the leading cause of STDs transmitted on the web.
    (scientifically transmitted disinformation = STD)

2) As soon as there is a single climate model that shows a staircase approximation to surface temp warming -- I'll pay attention.. 

3)  That is NOT a real temp. graph.

4) Fact is --- in at LEAST 12 years --- there has been no significant additional warming. The LINEAR APPROX rate for warming during the satellite era is just 0.13degC/decade --- far BELOW the hysterical predictions of AGW --- and that's over 35 years... 

Yeah that would be inconvienient wouldn't it?? 

BTW --- here's a couple REAL temp. graphs..


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I downloaded the raw data from the 7(?) weather stations that track global temperatures a few years ago when on another site, a very similar debate was raging.  I plotted it in Matlab and performed a regression analysis.  I found a period that you could accurately track that showed no rise in temperature.  Turns out, there are a bunch of them.  That was way before I knew of the existence of skeptical science - maybe it was before it existed.  It's not that hard.  Try it.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Well a neanderthal knuckle dragger like you should know.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Don't need to ----

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

I also have reliable information on how this compares to PREVIOUS lapses in warming and it's significantly longer than most 20th century "flat spots". 

Most climate orgs agree that you need 12 - 17 yrs of no warming to invalidate the modeling and theory.. Well son --- we're mostly there.. 

NOAA says... 

&#8221;The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.&#8221;

Now will you cease your support of folks who are attempting to IGNORE this significant event and acknowledge that there is a troublesome "pause, lull, or flatspot" in the MEASURED warming? 

Or do you want to be a valuable skepticalscience dupe and continue to deny science?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Way too prolix for me.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I think the period I found was about 17 years.  I know it was longer than the claimed flat spot was back when I found it.  I have no idea why they would claim a 15 year lull would invalidate the climate models when it was so easy to find a period when it had already happened.  Nevertheless, warming continued.  So is your beef that the models aren't quite accurate or that hallelujah, global warming is over.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Common sense man.. The last lull this long was BEFORE a Global Warming crisis was declared.. Because CO2 levels were insufficient to blame as the primary cause of temperature changes. 

More importantly, those older historical lulls were WAAAY before climate models had a computer to run on... And nobody was making predictions back then from flawed models. 

My IMMEDIATE goal is to smash the lie (repeated on this thread) that we are still CURRENTLY measuring warming.

My Secondary goal is to be aware of when we can declare decisively that the models have pretty all failed. Time is nigh captain.. Pretty damn soon if not already.. 

We need better climate science.. SOONER rather than later.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Increased atmospheric instability is caused by excess global energy.



Your priests say that all that excess energy is hiding out at the bottom of the ocean....if it exists at all, it isn't in a position to effect the atmosphere from the bottom of the ocean.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Billions of years over which only nature had the capability.
> 
> Now humanity can recreate what nature created and uncreated in the past.  Pre-carboniferous CO2 concentrations.
> 
> ...




We don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and decade to decade.  Our contribution is paltry.

Of course before your argument has any validity at all, you must provide observed evidence that x amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere will produce y amount of warming.  Any such evidence?  

Of course not.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Let's say that global warming WAS the hot topic then that it is now.  And let's say that the lull I found ended in 1985.  I'm sure there'd be people 1984 who'd claim that the crisis was a dud.  I'm not quite ready to call this one settled.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Seven yrs is interesting.. Especially if the pros are shouting about ACCELERATED warming (more than linear).. 

But it ain't 12 or 20 yrs is it now? Especially when the linear extrapolated rate is about 1/3 of the the predicted...


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I said 17 years.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



I told you why this would not rise to importance.. No one BACK THEN had models showing CONTINUOUS ACCELERATING warming. It would have invalidated nothing except the wild ass stinky numbers that were coming straight out of J. Hansen's ass.. 

You're slogging an uninterested mule here. I've shown that we are measuring 12 to 16 yrs of no warming. That's all that is required... No what ifs. No ficticuous set-ups or gimmicks.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



It's not as if there aren't indirect indicators of rising temperatures.  Ice cap shrinking and oceans rising...

So you say we need better models.  Agreed.  There are a shload of people working on that as we speak.  Am I correct in assuming that you're an electrical engineering student?  You seem to have an interest in this topic.  Maybe you can be the one to break the code.  I hear there's money in it.


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So now you're down to threatening people into agreeing with you.

That _should_ tell you how intellectually bankrupt you are.

But it won't.


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2013)

Good Gaea, why is anyone even bothering with the Westboro Climate Church fundamentalists anymore?

They're not interested in facts or reason.  All they have is emotion, flawed science which they believe because it FEELS right, and vague threats of violence.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







lmao....ZERO scientific evidence on any link between weather extremes and climate change!!!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12310.html


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



.. a little more mature than "an engineering student".. I've got a lot of mileage in science and engineering.. I'm overexposed on these boards. So we'll leave it at that.. 

This is Hercules cleaning up the stable type of task.. EVERYTHING has to go. Starting with the fiction that simple Globally averaged numbers inform us as to the underlying system dynamics of how the planet works..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I "aim" for J. Hansen's salary and I get accused of making threats.. 

Notice the diff.. It takes a leftist MOB to do the job.. No individual initiative..


----------



## westwall (Sep 18, 2013)

Snookie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Actually he did... just not so directly, and wasn't it you who told me to mind my manners?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yeah, Snookie is a great one for castigating others who don't treat posters with the proper respect.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yes, but now, never mind.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



This website would be in shambles without my moral guidance.  It's a nasty job, but somebody has to do it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

Snookie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Guide by example, fuck head.


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Indeed.  

I simply cannot comprehend the mindset that refuses to acknowledge...or even accept...that people are individuals.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 18, 2013)

daveman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



That wasn't a threat, it was a warning.  And one I've made before.  When things really start going to shit around here: food shortages, water shortages, storms taking out more and more coastal infrastructure, people are likely to start looking around for the brainiacs who told them they had nothing to worry about.  People like you.


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Whoopty-shit.


Abraham3 said:


> When things really start going to shit around here: food shortages, water shortages, storms taking out more and more coastal infrastructure, people are likely to start looking around for the brainiacs who told them they had nothing to worry about.  People like you.


Okay, dumbass.  Now you get to explain in detail how everyone voting Democrat would prevent all that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I'll bet you just can't wait for that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Careful, the conservatives have all the guns.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Those would be the consequences of doing nothing,  your plan.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Did you prove them wrong?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



We would not have to worry about climate change.  We could just walk away from where the water no longer was to where it moved to.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Who did the science behind your claims?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Do you understand the difference between energy imbalance and surface temperature?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



''My IMMEDIATE goal is to smash the lie (repeated on this thread) that we are still CURRENTLY measuring warming.''

Who,  specifically is saying this?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Did they prove they were right?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Increased atmospheric instability is caused by excess global energy.
> ...



Why do you think that they call it thermodynamics?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Billions of years over which only nature had the capability.
> ...



Positive feedbacks.  At some climate temperature all of the Arctic ice and snow and tundra will melt.  Are we there yet?  We have to wait until the extra heat absorbed by the earth makes its way through all of the systems of earth and we measure that energy leaving the TOA re-matches incoming energy. That will mean that balance has been achieved again at the new climatic temperature. If,  then,  ice and snow stop melting,  we'll know that stability has returned (temporarily if at that point we have not stopped adding more CO2) and we're at our new climate.  Of course then we'll have to spend a few years to see what the weather is like in the new climate and adapt to it. 

You tell me,  given all of that,  how you think that it's possible to come up with the grossly oversimplified single number answer that you want.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



When there is continuously rising CO2  concentrations,  why would you not expect continuously rising average global temperatures?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Everybody wants better models.  The only possibility is through the IPCC.  Then why are the whiners claiming that we don't need the IPCC?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



How did he threaten you?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Here's a simple proposition to consider.  

Every passive body in space must balance incoming and outgoing radiated energy. If incoming is greater than outgoing warming will occur until balance is re-achieved. 

Prove that statement wrong.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



If you expect to earn Hansen's salary you better get going.  You have about ten years of school and 30 years of experience to catch up on.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



And what stops us from doing that now?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



So,  this is your example of leadership.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

daveman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Who has that mindset?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



That was supposed to be ironic.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Most Democrats are liberals.  People who see the future as an opportunity for progress.  People who solve problems. 

Most Republicans are conservatives.  People who see the future as a threat.  People who either create or ignore problems.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Liberals have the US military.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 18, 2013)

IPCC to 97%'er:  LOL, yer fucked


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



We have factories and houses and offices and schools and farms and cities. Many things that can't move.

We can rebuild. We will.  The less we force the climate to warm,  the less rebuilding we'll have to do. 

Two parallel massive projects.  The adaptation to a new climate,  and the change to sustainable  energy.  Let's find the least expensive combination by using our science.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Very.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



According to the IPCC you worship, even under the worst scenario sea level will rise 1 foot in the next 100 years.   I can already see people fleeing for their very lives!

I think adapting to a one foot increase in sea level will be a whole lot cheaper than spending $73 trillion to mitigate CO2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

pmz said:


> toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > abraham3 said:
> ...



lol!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Nobody has any technology to reduce atmospheric CO2. If we could,  we would.  

We have to move to sustainable energy in any case.  The only variable is when. 

You seem to think that it's possible to know that we aren't already on an irreversible path that will melt all Arctic snow,  ice,  and tundra.  Where did your information come from?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> pmz said:
> 
> 
> > toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I can't imagine what's funny about that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > pmz said:
> ...



The one clown said that mobs of angry people will seek out AGW deniers, to punish them for whatever disasters he feels we're in for. I'm guessing these victims will be conservatives, the citizens with all the guns.

You feel the "liberal military" will be helping these angry mobs?

You liberals are funny. Not very bright though.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You don't think that the US military won't respond to riots?  

But the real question is not riots but wars.  China and or India after our resources necessary for life,  like water and food.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 18, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



From Howstuffworks

If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?

by Marshall Brain
307

Antarctica accounts for about 90 percent of the world's ice. 

You may have heard about global warming. It seems that in the last 100 years the earth's temperature has increased about half a degree Celsius. This may not sound like much, but even half a degree can have an effect on our planet. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years (see How do they measure sea level?).

*This higher temperature may be causing some floating icebergs to melt, but this will not make the oceans rise. Icebergs are large floating chunks of ice. In order to float, the iceberg displaces a volume of water that has a weight equal to that of the iceberg. Submarines use this principle to rise and sink in the water, too.

But the rising temperature and icebergs could play a small role in the rising ocean level. Icebergs are chunks of frozen glaciers that break off from landmasses and fall into the ocean. The rising temperature may be causing more icebergs to form by weakening the glaciers, causing more cracks and making ice mo*re likely to break off. As soon as the ice falls into the ocean, the ocean rises a little.

If the rising temperature affects glaciers and icebergs, could the polar ice caps be in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? This could happen, but no one knows when it might happen.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecte*d.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



THe chances of Greenland or Antarctica melting are indistinguishable from zero, so your article is a non sequitur.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 19, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



God are you stupid.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I don't expect to be here.  But my childen and their children will.  It's why every day, here and elsewhere, I do what I can to show you for the dangerous fools ye be.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



And they'll be just as hungry and thirsty and angry as everyone else.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I would be honored to fuck your head.  Thanks for the invitation.


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You lick yogurt off of hobos' feet.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I feel no obligation to spoon-feed you, kid.  You didn't even know that warming halted.


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Progressives.  

You are _astoundingly_ ignorant, boy.


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Mindless sloganeering is inadmissible, but I understand it's all you've got, so you get a Medal for Participation.

I bet you have an extensive collection of those.


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


See?  Vague threats.

If you guys had science on your side, you wouldn't need to resort to thuggism.


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


Oh.  So you CAN'T explain how everyone voting Democrat will save us all...you just insist we should.

It's okay...none of your compatriots have given this matter any thought whatsoever either.


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the CHILDREN!!"


----------



## Snookie (Sep 19, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


the supreme court has often used the ploy of "public interest" to circumvent the true meanings of some of the enumerations in the constitution.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

daveman said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



As long as we keep people like you in the place that you've earned through your ignorance,  fascism will be kept at bay.


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2013)

Snookie said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Indeed..."for our own good".


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



See?  More vague threats.

You're nothing more than a totalitarian-wannabe, boy.

But then, that's standard among progressives.  You bitch and moan and whine that the government take care of you, but you somehow believe you'll be given positions of power and responsibility after the Revolution (that you did nothing to help bring about).

How do you reconcile your abject impotence and your desire for power?

I'm guessing lots of recreational pharmaceuticals.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

daveman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You guess about a lot of things that aren't true.  

I just want effective government so we continue to progress as we are.  

You want to go back to the caves.  Good  news.  You can.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



We aren't progressing, you deluded moron.  We're being scammed.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 19, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You aren't progressing. We are.


----------



## westwall (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Really?  Describe how you are "progressing".....


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 20, 2013)

Setting you and Patrick back is indistinguishable from moving the rest of us forward.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You need an enema.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 20, 2013)

From the EPA:



> EPA Proposes Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants
> 
> Agency takes important step to reduce carbon pollution from power plants as part of President Obama&#8217;s Climate Action Plan
> 
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



We have saved the greatest government the world has known from extinction by you and the rest of the conservative cult/mob.  There was a time when virtually all Americans honored their country and you've tried to take that away.  Now you know what failure is like.  Not that this is a new experience for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

Snookie said:


> From the EPA:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Agency takes important step to reduce carbon pollution *

Carbon dioxide isn't pollution.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > From the EPA:
> ...



Good, then you breathe it.

BTW, too much of anything is not good.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



You think breathing 400 ppm of CO2 is harmful? LOL!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > From the EPA:
> ...



What would you call atmospheric gaseous waste products that are harmful to mankind?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No.  It's not harmful to breath it.  The fact of it is harmful to mankind however.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



Carbon dioxide isn't pollution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



Stop exhaling, you're harming mankind.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I thought this thread was about global warming, not pulmonary issues.

Red herring alert.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



I agree.

*Good, then you breathe it.*

LOL!


----------



## Snookie (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why don't you just kiss my ass and divert it into a  love thread?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life.  Most people would say that's good.  Around, 280 ppm. 

It's the fact that we are taking pre-carboniferous carbon out of the ground and adding it to the 280ppm necessary stuff,  that's problematic. Not breathing it. 

Anything above 350 ppm will change the climate away from what we built civilization around and will require us to adapt civilization to a new reality,  a very expensive proposition. 

The least expensive path forward is to move to sustainable energy at a rate that minimizes total energy and adaptation costs.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



It's not harmful to mankind.  It's beneficial.  It makes plant grow.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Begging the question.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The only people who believe that CO2 greater than 350 ppm will not incurr huge adaptation costs are those who wish that it wasn't true and therefore deny science. 

Thank God they're only an ignorant minority.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Begging the question,  what can science do to understand the issue,  define solutions,  and advise policy makers.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The only ones who believe it's true are brainwashed drones who mindlessly do the government's bidding.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



They are called climate scientists.  If you were of sound mind you'd be wondering why there are virtually none who agree with you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



One thing it can do is quit making up the data and lying to the public


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Typical conservative reaction to inconvenient truth.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Conservatives don't need no stinkin' civilization.  They sprang from the loins of their mothers ready to take on the world come whatever may.  They then forged their existence through the sweat of their brow and the strain of their back never needing the knowledge or infrastucture that others had put in place.  Yes, they're a hardy breed and they'll not let a little thing like an uninhabitable planet stand between them and their freedom.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*The natural level is what keeps the world warm enough for life. Most people would say that's good. Around, 280 ppm. *

280 ppm is the "natural level"? Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I heard the planet was unihabitable during the Carboniferous Period.
If you need more info, ask PMZ.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 280 ppm is the "natural level"? Why?



From the fellow who thinks math is too hard for liberals...


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 20, 2013)

Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years.  It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter.  Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT.  All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.  And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.

Follow the 97%


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > 280 ppm is the "natural level"? Why?
> ...



I guess that's why a liberal hasn't explained the magic of 280 ppm yet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years.  It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter.  Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT.  All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.  And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.
> 
> Follow the 97%



*All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.*

Exactly! Cheap dependable energy is overrated.

We need expensive, unreliable energy, for the children!


----------



## Snookie (Sep 20, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That is true.

How do I know?

Because Jebus told me so.


----------



## westwall (Sep 20, 2013)

JoeNormal said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...







You know, that's almost funny coming from you.  the lefty enviro-whacko's insist that we reduce our standard of living to a "sustainable" level.  They ignore the fact that sustainable societies all failed when they were the unfortunate victims of a natural disaster.  For true civilization you require excess.  The more excess you have the better the standard of living and the more civilization you get.

You see dear silly person when you are eking out your "sustainable" lifestyle you have no time for civilization...  There is simply too much work involved in basic survival.  Meanwhile, that which truly CAN wipe out our civilization (if not our very planet), namely an asteroid strike is ignored by you clowns...


----------



## westwall (Sep 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years.  It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter.  Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT.  All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.  And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.
> 
> Follow the 97%








Of course they do.  Their livelihood and prestige rest upon that premise.  Follow the money is a mantra that works very well.  Put another way, how many academics do you know who were able to amass a personal net worth of over 20 million dollars like Mann?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I think I'll just wait until after the asteriod strikes before I offer debate on that matter.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years.  It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter.  Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT.  All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.  And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.
> ...



Especially for hospitals and to keep our food refrigerated!


----------



## westwall (Sep 20, 2013)

Snookie said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...







Here's the shot across the bow....  And here too is a link to NASA, they seem to take it very seriously for some reason....The second link is to their risk assessment page which fortunately is pretty mild.  However, just look at the number of NEO's we KNOW about and then consider the ones we don't know about and won't due to lack of money...



SENTRY - An Automatic Near-Earth Asteroid Collision Monitoring System

Current Impact Risks


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years. It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter. Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT. All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining. And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.
> ...


   

There's a term for that in the electric field, Toddsterpatriot. It says "Will not phase."


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years.  It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter.  Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT.  All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.  And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.
> ...



Why is it you completely reject the idea of "follow the money" when someone starts talking about the money of the fossil fuel industry?  They have, literally, trillions at stake here.  But according to you they are blithe, innocent bystanders, watching it all go down with an innocent gawk.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> Here's the shot across the bow....  And here too is a link to NASA, they seem to take it very seriously for some reason....The second link is to their risk assessment page which fortunately is pretty mild.  However, just look at the number of NEO's we KNOW about and then consider the ones we don't know about and won't due to lack of money...
> 
> 
> Meteorite hits central Russia - Video Collection (16 minutes) - YouTube
> ...



I have to wonder about your general thought processes when you find asteroids a more serious risk than global warming.

But guess what?  I think they're BOTH risks.  They just have different odds of taking place.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 20, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



It won't be cheap, Becki, when sea level is up a meter or two, will it.  What do you think it means to the sea level issue that almost all the solar energy, being trapped and growing at even greater rates than it ever has, is going into the ocean?  The bulk of ocean rise for the last century has been due to thermal expansion.  That is going to remain the case until the warmed ocean water gets really going on the other process it is primarily responsible for: melting the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves releasing the ice sheets for more and more rapid flow into the briny deep.

Say goodbye to the world's estuaries, beaches, coastal structures.  Wait till you see what the world's hurricanes and typhoons can do when each one gets an extra meter of storm surge.

But I'm not worried.  I know I can always come here and find a good quip or two.  "Will not phase"!  That's great.  Really great.  No, really.

BTW, your butterfly is gorgeous.  My wife and I have had/grown/built/maintained a butterfly garden for about 20 years.  We don't get that variety around here (South Florida).  We get zebra longwings, gulf fritillaries, cloudless yellow sulphurs, monarchs, viceroys, eastern black swallowtails, occasional malachites and palmedes and spicebush swallowtails.  I've got some photos if you'd like to see them.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Ask Mother Nature.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ninety-seven percent of active climate scientists believe that human GHG emissons are the primary cause of the global warming that we've been experiencing the past 150 years.  It is - excuse my bluntness - really, really stupid - to reject their opinion on the matter.  Humans need to reduce their GHG emissions A LOT.  All this whining that it'll destroy the economy is just that: whining.  And when you look, you find that the voices that are leading that whining are almost always financed by the fossil fuel industries, who aren't really evil, they just want to stay rich and they're willing to sacrifice your children's planet to do so.
> ...



Tell us about this cheap reliable energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You made the claim, she didn't.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



There are only two choices. Sustainable and temporary. Why do you prefer temporary?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



But she did.

Take this nifty graphic and rough in the span of human civilization - say, the last 7-10,000 years.  How's that CO2 look?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I can get fuel right now for about 15 cents a mile and I don't need a windy or sunny day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



PMZ is a mother?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The Earth is only 10,000 years old?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I didn't have anything to do with it. It's what it was when we started moving carbon from underground into the atmosphere.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



But that's not sustainable. It's temporary.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I think that you are confused about saving the earth. It's really not about saving anything. It's about minimizing the cost of continuing to live here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So you're taking the level from a tiny sliver of Earth's history and claiming that is the "natural level". Got it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Wrong.  It's about maximizing the cost.  Even if all the global warming abracadabra were true, the cost of coping with it would be a small fraction of $73 trillion.  AGW is a scam designed to separate taxpayers from their money and give bureaucrats power to run every detail of our lives.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



How temporary do you feel it is?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Yes, we must spend $70 trillion on green energy, because that minimizes our costs.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It's what it was when we started moving carbon from underground into the atmosphere. In other words, what we built civilization around assuming climate was long term.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Again, tell us about this world from your imagination where temporary things are sustainable?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



100 years or so.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What's your estimate of the cost of adapting civilization to a new climate, and what is it based on?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No.  Human civilization is - roughly.  And as it has grown over the years, it has gained...momentum and inertia.  The mass of our infrastructure has made it less and less and less and less flexible.  Seven thousand years ago, a slow flood such as we'll be experiencing in the next century, would hardly draw any notice.  People could carry everything they owned on their back.  They'd just pick it all up and move.  Now, not so much.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



My estimate is that it would be less than zero because a warmer world is more suited to life on this planet.  It also requires less energy to heat your homes in Northern climates.  More rain would fall and more food would be produced.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 20, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



A "flood" where sea level increases by one foot in a hundred years won't even be noticed by anyone.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Temporary things like wind and sunshine?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



We should have started wasting $70 trillion, 15 years ago, because you feel fossil fuels will run out in 2113?


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I think the obvious point here is that 15 years ago you might have worked on improving your personal knowledge base.  

You keep coming back with questions, and I can see the effort this is taking, but I don't think you've quite got a handle on the Socratic method.

But tell us, when do YOU think petroleum will run out?  And when I say run out, I mean when will it become so costly to obtain that we will stop burning it.  Have you ever thought of the materials we will lose when the wells run dry; the many, many everyday items that are actually made from petroleum?  Thirty five years ago one of my college professors railed on the waste of burning the stuff.  Plastics.  Drugs.  Lubricants.  A thousand chemicals used in a thousand-thousand different industrial processes.  Alternative energy is easy to find.  It pours from the sky in an endless stream.  What are we going to do when we've got nothing with which to wrap up our leftovers or kill the front lawn's cinch bugs and changing the oil in our shiny new 2120 Lexus involves the sacrificial rendering of four fat pigs?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 21, 2013)

The IPCC joins the Deniers


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How long do you think that it will take to completely redo the world's energy system?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Have you heard that we're running out of wind and sunshine?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Actually,  what you describe is conservative progress.  No civilization,  no government,  no education,  no energy,  no laws,  only wandering warring tribes.  But unlimited freedom to live miserable lives,  and low taxes.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Not without water.  Of course,  perhaps in some of the places where the rain moved to the plants would do better. 

Wait.  We're out of places too.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



forever of you try to base the replacement on wind power and solar.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You have no evidence that the rain would move.  The fact is that during warmer periods rain was more plentiful and more widespread.  Famines were almost unheard of.  After about the year 500, when the world became much colder, famines in Europe were common.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The fatal flaw in libtard "logic" is equating society and civilization with government.  The two things are opposites, not synonyms.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Tell the people in flooded Colorado,  or burning California,  or the parched plains that we have no evidence that the rain is moving.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They are part of the solution. Just like hydro,  nuclear and biomass. 

However you don't have to worry about the solution.  Smart people will take care of you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Weren't you one of the AGW retards that just got done saying single extreme weather events are not evidence of global warming?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



ROFL!  They will never be part of the solution.  Dumb people put all their chips on wind, solar and biomass.  Furthermore, wind and solar are not a replacement for oil.  Batteries will never be a good substitute for gasoline.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Look up random vs assignable cause variability.  You'll be amazed at what you don't know.  Or,  if not,  you'll at least have confirmation of the extent of your Dunning-Kruger Syndrome status.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



This is exactly why nobody will consult you on energy issues. You have less than zero technological experience.  The problem is so far beyond you that every time you post, solutions get farther away. 

What you wish was true was fossil fuels in unlimited easily available supply,  with no consequences of their use. 

Talk about a fantasy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



If the government mandates changes, it will take twice as long and cost three times as much.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No, but I have heard that the wind doesn't blow all the time and that sunshine is interrupted by something called night time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Because it never rained before in Colorado and there were never fires in California.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They also get a lot of sunshine in places like Minnesota and Washington state.  The wind always blows the hardest right next to major cities.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It will also be the wrong solution.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> The fatal flaw in libtard "logic" is equating society and civilization with government.  The two things are opposites, not synonyms.



Are they?

Here, Patrick.  For once, educate yourself:

Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civilization or civilisation generally refers to polities which combine three basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city. The term is used to contrast with other types of communities including hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and tribal villages. Civilizations have more densely populated settlements, characterized by a ruling elite, and subordinate urban and rural populations, which, by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending man's control over both nature, and over other human beings.[1]
The emergence of civilization is generally associated with the final stages of the Neolithic Revolution, a slow cumulative process occurring independently over many locations between 10,000 and 3,000 BCE, culminating in the relatively rapid process of state formation, a political development associated with the appearance of a governing elite. This neolithic technology and lifestyle was established first in the Middle east (for example at Göbekli Tepe, from about 9,130 BCE), and Yangtze and later Yellow river basin in China (for example the Pengtoushan culture from 7,500 BCE), and later spread. But similar "revolutions" also began independently from 9,000 years ago in such places as Mesoamerica at the Balsas River[2] and in Papua New Guinea. This revolution consisted in the development of the domestication of plants and animals and the development of new sedentary lifestyles which allowed economies of scale and productive surpluses.
Towards the end of the Neolithic period, various Bronze Age civilizations begin to rise in various "cradles" from around 3300 BCE. Civilizations, as defined above, also developed in Pre-Columbian Americas and much later in Africa. The Bronze Age collapse was followed by the Iron Age around 1200 BCE. A major technological and cultural transition to modernity began approximately 1500 CE in western Europe, and from this beginning new approaches to science and law spread rapidly around the world.[3]
Assessments of what level of civilization a polity has reached are based on comparisons of the relative importance of agricultural as opposed to trade or manufacturing capacities, the territorial extensions of its power, the complexity of its division of labor, and the carrying capacity of its urban centres. Secondary elements include a developed transportation system, writing, standardized measurement, currency, contractual and tort-based legal systems, art, architecture, mathematics, scientific understanding, metallurgy, political structures, and organized religion.
Traditionally, polities that managed to achieve notable military, ideological and economic power defined themselves as "civilized" as opposed to other societies or human grouping which lay outside their sphere of influence, calling the latter barbarians, savages, and primitives. while in a modern-day context, "civilized people" have been contrasted with indigenous people or tribal societies. Use of the word "civilized" is often controversial because it could imply superiority or inferiority. There is a controversial tendency to use the term in a less strict way, to mean approximately the same thing as "culture" and therefore, the term can more broadly refer to any important and clearly defined human society.[4] Still, even when used in this second sense, the word is often restricted to apply only to societies that have a certain set of characteristics, especially the founding of cities.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Oh come on, thousands are employed by Solyndra making the best solar panels ever.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, you ridiculous boob.



PMZ said:


> What you wish was true was fossil fuels in unlimited easily available supply,  with no consequences of their use.
> 
> Talk about a fantasy.



I think everyone wishes that.  In the mean time, fossil fuels are 1000 times better than wind and solar.  You can't put the later in the gas tank.  Neither of them are dependable, and they are many times more diffuse than oil.  A solar installation has to cover hundreds of acres to produce as much power as a single coal fired power plant.  And what happens in the winter on a cloudy day, we all freeze to death?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The fatal flaw in libtard "logic" is equating society and civilization with government.  The two things are opposites, not synonyms.
> ...



Sorry, but that's bullshit.  Government is a parasite on civilization.  It always has been.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

I'm hoping that many denier posts from here get preserved in the Dunning-Kruger Museum of the Cost of Ignorance. They are magnificent and lavish in pure,  unadulterated lack of knowledge and reason. 

If it takes a million monkeys with a million typewriters a million years to accidently produce the world's greatest novel,  a couple could produce the cognitive mush that deniers post here in a couple of minutes.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Completely irrelevant,  every word.  Only two things are relevant.  

What are we going to replace them with before they're gone? 

What's the least expensive path considering their replacement and the cost of mitigating the consequences of the AGW that their continuing use will cause?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



In the long run, fusion will replace all our current power sources.  However, we can run on fossil fuels for the next 200 years until fusion becomes practicable and cheap, especially if we can manage to reduce the Earth's population to something more reasonable like 2-3 billion people.

Wind and solar are pipe dreams.

For the record, there are no consequences that need to be "mitigated."  AGW is a hoax.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure that this post is record breaking idiocy.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 21, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Science doesn't know if controlled fusion ls possible. 

What's your plan to reduce global population.  War?  Starvation?  Imposing birth control? Death camps? 

Your pipe dreams are harvesting a lot of fuel free,  waste free energy around the world. 

AGW denial is only a political delusion that you are unequipped to defend yourself from.  The rest of us choose to live in the real world.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



"Pretty sure" but not totally sure?

What did government ever contribute to society? Do you think pyramids were beneficial for all the serfs who built them?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It's far more confident of that than whether it can ever make wind and solar economical feasible.  Several projects are close to producing net positive power output.  However, they aren't economical.  There's hardly any doubt that within 20-30 years they will have economical fusion power generation.



PMZ said:


> What's your plan to reduce global population.  War?  Starvation?  Imposing birth control? Death camps?



Global population is already on a trend that means it will start declining in the middle of this century.



PMZ said:


> Your pipe dreams are harvesting a lot of fuel free,  waste free energy around the world.



Whoever claimed it was "free?"  However, even at $100/bbl, oil is still far cheaper than any of the pipe dreams you want to force us all to pay for.



PMZ said:


> AGW denial is only a political delusion that you are unequipped to defend yourself from.  The rest of us choose to live in the real world.



I can barely stop myself from laughing out loud every time you post that you are living in the real world.


----------



## westwall (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








It will never happen with your technology.  It is simply too primitive and inefficient.  Nuclear power with some sort of Tesla broadcast system would revolutionize the energy transportation systems of the world.

Your systems will hinder real progress.  Yours is a major step backwards.


----------



## westwall (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...









Sounds like just what you want...


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...




Yep, that's the whole point of the environmental movement, isn't it?  They want to force us to live like Stone Age savages.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Now,  this is the new record.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You are funny. You are confident in controlled fusion which has never been achieved in a useful way but uncertain about wind and solar that are being built everyday all over the world. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Your  solution,  wait for a perfect solution which isn't even invented yet,  is a dream. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



It's the conservative dream of perfect freedom.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 22, 2013)

IPCC is a 3 percenter


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Let's look at how that article defines civilization:

Civilization or civilisation generally refers to polities which combine three basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city. The term is used to contrast with other types of communities including hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and tribal villages. Civilizations have more densely populated settlements, characterized by a ruling elite, and subordinate urban and rural populations, which, by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending man's control over both nature, and over other human beings.[1: ^ _Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, Cambridge University Press, 1986, vol.1 pp.34-41._]

And to make certain we're all on the same footing here, from Wikipedia's link on the word:  *A polity is a state or one of its subordinate civil authorities, such as a province, prefecture, county, municipality, city, or district. It is generally understood to mean a geographic area with a corresponding government.*[1: _See: Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., West Publishing Co., (1968), and Uricich v. Kolesar, 54 Ohio App. 309, 7 N.E. 2d 413._]

You need to do at least one of a few things Patrick: tell us what other definition you're using for the word "CIVILIZATION" or dispute all of that.  Just calling it bullshit will not do.

I think there's actually a great deal more that you need to do.  When you asked whether or not building the pyramids was good for the serfs who did the grunt labor, you make a ridiculously oversimplified and therefore tremendously flawed picture of the role of government.  Even in the days of the pyramids, government did a great deal more than build its own tombs.  And while it might make a nifty mental image, it'd be a great deal more pertinent to look at modern governments - those that might or might not actually deal with climate change.

The purpose of a government is the governance of a state or community.  To govern is to use established systems and institutions to determine, put into effect and enforce policies by which the state or community is ruled.  In our case and that of most of the world's states, it is the administration of the rule of law.

You seem to be of the opinion that all governments are purely self-serving vehicles for the abuse and oppression of their citizenry.  There are certainly examples of such governments, but to suggest ALL are of this ilk is unsupportable.  We are ruled by a democracy.  Our presidents are selected by the populace and rule for finite periods.  Their ability to remain in office for more than a single term is dependent entirely on convincing the public that they have been well-served (whether or not, in fact, they have been so served).  And even if they do convince the public of their qualities, they get no more than two terms.  The powers of any given government employee, whether elected, appointed or simply hired, are defined and restricted by a wealth of statute and code, all descendant and dependent from the Constitution on high.  Ours system of governance is not perfect - no government is - but neither is it one rife with corruption or ripe for abuse.

I suspect that you lean towards the maxim that those governments govern best that govern least - at least in the case of liberal administrations led by black democrats.  But, given the purely hypothetical assertion (;-)) that the government has a responsibility to take action where it sees threats to the health, safety and well-being of the people who elected it to perform just such duties, we cannot fault the government for responding - within its Constitutional bounds - when a reasonable case is made for the existence of a significant threat.  Global warming is just such a threat.  It presents the risk of extensive human suffering.  It presents the promise of horrendous costs - particularly as our response becomes more and more delayed.  It does illustrate that we will never have enough information to act without _some_ risk of costly overreaction or withhold action without _some_risk of inviting even costlier calamity.  Unfortunately, that lack of certitude does not alleviate government from their duties to the public.  They must constantly keep a watchful eye on the world around us, both synthetic and natural, and decide when a potential threat passes the threshold requiring a response.  By any measure, anthropogenic global warming long ago passed such a threshold.

And yet, while an objective view, as fully informed as our current state would allow, would conclude that this government has delayed overlong, new information, new knowledge, appears to have given us a break.  And let me emphasize "appears".  It now appears that a long term cycle exists in the warming process.  This cycle, _in addition to_ explosive aerosols and wartime cutbacks, would have been responsible for the dramatic cooling between 1941 and 1979.  And this cycle, _in addition to_ increased vulcanism, a strongly negative ENSO and a decrease in solar irradiance would be responsible for the current warming slowdown; begun just before the turn of the century. 

What does this change?  How has the threat changed?  Has it disappeared?  Has it weakened?  Has its onset been delayed?  Or is it actually become worse?  The risk in making the wrong decision has not gone away.  We have not been provided a beneficent epiphany but simply a few more pieces to a now larger and more complex puzzle.

The current hiatus does not give us cause to reject greenhouse warming or reason to believe anything other than human consumption of fossil fuels is responsible for the rising levels of those gases.  The accumulation of solar energy continues apace - it is simply being deposited elsewhere: the ocean. That does change the threat: from droughts, desertification, floods and habitat loss to rising sea levels: now likely to become the first parameter to reach severe values.  And if recent history might guide us, when the PDO/ENSO cycle swings back, as it did in the 1980s and 90s, the air temperature will climb precipitously and the rate of increasing temperature and level of the world ocean will only slow, at best.

The government is not at fault, even for the harm you alone perceive us suffering.  It is doing what it exists to do: protecting us.  An objective analysis of the risks we face does not support your position.  The odds of an event occurring and the actual cost of the occurrence are complimentary factors.  Anger that our government is not omniscient cannot be justified.  Chill and get with the party.  AGW is real and it is a threat.  We need to act.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Hell yeah, we need to go back to tribalism.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

Snookie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



It seems that conservatives are stuck in some sort of hunter gatherer time warp which may be because that's the last time that they were successful at anything.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



For sure denial of AGW,  and avoidance of solutions to it, are only symptoms of the much more destructive foundation of conservative,  which is the every man for himself culture that predated civilization. No government,  no specialization, no community,  no law,  no organization,  no imagining and planning to create a more desirable future.  In fact,  non of the things that separate humanity from all other life. Their goal really is nothing less than the destruction of civilization.  The natural question really is,  why can't they see that what allows them the comfort of being able to even think that nonsense is civilization.  Without it instead of thinking they'd be entirely consumed with surviving.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IPCC is a 3 percenter



You seem to believe that you are in a position to comprehend IPCC science.  What are your qualifications?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You didn't answer the question.  How did the grunts who built the pyramids benefit from them?  How did the ziggurates?  How did they benefit from palaces?  How did they benefit from taxation?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



That's all bullshit.  The only thing they didn't have was government.  The idea that people can't form communities without government is pure idiocy.



PMZ said:


> Their goal really is nothing less than the destruction of civilization.  The natural question really is,  why can't they see that what allows them the comfort of being able to even think that nonsense is civilization.  Without it instead of thinking they'd be entirely consumed with surviving.



Government is not civilization.  The government has brainwashed drones like you to believe you can't live without it.  The truth is somewhat different.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I thought that anarchism was defeated even before communism.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but that's bullshit.  Government is a parasite on civilization.  It always has been.
> ...



So what did the government of Egypt do that benefited the serfs who built the pyramids?



Abraham3 said:


> The purpose of a government is the governance of a state or community.  To govern is to use established systems and institutions to determine, put into effect and enforce policies by which the state or community is ruled.  In our case and that of most of the world's states, it is the administration of the rule of law.



In other words, the purpose of government is to govern.

BRILLIANT!



Abraham3 said:


> You seem to be of the opinion that all governments are purely self-serving vehicles for the abuse and oppression of their citizenry.



Exactly!



Abraham3 said:


> There are certainly examples of such governments, but to suggest ALL are of this ilk is unsupportable.



There is no other kind of government.



Abraham3 said:


> We are ruled by a democracy.  Our presidents are selected by the populace and rule for finite periods.  Their ability to remain in office for more than a single term is dependent entirely on convincing the public that they have been well-served (whether or not, in fact, they have been so served).  And even if they do convince the public of their qualities, they get no more than two terms.



They only have to convince a sufficient number of voters to vote for them, not the entire population.  They do this by promising them loot that they rob from the people who earned it.  Politicians in a Democracy have no stake in the long term well being of the country or the jurisdiction they govern.  They only have an interest in getting reelected.  Almost everything they do sacrifices the long term well being of the country to pay off parasites (their constituents).



Abraham3 said:


> The powers of any given government employee, whether elected, appointed or simply hired, are defined and restricted by a wealth of statute and code, all descendant and dependent from the Constitution on high.  Ours system of governance is not perfect - no government is - but neither is it one rife with corruption or ripe for abuse.



ROLF!  Sorry, but any rational person observing the current carnage in Washington could never believe such a naive statement.

That's about all the energy I have for dealing with your post for now.  Perhaps I'll respond to the rest of it some other time.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Wind and Solar power have never demonstrated the ability to power an industrial economy.  Given the evidence we have so far, they never will.

We have 200 years to perfect fusion power.  I think our scientists are up to the task.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Building the pyramids is not synonymous with government.  The government provided protection from foreign invaders.  It provided shelter, roads, water supplies.  While they were working on the pyramid, they were fed by the government.  The Egyptians had laws, courts, police.  Their government provided them many of the comforts modern humans receive.

The ziggurates did not benefit from the pyramids unless they provided a dramatic backdrop.  All of those structures provided permanence and coherence to their social order.  It likely aided them in maintaining their faith in their rulers and their gods.  How are you benefited by the rifle in your closet and the cross around your neck?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



To whom do you think that your scientific or engineering opinions matter?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

I suppose that if you are an anarchist and despise civilization,  putting it at risk by ignoring our energy future make sense.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 22, 2013)

Why should we listen to the 97%?

Because I'm part of the 97%. 

Now, listen to me:

Socialism can never work and has never worked. 
Welfare and food stamps should ONLY be temporary and anyone who get's pregnant and gives birth while on welfare or food stamps should be prosecuted for child abuse.
Guns are legal and a guaranteed right to all Americans.
Every voter should be required to pass a test before allowed to vote.
All corporate welfare should be abolished.
The FairTax should be the law of the land.
Civil Unions should have all of the rights and privilages of marriages.
All illegal aliens should be deported. Children of these aliens born here can stay upon evaluation on an individual case by case basis.
Drugs should be legal.
The Department of Education should be abolished.
Obama should be impeached.
Nancy Pelosi should be jailed.
We should close all of our embasies in the Middle East, arm Israel to the teeth and tell them to call us when they are done.
Pull out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and any Asscrackistan, and mercilessly blow up any Al-Queda training camps we identify, to hell with asking permission.
We should begin fracking immediately, and build the pipeline that obama killed.
We should build several hundred more nuclear power plants in this country.
We should pull out of the UN and sent them packing.
Of course, we should abolish obamacare.

*I am the 97% LISTEN TO ME!*


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Why should we listen to the 97%?
> 
> Because I'm part of the 97%.
> 
> ...



Nice recital of the gospel according to FOX.  

I agree that you are 97 percent of the problems with this country and offer 0 percent of the solutions that we need. 

Thats why democracy is sending you packing. 

We have seen enough of your crap.  

Every thing that you touch turns to crap.  Most recently the House of Representatives. Before that,  the Whitehouse.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

There is no better example of Dunning-Kruger than the GOP being unable to even recognize the extent of their decades of failure.  It's like like their strategy to destroy the country is to make their role in government incompetent.  

What they are being taught of course is that they might ignore their failures but the American electorate doesn't.  

No matter how hard Fox and Rush and The Donald campaign for Republicans,  what the electorate sees is pure incompetence.  The worst President in our history followed by a House majority that has accomplished absolutely nothing for years.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is no better example of Dunning-Kruger than the GOP being unable to even recognize the extent of their decades of failure.  It's like like their strategy to destroy the country is to make their role in government incompetent.
> 
> What they are being taught of course is that they might ignore their failures but the American electorate doesn't.
> 
> No matter how hard Fox and Rush and The Donald campaign for Republicans,  what the electorate sees is pure incompetence.  The worst President in our history followed by a House majority that has accomplished absolutely nothing for years.



This is off-topic, but...

If you want government to run well, it might not be a good idea to vote for someone who thinks government itself is a bad thing and should be eliminated.  They have announced in advance they will do as bad a job as they can manage.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Why should we listen to the 97%?
> ...



Hey dumbass, you are talking out of your ass. We haven't done any of that stuff idiot. I wouldn't expect a low-information stooge like you to get the sarcasm in my post anyway. Why don't you go play in the street?


----------



## PredFan (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> There is no better example of Dunning-Kruger than the GOP being unable to even recognize the extent of their decades of failure.  It's like like their strategy to destroy the country is to make their role in government incompetent.
> 
> What they are being taught of course is that they might ignore their failures but the American electorate doesn't.
> 
> No matter how hard Fox and Rush and The Donald campaign for Republicans,  what the electorate sees is pure incompetence.  The worst President in our history followed by a House majority that has accomplished absolutely nothing for years.



This country didn't start failing until the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 nit wit. The democrat party has been taking us down the tubes ever since.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > There is no better example of Dunning-Kruger than the GOP being unable to even recognize the extent of their decades of failure.  It's like like their strategy to destroy the country is to make their role in government incompetent.
> ...



The worst thing in the world that can happen is a government that runs well.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 22, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Why should we listen to the 97%?
> 
> Because I'm part of the 97%.
> 
> ...



I bet you couldn't find 3% of Americans that would agree with all that.  I'd say you've damn near given grounds for your own deportation, except I can't think of a nation that'd take you.  Maybe some Somali warlord.

Perhaps I missed it, but did you get back on any actual global warming points?  This post obviously belongs on a politics page.  And I was enjoying our chat.  I'll go look.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 22, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Why should we listen to the 97%?
> ...



So you think I'm part of the 3%? I note how the liberals here don't have the mental capacity to understand sarcasm.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 22, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I saw no sarcasm.  I still see no sarcasm.  I bet you don't do well with jokes either.

Now what does any of this have to do with Professor Dresser's analysis showing that the proper choice under the current circumstances is moving to restrict carbon emissions?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


They  created jobs, jobs, jobs.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

```

```



Abraham3 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



The right is simply imploding in on themselves. They don't even pretend to have the interest of the country at heart anymore. 

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them. 

They don't care how. They don't care why. The don't care about the consequences. They don't feel that they owe anyone an explanation or rational. 

They believe that the cult is entitled. 

I suppose all of the old European autocracies did too. That they were born for privilege. They were owed power and allegiance. 

The French people disagreed. The American people disagreed. Abe Lincoln disagreed.

To America's credit we don't have to disagree violently. 

Just vote them completely and permanently out of DC.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...



*They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them. *

Yes! They want to impose $70 trillion in costs to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.

Oh, wait, that's you guys.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ```
> ...



Ahhh yes, your favorite lie. 

There is no way to reduce the current CO2 load that we've already dumped into the atmosphere. Some day, nobody knows when, the consequences of our past behavior will be known to us. When the earth has reachieved stability at today's atmospheric GHG concentration. Of course, by then, we will have dumped millions of tons more of CO2, so the consequences will continue to get worse until we've stopped dumping, and the earth has raised it's temperature enough to create enough OLR to rebalance with incoming solar radiation. 

Science has proven with certainty that the more fossil fuel waste that we dump, the more different our future climate will be. We have seen convincing evidence already of three of the consequences. Increased extreme weather. Redistribution of annual rainfall. Rising sea levels. All already upon us. All will continue to worsen as we dump more and until the earth reachieves energy balance. 

Common sense dictates that all of the fossil fuels left in the ground are the highest cost to recover, lowest quality most expensive to refine left overs.

Data shows us the the demand for those dregs is increasing every day as the huge populations of developing countries demand the economic benefits that we have traditionally enjoyed.

Common sense dictates that all fossil fuels will run out. Oil first, then natural gas, then coal. 

Then what? What is your plan? You seem to know what nobody else does, that the solution to all that will cost $70T. What is the solution that costs that much? What are less expensive alternatives? How do you know?

Pretend that you're a liberal and will take responsibility. 

What is your plan?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And you want us to spend $70 trillion, not knowing, or caring, the reduction in CO2 that will buy.

That's just nuts.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The $70T figure is yours. What's it include? 

What's your plan?????


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Every single plan that the warmers have put up solves nothing of the bolded portions you mention.  The most stark of your dire problems lies in the very thing that you pointed out  the increase in demand (and use) of fossil fuels from upcoming economies.  Such entities are going to make the US look small.

The sad part is that a simple point was brought up eons ago in this very thread  the FACT that all the solutions that your side wants to throw at us do not change the total carbon output on this planet by more than one or two percent.

At the end of the day, even following the advice of the warmers we end up in the EXACT same place as we were going to anyway.

The ONLY solution is to technologically find something that truly solves the problem.  Wind and solar are not going to do so and are but a tiny sliver of an actual solution.  TINY.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So what's your plan? Sounds like you have a single solution that solves all.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



There are two choices left open to us. A) Put all of the carbon that's been sequestered underground in recoverable fossil fuels back in the atmosphere from wence it came. B) Or put less than that.

It's a pretty easy guess that the cost of adapting civilization to the already inevitable new climate would be less for B) than A). What the IPCC is working on now is to develop the science that will put some cost figures on those alternatives.

There never has been any doubt of the need to replace fossil fuels with sustainable energy. Some question of how long it will take mankind to develop and implement the replacement system. It's possible that we're all ready out of time. It's possible, not.

If there is some float, then the next question is, if we achieve the replacement before all of the carbon now sequestered is in the atmosphere, what would that save us in costs for adapting to a new climate?

It will take much more science and engineering than now available to answer those questions. All obstacles in the way of the IPCC doing that need to be removed. The faster we have answers the more choice we'll have when we get them.


----------



## westwall (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Let's opt for plan "C" wherein we actually determine through actual experimentation whether the AGW claims are merited.  Then, if they are, we do a survey to determine if a warmer world might actually be more beneficial anyway.  No one has looked at that yet.  Why not?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



We've done that with the IPCC.  If you want to do it also,  feel free.  Gather up the climate scientists available to you,  give them the mission,  money,  and resources and let them go.  

Think of how cool it will be if they find something that adds to what the IPCC has found.  

We're not waiting though.  Hopefully you can catch up.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 22, 2013)

WestWall,

Have you not read AR4?  Why do you seem so unfamiliar with its contents?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



They obviously matter to you.   Otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time trying to slap them down.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 22, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I don't think that things that are wrong should be foisted on the public.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 23, 2013)

Just as happened with the release of the CRU's stolen emails, the opinion's of the world's climate scientists, re AGW, to 15 years or significantly reduced warming... have not budged.  By an overwhelming majority, they still see dangerous warming, they still GHGs as the cause and they still see humans as the source of increased atmospheric GHG levels.

The process whereby the Earth traps more solar energy than it reradiates has not changed.  The process by which the Earth transports and sequesters that energy, internally, _has_ changed.  The oceans have always been the repository of most of that energy and now that fraction has grown.  Sea level rise has always been one of the more significant risks we faced, but people laughed at the observed rate.  Well, now, just as predicted (though from a new and heretofore unknown process), that rate is increasing.  And the positive feedbacks already known - the shrinking Arctic ice, decreasing our albedo, and the loss of ice shelves in Greenland and Antarctica accelerating their ice sheets slide into the ocean - will make certain that rate will continue upward.

It is long past time to act.  It has been the only sensible choice for decades.  The only reason we have so far failed to take the action we need to take has been a fear of change.  But we are, in general, a brave and determined species.  We are being sold down the river, however,  by those among us whose fear has pushed them to forget their morals, their ethics.  Whose fears have convinced them that lying to the public - that fooling them into taking a dark and rutted road that will undoubtedly hurt our children and our children's children - is JUSTIFIED.  They have rated the continuation of THEIR creature comforts above the safety, health and well-being of nearly everyone inhabiting this planet for the next thousand years.

Speak up.  Tell them what they do is wrong. Because it really... truly... is.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Just as happened with the release of the CRU's stolen emails, the opinion's of the world's climate scientists, re AGW, to 15 years or significantly reduced warming... have not budged.  By an overwhelming majority, they still see dangerous warming, they still GHGs as the cause and they still see humans as the source of increased atmospheric GHG levels.
> 
> The process whereby the Earth traps more solar energy than it reradiates has not changed.  The process by which the Earth transports and sequesters that energy, internally, _has_ changed.  The oceans have always been the repository of most of that energy and now that fraction has grown.  Sea level rise has always been one of the more significant risks we faced, but people laughed at the observed rate.  Well, now, just as predicted (though from a new and heretofore unknown process), that rate is increasing.  And the positive feedbacks already known - the shrinking Arctic ice, decreasing our albedo, and the loss of ice shelves in Greenland and Antarctica accelerating their ice sheets slide into the ocean - will make certain that rate will continue upward.
> 
> ...



Very well said.  

There is still an awful lot unknown. Much science to do.  Many solutions to engineer and build. The next 100 years will be consumed dealing with new sustainable sources of energy,  massive reductions in the waste of energy and mitigation of the consequences of fossil fuels.  

Perhaps it will keep us focused enough to stay out of war. 

I personally think that the first frontier will be transportation,  currently the most wasteful sector of energy consumption.  While we will be stuck for many decades with some oil use we can extend the life of the the oil that we have several fold with pretty much existing technology.  

Just moving to plug in hybrids will be huge.  50 to 100+ mpg compared to 20 to 30. Wind and solar powered charging stations with free charging when fuel less energy is available will promote using millions of car batteries to level demand.  

CNG for trucks and trains.  Not the best,  but better until everything but planes is electric.  

Steady progress,  relentlessly pursued.  Confidence in what we are capable of.  Leadership expected from,  and rewarded for in government,  not stasis.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 25, 2013)

An interesting point about cars and trucks.  Turn the number around (from the US to the European fashion) and rather than looking at distance traveled per unit fuel volume (MPG), look at fuel volume consumed per unit distane (liters/100 km).  Then start looking at typical consumption numbers.  There is a far greater fuel saving, per vehicle to be had moving 10 mpg (6.21 l/100 km) vehicles to 20 mpg (12.42 l/100 km - a 6.21 liter saving)), than there is moving 30 mpg (18.63 l/100 km) to 40 (24.84 l/100km - a 3.1 liter saving).  Every mileage increase helps but getting the bottom of the pack up out of the mud will do us the most good at the moment.  It's also far easier to accomplish.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> An interesting point about cars and trucks.  Turn the number around (from the US to the European fashion) and rather than looking at distance traveled per unit fuel volume (MPG), look at fuel volume consumed per unit distane (liters/100 km).  Then start looking at typical consumption numbers.  There is a far greater fuel saving, per vehicle to be had moving 10 mpg (6.21 l/100 km) vehicles to 20 mpg (12.42 l/100 km - a 6.21 liter saving)), than there is moving 30 mpg (18.63 l/100 km) to 40 (24.84 l/100km - a 3.1 liter saving).  Every mileage increase helps but getting the bottom of the pack up out of the mud will do us the most good at the moment.  It's also far easier to accomplish.



We need more motor scooters.  100 mpg.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 25, 2013)

fyi from epa.

[quote
CONTACT:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
press@epa.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 25, 2013


TODAY: EPA Chief Begins Three-State Tour Highlighting Climate Action Plan

EPA Administrator visits New York, Wisconsin, and Michigan to discuss climate change, power plant announcement

WASHINGTON &#8211; Today U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy will begin a three-day trip where she will speak to students, businesses and other stakeholders on EPA's recent carbon pollution standards proposal for new power plants, and President Obama&#8217;s Climate Action Plan to reduce carbon pollution. She will also discuss her vision for EPA and challenges the agency will face going forward. 

On Wednesday, Administrator McCarthy will speak to Clinton Global Initiative attendees during a panel discussion titled, &#8220;Making the Case for Environmental and Sustainability Education.&#8221; She will be joined by representatives from the Captain Planet Foundation, Children&#8217;s Environmental Literacy Foundation, African Wildlife Foundation and Earth University. On Thursday, she will travel to Ann Arbor, Mich. to deliver a keynote address to students, faculty and members of the public attending the Michigan Environmental Law and Public Health Conference at the University of Michigan Law School. Friday in Madison, Wis., Administrator McCarthy will join Madison Mayor Paul Soglin to highlight EPA&#8217;s work with local communities to advance sustainability efforts through the MPower Business Champion Program. She will also deliver a keynote address at the Trout Unlimited Annual meeting. 

*** These events are open to members of the media. Interested press should contact press@epa.gov ***


R166
You are subscribed to News Releases: Headquarters for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.

][/quote]


----------



## PMZ (Sep 25, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> An interesting point about cars and trucks.  Turn the number around (from the US to the European fashion) and rather than looking at distance traveled per unit fuel volume (MPG), look at fuel volume consumed per unit distane (liters/100 km).  Then start looking at typical consumption numbers.  There is a far greater fuel saving, per vehicle to be had moving 10 mpg (6.21 l/100 km) vehicles to 20 mpg (12.42 l/100 km - a 6.21 liter saving)), than there is moving 30 mpg (18.63 l/100 km) to 40 (24.84 l/100km - a 3.1 liter saving).  Every mileage increase helps but getting the bottom of the pack up out of the mud will do us the most good at the moment.  It's also far easier to accomplish.



There is no question that economics is what will ultimately be the death of fossil fuels.  Thats why big oil is so committed to kill alternatives.  They want to ride reduced supply and increased global demand to the last BTU.  That can't happen if consumers have choices. 

The way that we can hasten the end of all of the known and hidden costs of fossil fuels is to raise their prices and lower sustainable prices. 

Making investments in wind and solar capability advantageous, leverages public and private resources and prepares us for the inevitable day when electricity is the majority fuel on roads and tracks.  

After all,  sustainable energy is almost all capital investment,  and fossil fuel creates high capital and operating and waste disposal costs,  but the capital equipment is largely in place.  Our goal ought to be to make the transition from fossil to electric transportation without spending another nickle on fossil fueled capital,  while steadily reducing the percent every year of new cars and trucks and trains that demand it. 

Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom.  We need gentle put relentless pressure,  to increase our progress.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 26, 2013)

The people here who do not believe in science or global energy are the same type of people who caused "Popular Science" to remove its comments link.

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments | Popular Science


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting point about cars and trucks.  Turn the number around (from the US to the European fashion) and rather than looking at distance traveled per unit fuel volume (MPG), look at fuel volume consumed per unit distane (liters/100 km).  Then start looking at typical consumption numbers.  There is a far greater fuel saving, per vehicle to be had moving 10 mpg (6.21 l/100 km) vehicles to 20 mpg (12.42 l/100 km - a 6.21 liter saving)), than there is moving 30 mpg (18.63 l/100 km) to 40 (24.84 l/100km - a 3.1 liter saving).  Every mileage increase helps but getting the bottom of the pack up out of the mud will do us the most good at the moment.  It's also far easier to accomplish.
> ...



*Obama's higher CAFE standards are a necessary but small step towards energy freedom. *

No matter how many people it kills.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



How many people will higher CAFE standards kill?  How?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



CAFE Standards Kill | National Review Online


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Too many. Lighter cars are less safe.


----------



## Snookie (Sep 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 Wow that website is worse than world nut daily.

Using that reasoning we should ban all eighteen wheelers and big trucks.

Gee I didn't think you cared,

We should also outlaw bikes, motorcycles, and motor scooters.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



Make cars lighter, what could go wrong?

Idiot!


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2013)

Snookie said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting point about cars and trucks.  Turn the number around (from the US to the European fashion) and rather than looking at distance traveled per unit fuel volume (MPG), look at fuel volume consumed per unit distane (liters/100 km).  Then start looking at typical consumption numbers.  There is a far greater fuel saving, per vehicle to be had moving 10 mpg (6.21 l/100 km) vehicles to 20 mpg (12.42 l/100 km - a 6.21 liter saving)), than there is moving 30 mpg (18.63 l/100 km) to 40 (24.84 l/100km - a 3.1 liter saving).  Every mileage increase helps but getting the bottom of the pack up out of the mud will do us the most good at the moment.  It's also far easier to accomplish.
> ...









When the weather is nice I ride a bicycle.  When it's not I drive a Outback....it gets pretty nasty on mountain roads in the snow...


----------



## Snookie (Sep 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You tell me, pud master.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Your link was written by a member of the Hoover Institute funded by:

''The Hoover Institution is funded by multiple sources. It receives nearly half of its funding from private gifts, including corporate charitable foundations, and the other half from its endowment.[27]''

''Past corporate donors have included:''

''Archer Daniels Midland Foundation
ARCO Foundation
Boeing-McDonnell Foundation
Chrysler Corporation Fund
Dean Witter Foundation
Exxon Educational Foundation [28][unreliable source?]
Ford Motor Company Fund
General Motors Foundation
JFPI Corporation
J.P. Morgan Charitable Trust
Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation
Procter & Gamble Fund
Rockwell International Corporation Trust
Transamerica''

So,  American car companies and big oil object to being forced into solving the fossil fuel problems that they created.  However,  that's why we,  the people have a democratic government.  To solve problems when each company operating under the one rule of business,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  leads companies to make more money,  and we,  the people to waste more.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



You think that the corporate donors somehow fool the physics of a collision?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Indirectly they do.  Without them there would be no collisions. 
damages. For example if a bar owner gives a drunk too much to drink they are liable for l


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



There are many ways to design and build safe fuel efficient cars.  We are much smarter than thinking that you have to compromise one to get the other.  Mankind has made huge strides in safety over my life because we,  the people directed our government to insist on it.  

The auto and oil companies feeding think tanks in order to excuse themselves from public responsibility is a very old and tired game.  It was the main reason for Detroit's failure to thrive against foreign competition for decades.  

We should insist in the marketplace on better. And we have.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



A June report by a group called the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) includes some data from Ross and co-author Tom Wenzel of the U.S. Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. *That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are. But the chart also shows that the least-safe small cars are at least 90% more dangerous than midsize and full-size cars*, meaning the driver is almost twice as likely to be killed.

"If you say light cars are more dangerous, in an average sense they are, and some are much more dangerous," Ross says.


People buy small cars even though they can be deadly - USATODAY.com

Typical liberals, ignore the cost of their "good ideas".


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I agree that we need to get big cars off the road due to the danger they  create.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are.*

We must not allow people to drive safer cars, for their own good. 
Save the Earth, screw the people.
Typical liberal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Sales and registration data show that small cars  what most people call compacts and subcompacts, such as Civic, Toyota Corolla, Ford Focus, Mazda3, Nissan Sentra, Chevrolet Cobalt and smaller  are about 14% of vehicles on the road. *But they accounted for nearly 24% of occupants killed in one- and two-vehicle crashes in 2005*, the latest year for which specific information is available.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What we really need to do is keep idiots from voting.  Then we would have the government telling us what kind of cars we can drive.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We all know how liberal turds like PMS have literally destroyed major corporations because some idiot used their product incorrectly and injured themselves.   Why doesn't the same rule apply here?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're ignoring the fact that big cars cause danger as well as oil supply protection wars as well as extreme weather damages as well as being unaffordable by most who drive them. 

You celebrate citizens gone stupid.  Probably family for you.  

I'm sick of paying for stupid people tricks.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...








So what.  Who funds your choice of groups?  Oh, yes, it's good old Soros and others like him.  All that matters is if the information is good asshat.  The source of the money is immaterial.  If the information is bad then it should be expunged and ignored.  So why do you insist on using information that has been PROVEN false?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*You're ignoring the fact that big cars cause danger as well *

Please explain the danger you feel I've ignored.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The bigger the car,  the more gasoline they consume.  The more gasoline burned the more GHGs. The more GHGs,  the more AGW.  The more AGW,  the more death and destruction inflicted on civilization. 

Thats not even mentioning where the world will be when the oil is all gone nor the wars to be fought trying to protect dwindling supplies.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You have us confused with gullible drones who believe your AGW abracadabra


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Thousands of additional deaths, every year, to prevent imaginary AGW deaths sometime in the future.

A trade-off only a liberal could embrace.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 28, 2013)

Todd- 

The deaths have already been occuring for 20 years. 

Deaths from lack of water as glaciers disappear, deaths from unprecedented drought and floods. 

Your lack of general knowledge is absolutely staggering.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd-
> 
> The deaths have already been occuring for 20 years.
> 
> ...



There are no such deaths.  Eagles can fly, ya know.  That means they can easily fly to where water is or to where it isn't.  They generally don't live in areas subject to drought.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 28, 2013)

Bri Pat - 



> There are no such deaths



As I pointed out to Todd, a staggering lack of general knowledge is not always an acceptable excuse. 

Between July 2011 and mid-2012, a severe drought affected the entire East Africa region. Said to be "the worst in 60 years", the drought caused a severe food crisis across Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya that *threatened the livelihood of 9.5 million people.* Many refugees from southern Somalia fled to neighboring Kenya and Ethiopia, where crowded, unsanitary conditions together with severe malnutrition led to a large number of deaths. Other countries in East Africa, including Sudan, South Sudan and parts of Uganda, were also affected by a food crisis.

2011 East Africa drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We know that climate change creates more droughts, and more severe droughts. More droughts = more deaths from drought.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Bri Pat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So how many eagles died?


----------



## Saigon (Sep 28, 2013)

BriPat - 

On threads like this where you have been proven wrong, and where you obviously realise that you have been proven wrong, it is probably better if you just note that your previous comment was incorrect and that you now understand the facts, rather than going with smart-arse non-sequtiors. 

To answer your ridiculous question - tens of thousands of birds die from drought every year. Climate change is forcing those numbers up every year.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 28, 2013)

As has been clearly demonstrated by the release of the IPCC's AR5 Summary for Policymakers, the certainty of the "A" part of AGW has only grown. It is ridiculous - and more importantly - DANGEROUS, to continue to attempt to refute this proposition. The Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) radiative imbalance is unchanged. Global warming continues unabated. That it's processes have altered to move more energy into the ocean will assuage only the scientifically ignorant and the politically petulant.

It would never have been easy, simple or inexpensive to deal with this problem. That those opposed to an appropriate response should have successfully delayed action till now (and likely beyond) has truly put an effective response beyond our financial or technological reach. I guess they can hold their heads up in pride that, by their words and their deeds, the world - whose financial health they claimed to hold dear - will beggar itself in a Pyrrhic effort to deal with the changes it will suffer. They can stand tall when it is pointed out to what an extent all of our children and all of our children's children will be so well and truly fucked. BZ, you god damned bloody idiots.

The 97% are right.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> On threads like this where you have been proven wrong, and where you obviously realise that you have been proven wrong, it is probably better if you just note that your previous comment was incorrect and that you now understand the facts, rather than going with smart-arse non-sequtiors.
> 
> To answer your ridiculous question - tens of thousands of birds die from drought every year. Climate change is forcing those numbers up every year.



In other words, you haven't got a shred of evidence that eagles have ever died because of drought.  Ya see, Saigon, drought is always a local event.  It never covers an area of more than a few thousand square miles.  Eagles can see for hundreds of miles and find water.  If the rain isn't falling where they live, they just go somewhere else.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > BriPat -
> ...



I've never met anyone else with your attitude that,  as long as Eagles survive,  no other life form matters.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Ya see, Saigon, drought is always a local event.  It never covers an area of more than a few thousand square miles.  Eagles can see for hundreds of miles and find water.  If the rain isn't falling where they live, they just go somewhere else.



And yet I just presented you with evidence of a drought that covered almost a million square kilometres.

How hard is it for you to accept that more droughts mean more deaths; both human and avian?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Where did I say that?  Windmills kill birds of prey like eagles.  That's why the subject of eagles came up.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Ya see, Saigon, drought is always a local event.  It never covers an area of more than a few thousand square miles.  Eagles can see for hundreds of miles and find water.  If the rain isn't falling where they live, they just go somewhere else.
> ...



In an area that is already a desert.  How many eagles live there?



Saigon said:


> How hard is it for you to accept that more droughts mean more deaths; both human and avian?



First prove that global warming causes drought.  I just watched a program on TLC about humans who once lived in the middle of the Sahara between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago.  At that time there were huge lakes all over the Sahara "BECAUSE THE CLIMATE WAS WARMER."


----------



## Saigon (Sep 28, 2013)

BriPat - 

I am trying to make this as simple as I can for you. 

The incidence of drought is increasing. The severity of droughts is increasing. We know this. It is simple, known, proven fact - and I can present papers for you if you will commit to reading them.

That means more people - and more birds - will die. 

Do you understand this?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Todd-
> 
> The deaths have already been occuring for 20 years.
> 
> ...



I do lack knowledge of the fairy tales you spout.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Bri Pat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The climate has been changing in Africa since we first evolved there. Somehow we're still there.
As soon as you can show the percentage of the drought caused by the fact that not every American drives a small, more dangerous, vehicle, be sure to let me know.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> I am trying to make this as simple as I can for you.
> 
> ...



Please provide evidence that drought is increasing.  We're all dying to see it.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Actually,  you are very gullible drones.  You recite drivel from the boobs and boobies at Fox like the 'bot that you've become.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Bri Pat -
> ...



What about the behavior of GHGs do you not understand?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



The part where I have to drive a much more dangerous automobile to prevent hurricane deaths.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 They're "gullible drones" because you cannot win this debate with those who issue falsified scientific data on your condone list? Seems to me your use of projecting your own bad on somebody else in your mind relieves you of responsibility a debater has to the truth. Sorry, it doesn't. Projection is a tool used by those who lack propriety and introspection, and pal, you almost have it down to an art form, except as the adage says, "you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Watching your meltdown has been interesting.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Bri Pat -
> ...



What the Toddbot is reciting is that if Africans can adapt to abject poverty,  so can Americans.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Your pickup is a danger to others,  a condition that you accept as irrelevant.  We,  the people,  who are subject to death and dismembership as a result of your idiocy, don't feel inclined to risk our lives for people who don't care about ours.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Your pickup is a danger to others,*

I don't drive a pickup.

*We,  the people,  who are subject to death and dismembership as a result of your idiocy*

The idiocy is the idea that CAFE standards have no downside. 
That's you and Obama on the side of the idiots.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



There is a drought in Africa, it must be Todd's fault.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Every thing has a downside.  Thats the limit to conservative thinking


Liberals understand choice,  which is an anathema to conservative black and white ''thinking''.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Every thing has a downside.*

Like thousands of additional annual deaths, because of CAFE standards.

*Liberals understand choice, *

CAFE standards reduce choice and increase deaths.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You are as dumb as the conservative drone who insist that learning from others who know more is a logical fallacy. 

What you call ''projection'' is,  in reality,  holding people accountable for their words.  

But,  we expect nothing more from you.  Accountability is a foreign concept to media addicts.  If the talking head says jump,  the conservative response is always,  how high.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 The choices you are giving come under the topic of "dumb" and "dumber."


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Not in the communications classes I have taken. Your projection is the blatant attempt to obfuscate the results of your proposals which lack merit based on the need to omit data from scientific information by some alleged scientist dudes who were gonna get rich quick off foundations for which they presented altered data to drive home a lie.

You can't fool me. My college science grades put me on top of the class because I studied my little butt off because I love the beauty and majesty of this wonderful world God wanted me to explore and understand. I loved every lecture, paper, chapter, structure, and map in every one of my science books on a broad range of topics, and I'm still learning.

The scientific community past frowned on charlatans who promulgated data that could not be replicated on account of falsification of data. Today's warmers celebrate getting grants, not getting facts. In fact, they actually need more heat before they catch on to how stupid they've been and ashamed they should be for lying to the world in front of God and everybody.

See you in the funnies of scientific FAILS.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 28, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



What was your major?  What science classes did you take?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Thousands of additional deaths are due to oversize cars.  When they're gone,  the roads will be safe again. 

Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions.  Conservatives simplify problems down to only the downside to make doing nothing about everything seem ok. 

Conservatism is really about avoiding responsibility and accountability.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



How come every conservative considers themselves a science genius but has zero respect for real science? And falls for conservative politics every time over scientific truth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*When they're gone, the roads will be safe again. *

Smaller cars are more dangerous, even in single car accidents.

*Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions. *

And you insist on making the decisions for people, even if it kills them, it's for their own good.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2013)

The IPCC is no longer part of the 97%


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Some people are more capable of making good decisions and others are clueless.  

Conservatives are all about the inmates running the asylum.  Absolutely unaffordable.  Look at the consequences just in the House of such nonsense. And they're supposed to be the smart ones.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Democracy is about the inmates running the asylum.  Liberals are trying to turn us all into inmates in an asylum.   Under democracy the bottom 51% decide how everyone will live their lives.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If you don't like democracy find a better alternative.  Instead of 51 percent of we,  the people,  deciding,  most conservatives want a much smaller percentage.  Some would turn government over to a very few.  

That's called a plutocracy and it's what the founding fathers thought that they could get away with.  Fortunately,  we,  the people,  took over their wishes and created a democracy.  

Now conservatives want to return to a plutocracy of white,  wealthy,  men,  except now of the uneducated sort.  Grover Norquist,  and Donald Trump,  and Karl Rove,  and Rush.  

It will not happen though.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Not if you include the deaths caused by AGW enhanced extreme weather today, much less in the future as GHG concentrations continue to climb. *

Like all the extra hurricanes you guys promised us over the last 5 years? 
How'd that prediction work out? 

*Some people are more capable of making good decisions *

And then there are liberals. More deaths now, for sure, for fewer imaginary deaths, in the future. Promise!


----------



## PMZ (Sep 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



From:On The Safety Of Large Vehicles | The Truth About Cars

The &#8220;big car safe, small car unsafe&#8221; debate took another interesting turn this week, as researchers from UC Berkeley have released a report arguing that large cars significantly increase the risk of death on American roads. Recent data on the most and least died-in vehicles seemed to show that larger vehicles do indeed keep drivers safer, but this new report seems to roll back the impact of that finding. Slate reports that researchers studied accident data from eight states, identifying the type and weight of vehicles involved in collisions by their VIN numbers. The researchers confirm that the heavy cars kill. Indeed, controlling &#8220;for own-vehicle weight, being hit by a vehicle that is 1,000 pounds heavier results in a 47 percent increase&#8221; in the probability of a fatal accident. The chance is even higher if the heavy car is an SUV, pickup truck, or minivan. (Taller vehicles tend to do outsize damage, too.)

The researchers then set out to calculate the value of the &#8220;external risk&#8221; caused by our heftier vehicles. First, they considered a scenario in which a driver chose between a car with the 1989 model-year average weight of 3,000 pounds or the 2005 weight of 3,600 pounds. The heavier car increased the expectation of fatalities by 0.00027 per car&#8212;27 deaths per 100,000 such vehicles. &#8220;Summing across all drivers,&#8221; they write, &#8220;this translates into a total external cost of $35 billion per year,&#8221; using the Department of Transportation&#8217;s value of a statistical life of $5.8 million. Judging against a baseline in which a driver chose the smallest available car, such as a Smart Cars, the cost is $93 billion per year. The price tag climbs beyond $150 billion per year if you include the cost of pedestrian and motorcyclist deaths and figure in multi-car collisions.

But this latest study hardly means an end to the debate. After all,*vehicles*have been getting larger and larger for decades but the overall number of deaths per vehicle mile traveled has been declining for at least as long. So how do the Berkley authors explain these contradicting trends?

The problem is that American roads consist of a mix of heavier and lighter cars, and the biggest danger is when they encounter each other. The authors write that*relative weight is what is most dangerous in crashes. The recent vogue for lighter vehicles, driven in part by high gas prices and changing fuel-economy standards, has raised worries about the chance of more collision deaths. One study found that higher fuel-economy standards imposed in the 1980s led to*2,000 additional deaths per year. If Americans suddenly start buying many more ultra-light cars, it is not hard to imagine more deadly accidents as a result.

That&#8217;s a pleasant thought, isn&#8217;t it? The eternal bugbear of US automotive regulation, the tradeoff between safety and fuel economy, just won&#8217;t go away. So what&#8217;s the solution?

Given the relationship between big cars and bad accidents, it might make sense to make such cars more expensive to buy or drive. You could do this with insurance premiums, or lawsuits. But the economists suggest a gas tax, &#8220;because it is simple and because gasoline usage is positively related to both miles driven and vehicle weight.&#8221; They say it would take a 27-cent-per-gallon gas tax to account for the $35 billion per year in extra costs from heavier cars. (To account for the $150 billion in extra costs would require a tax of more than $1 per gallon.)

Notch up another, if somewhat more*debatable, reason to increase the gas tax (as if we needed another).


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


27/100,000 or .00027 is such a small number, it could flip flop quite a bit from year to year.
More studies that not do not support the Berkley study in overall safety:

WSJ: Small Cars Are Dangerous Cars--Fuel Economy Zealots Can Kill You

Maya Insurance: Small cars more dangerous in Head-on Collisions

CDC: Small cars more dangerous - from study: " decreasing the size and weight of vehicles and increasing adoption of new vehicle technologies will reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions but could result in more injuries from car crashes and impact environmental health in other ways."

The Truth About Cars Dot Com: Surprise! Small Cars Still More Dangerous Than Big Ones

The Daily Mail, UK, 2012: Small cars are more dangerous: Shock study reveals modest motors have biggest risk of injury


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*The recent vogue for lighter vehicles, driven in part by high gas prices and changing fuel-economy standards, has raised worries about the chance of more collision deaths. One study found that higher fuel-economy standards imposed in the 1980s led to*2,000 additional deaths per year. *

Sweet! How many hurricanes did those deaths prevent?


----------



## PMZ (Sep 29, 2013)

Conservatives,  of course,  want the past to continue.  So they believe that huge cars,  sucking big time gas,  should go on forever even though the hasten the inevitable end of fossil fuels. Why?  They believe that they are entitled to it all,  screw the future.

Wow.  Screw the future.  How irresponsible is that?


----------



## Snookie (Sep 29, 2013)

the toddster is so worried about car safety that he thinks everyone should drive tanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Conservatives,  of course,  want the past to continue.  So they believe that huge cars,  sucking big time gas,  should go on forever even though the hasten the inevitable end of fossil fuels. Why?  They believe that they are entitled to it all,  screw the future.
> 
> Wow.  Screw the future.  How irresponsible is that?



Liberals, of course, don't mind killing the little people, to fulfill their schemes.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 29, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Democracy is about the inmates running the asylum.  Liberals are trying to turn us all into inmates in an asylum.   Under democracy the bottom 51% decide how everyone will live their lives.



Why do you use the term "bottom"?

And, for that matter, why do you use 51%?  Though the balance between the two parties has grown tighter and tighter over the years (evidence for an evolutionary process I'd say) support for, or opposition to, specific government policies is rarely so close.  For instance, support for laws against murder is nearly unanimous.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Democracy is about the inmates running the asylum.  Liberals are trying to turn us all into inmates in an asylum.   Under democracy the bottom 51% decide how everyone will live their lives.
> ...



The only reason party support is as close as it is, is that the GOP recruited disgruntled Southern Democrats when the Democratic Party was legislating equal rights for all citizens in the 70s. At that time political advertising was well regulated.  To get around that,  and to recruit and hang on to the Southern Democrat and conservative extremists,  they developed the concept of media pseudo-news. Rush and Fox and Beck etc.  That made many entertainers wealthy beyond their wildest dreams,  and allowed the GOP 24/7/365 political advertising.  The down side,  which I doubt they saw coming,  was the party of business,  became the party of plutocracy because the bulk of their members became so easy to manipulate. A few wealthy people pulling the strings on millions of voter puppets. 

The peak of this plot was the Bush administration which redistributed trillions from the middle class to the wealthy, leaving the country in massive debt and the wealthy extraordinarily rich. 

A death blow to America's middle class and the birth of the American banana republic? 

That would have been a certainty under McCain/Palin. 

President Obama however has at least begun the resurgence of world leader,  democratic, responsible America.  

Our biggest obstacle has been the Republican shut down of the House of Representatives,  a problem that won't be corrected until 2016.

AGW is but one player on the stage,  but a critical one.  Energy is a business necessary for all business.  Right now the business of energy is torn between two masters,  today and tomorrow. 

Republicans,  and today's energy businesses,  through their pseudo-news outlets, are protecting today's and future profits, made possible by the status quo. 

Future oriented energy businesses are pursuing the opportunities of sustainable energy.  

The IPCC is fulfilling their mission.  Development of the science necessary to define the most cost effective path to the future.  Their success is fueling the future oriented energy businesses but that has to be at the expense of the status quo businesses. 

Behemoths slugging it out on the world political stage. 

And here,  fight fans rooting for either today or tomorrow.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 29, 2013)

Snookie said:


> the toddster is so worried about car safety that he thinks everyone should drive tanks.



"I'm going to protect myself by killing you" is regarded by sane, moral human beings as the ideology of the sociopath.

Oddly, many American conservatives believe themselves deserving of praise because they think like sociopaths, and snarl at anyone who doesn't think like a sociopath.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2013)

The so called 97% at this point can not even agree on a climate sensitivity to CO2....that, in case you were wondering, is the bottom line.  So much for a consensus.  

The wheels are falling off the crazy train.  The CO2 hypothesis has failed miserably and now we can turn our attention to natural variability which is where it should have been all along.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > the toddster is so worried about car safety that he thinks everyone should drive tanks.
> ...



*"I'm going to protect myself by killing you" is regarded by sane, moral human beings as the ideology of the sociopath.*

I know, that's why pushing dangerous cars, to protect myself from "global warming dangers" is really disgusting. Typical, liberal sociopaths.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 29, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The so called 97% at this point can not even agree on a climate sensitivity to CO2....that, in case you were wondering, is the bottom line.  So much for a consensus.
> 
> The wheels are falling off the crazy train.  The CO2 hypothesis has failed miserably and now we can turn our attention to natural variability which is where it should have been all along.



I think that you could experience more reality with your head out of your ass.  Just saying.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 29, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



The dangerous cars are the oversized ones.  They're real killers.  In every sense of the word.  Driving one is like carrying a loaded assault rifle in public for personal protection.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Democracy is about the inmates running the asylum.  Liberals are trying to turn us all into inmates in an asylum.   Under democracy the bottom 51% decide how everyone will live their lives.
> ...



Laws against murder have been on the books for 300 years.  99% of the laws have nothing to do with protecting basic rights.  They are mostly about bestowing privileges on one group or another.

I use the 51% figure because that is what it takes to guarantee a win.  It's generally the dumbest most ignorant section of the country that  hasn't made it's mind up come election time.  That's where all the advertising dollars are directed. Idiots determine the outcome of elections - the kind who think Obama is going to pay all their bills.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



The dangerous ones are the lighter ones.
More dangerous in single car collisions, more dangerous in collisions with trucks.
More dangerous. Measurably more dangerous. 

If Obama gets his wish and standards rise to 54.5 MPG, how many thousands more will die?

At least you'll be protecting Gaia, no matter how many little people pay the price.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 29, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



All laws set the standards that define what is not acceptable for one person to impose on another.  

I don't care whether it's speeding or dumping garbage,  or murder or not paying taxes,  or carrying an unregistered gun,  all laws define the details of what we all want to be free of from others.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 29, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



''It's generally the dumbest most ignorant section of the country that  hasn't made it's mind up come election time.''

This is why democracy is wasted on conservatives.  They are taught that rule by a small minority,  defined as a plutocracy,  is best because that would allow them to impose their definition of best on others.  Of course that's also defined as tyranny. 

Democracy is rule by all of us.  Tyranny is rule by some of us. Dictatorships are rule by one of us.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 29, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If conservatives get their wish of ignoring peak energy and AGW all of us will return to the caves and your problem will be solved.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 29, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




''the kind who think Obama is going to pay all their bills.''

I don't know any people that believe that. 

I do know lots of people who are angry about the Bushman not paying the bills that his policies rang up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What happened to the extra hurricanes you doomers promised us over the last 5 years?

You can return to a cave, I'll stay in the modern world, we have fossil fuels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Bush's spending was awful. Obama rang up more unpaid bills in his first 4.5 years than Bush did in 8.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 29, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What happened to the extra hurricanes you doomers promised us over the last 5 years?



Have you watched any of the weather reports from the Pacific far east?  And, at least here in Florida, we have been drowned in a ridiculous amount of rain.  The increase in intensity is something seen in the averages.  It does not require that you see a monster storm every season.  But the averages are rising and will continue to rise. 
[/QUOTE]


----------



## PMZ (Sep 29, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Bush's policies continue racking up debt to this day.  Afghanistan for instance.  Our entire debt stems from Bush policies. Made worse by the fact that the CBO told Bush that if he continued Clinton's economic policies the US could be debt free by 2006 and have a $2.5T surplus by 2011.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 29, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I agree that today we have fossil fuels and a tolerable if growingly expensive level of climate change.  

I know that's where your thinking stops.  

Fortunately we have science that allows us to see into the future,  not perfectly but adequately clearly.  That tells us that doing nothing is unaffordable and unconscionable. 

Fortunately,  we are used to people like you who choose to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We're not counting on you for anything. 

Of lead,  follow,  or get out of the way you have decided not to lead or follow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Our entire debt stems from Bush policies. *

I didn't realize Obama had so little power.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When have CBO forecasts ever been accurate, or even honest, for that matter?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 29, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What "expenses" has climate changed caused us to incur?



PMZ said:


> Fortunately we have science that allows us to see into the future,  not perfectly but adequately clearly.  That tells us that doing nothing is unaffordable and unconscionable.



So far, the record of "science" at seeing into the future of our climate is a big fat zero.  It hasn't managed to get a single forecast correct.  Even if their predictions were accurate, it still doesn't follow that the costs would be "unaffordable" or "unconscionable."



PMZ said:


> Fortunately,  we are used to people like you who choose to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We're not counting on you for anything.
> 
> Of lead,  follow,  or get out of the way you have decided not to lead or follow.



You can count on me to do everything I can to get in your way and put a stop to your AGW cult.


----------



## Abraham3 (Sep 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's gonna be tough to do when Mother Nature steps on your head.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 30, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He has the power to have ended those unaffordable policies despite the Republican shut down of Congress.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



As compared to FOX News analysis.  You've got to be kidding!  

You are a textbook example as why Republicans have no place in government.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We would expect nothing else from a Fox puppet. You're one of the 'bot army they have been well paid to create.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That's why the new debt is his.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 30, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So your understanding of our government says that an incoming President,  without Congress, can immediately and effectively merely end the policies of his predecessor?  
That sounds like a dictatorship to me.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > What happened to the extra hurricanes you doomers promised us over the last 5 years?
> ...


And your evidence for this is?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That's what libturds like you seem to believe about Bush.  He's responsible for all the deficit since day one of his presidency, according to them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Obama was going to stop the rise of the oceans, just by getting the nomination.

Now he can't balance the budget? 

He held both Houses for 2 years. Not long enough?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your belief that anyone who disagrees with your schemes is a "FOX puppet" is hilarious.  If there's anyone who goes around parroting the proclamations of a propaganda organ, it's you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I've never seen a FOX News analyst forecast a budget deficit before.  Even if it did, it would probably be more accurate than the CBO, which is notorious for giving figures based on pure fantasy.



PMZ said:


> [You are a textbook example as why Republicans have no place in government.



You're fascist to the bone.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



What "unaffordable policies?"


----------



## Snookie (Sep 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


wet.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2013)

Snookie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



None, in other words.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He was advised early in his debacle that he could pay off the entire national debt.  He immediately,  instead,  instituted the largest redistribution of wealth up ever experienced in this country,  cutting tax revenues way below expenses and began his wars on Islam. He then instructed the Fed to lower interest rates even though the economy that he inherited from Clinton was doing great,  in order to inflate the housing bubble.  While that was going on he cheered on Wall Street's invention of mortgage backed derivatives which,  in the end,  burst the housing bubble.  He also cheered on business as they decimated American manufacturing in exchange for obscene executive bonuses.  

Then,  with the country crashing down all around,  he escaped to where he'd spent most of his Presidency,  Crawford,  Texas,  where he hasn't been heard from since. 

Great job,  Bushie.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Fascists are extreme,  extreme conservatives.

You are  at least on the border of that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



* He then instructed the Fed to lower interest rates even though the economy that he inherited from Clinton was doing great,*

Doing great, except for the recession. And the slowdown caused by 9/11.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Only in the fevered imaginations of the Fabian Socialists who perpetrated that lie to confuse the stupid people such as yourself.  Fascism and socialism are cut from the same cloth, maximum power in the hands of the government and minimum rights to the individual.

Describes you and your fellow fascists to a "T"


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The so called 97% at this point can not even agree on a climate sensitivity to CO2....that, in case you were wondering, is the bottom line.  So much for a consensus.
> ...


Maybe you should pull yours out so that you can see that mine isn't.  You must be operating from a model of reality rather than reality itself.  It is, after all, the standard MO for warmists and climate science in general.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Still fighting bush after all these years. Funny, isn't it?   If they want to know where all of our debt came from, they must look further back than bush...all the way back to FDR who instituded deficit spending.  If you want to find the culprit....there he be.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Fascists are extreme,  extreme conservatives.
> 
> You are  at least on the border of that.



The nature of conservativism is small, unobtrusive government which allows people to succeed or fail more or less on their own or with their local community.  The constitution is pure classical liberalism, or modern conservativism...(one in the same)   Would you care to live under a government which strictly adheres to the literal word of the constitution?  I would and the government under a literal interpretation of the constitution would be small and unobtrusive.....care to show me a small unobtrusive fascist state?  Fascism is the left wing of liberalism and bears no resemblance to conservativism which is, in effect, classical liberalism.

There really is no excuse for you being so ignorant in the modern world.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Perhaps it would have been smarter for him to prevent 9/11.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Anybody who can't distinguish between American democracy and totalitarian tyranny has amply earned their irrelevance.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Conservative reality comes from media scripts and exists only in the limited minds of faithful followers.  It is product of the American Jihad.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Fascists are extreme,  extreme conservatives.
> ...



''Would you care to live under a government which strictly adheres to the literal word of the constitution?''

We,  the people,  invested decades of blood,  sweat,  and tears,  building American democracy from the founders plutocracy. By adhering to the Constitution including the Ammendment capability built into it.  Conservatives would like to return to the plutocracy that we fought to end.  

There is no way that we are going to reset to that era.  Our government is of all of the people,  not merely white,  wealthy,  males.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








So why the hell are you still here polluting the forum?  Your rep bar is as red as Stalin's flag.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You're right, Bush should have killed Osama back in 1998.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ''Would you care to live under a government which strictly adheres to the literal word of the constitution?''
> 
> We,  the people,  invested decades of blood,  sweat,  and tears,  building American democracy from the founders plutocracy. By adhering to the Constitution including the Ammendment capability built into it.  Conservatives would like to return to the plutocracy that we fought to end.
> 
> There is no way that we are going to reset to that era.  Our government is of all of the people,  not merely white,  wealthy,  males.



So you would not care to live under a strict interpretation of the constitution.  No surprise there.  No fascist, socialist, or communist would.   No doubt, you adhere to the "ist" idea that the constitution is a "living" document meant to be re-interpreted as necessary to further a progressive agenda.

Do you think the founders of the nation would really appreciate what has become of their idea or would they perhaps instigate another revolution as the opression we live under today is far worse than that of king george in the day.  They revolted over pennies in taxes and tarrifs...what would they think of the tax structure that has come out of a liberal "interpretation" of their constitution?


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You 've been working hard on that as you've run completely out of rational ways to sell your snake oil.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of course that's unrelated to the topic of the Bushman listening to his advisors and protecting the country.  

I suppose that was too much to expect from an ignorant wealthy playboy.  The Great Gatsby of Crawford.


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ''Would you care to live under a government which strictly adheres to the literal word of the constitution?''
> ...



I'm a fan of America and Americans,  not royalty.  The royalty here at the beginning really wanted to replace British royalty with their own.  And they did.  

It took the American people 150 years and the Civil War to turn that around to democracy and we did it never departing from the Constitution. 

Now Conservatives want to turn back all of that progress. 

You not liking or respecting America is your problem,  not ours.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









  I'm not "selling" anything.  It's you and your fellow propagandists who are trying to sell the world a con job of epic, and I mean truly epic proportions.

You and yours are the only snake oil hucksters in this thread.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









No, no you're not.  You espouse the "virtues" of the UN and global governance, you hate America and all it stands for.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2013)

Losing big on the shutdown issue has driven the American rightwingfruitloop cult over the edge. It's starting to sink in, that they're the minority, that status is permanent, and the hostage-taking tactics are no longer effective.

That leaves them with nothing. Hence all the impotent rage on display.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Sometimes it is hard to tell the diff.. For instance, I have problems distinguishing PMZ posts from the fortune cookies that came with my lunch..


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








PmsMZ's posts remind of the lunatics wandering the streets muttering to themselves.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2013)

Rage on, kooks! Rage! Why, you'll show those dirty liberals that you can't be ignored! The ones who laughed at you will pay, yes they will!

Sucks to be irrelevant, eh?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I'm a fan of America and Americans,  not royalty.  The royalty here at the beginning really wanted to replace British royalty with their own.  And they did.
> 
> It took the American people 150 years and the Civil War to turn that around to democracy and we did it never departing from the Constitution.
> 
> ...



Spoken like a true marxist/socialist.  You have all of the buzzwords down pat.  To bad you are as ignorant of American history as you are of science.  Ignorance seems to be your stock in trade.  

Clearly you wouldn't like to live under a government that strictly adhered to the Constitution.  And as for slavery, the generational dependence the welfare state has created among the black community has been more insidious than slavery ever could have been.  At least slaves knew that they were slaves.

The founders of this nation would spit in your face.  I suppose to a socialist/marxist such as yourself, that might be a badge of honor.  Clearly you are not a fan of a truly free America as it was founded.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Rage on, kooks! Rage! Why, you'll show those dirty liberals that you can't be ignored! The ones who laughed at you will pay, yes they will!
> 
> Sucks to be irrelevant, eh?



I am afraid that it is you who is irrelevant.....perhaps that is the source of your perpetual anger and bitterness.

You have become laughing stock.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Rage on, kooks! Rage! Why, you'll show those dirty liberals that you can't be ignored! The ones who laughed at you will pay, yes they will!
> 
> Sucks to be irrelevant, eh?








Rage on?   It's you assahts who are angry.  We're kicking your collective asses in the scientific arena and the government shutdown doesn't bother us one bit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 1, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



There was no royalty, nimrod.  The Founding Fathers were the first men ever to abolish royalty and the aristocracy.  They did, however, attempt to make merit a requirement of having a say in government.  Too bad they failed.  Now anyone who can fog a mirror has a say in running the lives of everyone else.

It's no surprise that bootlickers like you have such high regard for the Civil War.  that's when the Constitution as it was intended to work was destroyed and replaced by mob rule.  Aside from eliminating slavery, there was no progress.  

The United States has been marching steadily to its destruction ever since.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> Rage on?   It's you assahts who are angry.  We're kicking your collective asses in the scientific arena and the government shutdown doesn't bother us one bit.



Personally, I don't mind the shutdown....congress can't steal my money or reduce my freedom when they are not in session.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> There was no royalty, nimrod.  The Founding Fathers were the first men ever to abolish royalty and the aristocracy.  They did, however, attempt to make merit a requirement of having a say in government.  Too bad they failed.  Now anyone who can fog a mirror has a say in running the lives of everyone else.
> 
> It's no surprise that bootlickers like you have such high regard for the Civil War.  that's when the Constitution as it was intended to work was destroyed and replaced by mob rule.  Aside from eliminating slavery, there was no progress.
> 
> The United States has been marching steadily to its destruction ever since.



He is as ignorant regarding history as he is regarding science.  To modern socialists/marxists like himself, any system that isn't based on absolute government power and handouts to anyone who doesn't feel like working for a living is something like an aristocracy.  Idiots like him never learn.  To bad he didn't have the chance to live his dream in the old soviet union.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > There was no royalty, nimrod.  The Founding Fathers were the first men ever to abolish royalty and the aristocracy.  They did, however, attempt to make merit a requirement of having a say in government.  Too bad they failed.  Now anyone who can fog a mirror has a say in running the lives of everyone else.
> ...



In the liberal lexicon, if you don't support looting and pillaging the rich, then you "favor" the rich.

That's really how they think.


----------



## Snookie (Oct 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Rage on, kooks! Rage! Why, you'll show those dirty liberals that you can't be ignored! The ones who laughed at you will pay, yes they will!
> ...



That's because ignorance is bliss.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2013)

Snookie said:


> That's because ignorance is bliss.



You warmers are proof that that saying is wrong....you are about as ignorant as they come and you are angry and bitter in the extreme....about as far from bliss as you can get.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2013)

Heh. That's funny. Bitter, raging crank SSDD declares everyone else is bitter.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 1, 2013)

mamooth said:


> heh. That's funny. Bitter, raging crank ssdd declares everyone else is bitter.



*Bingo*​


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 1, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> There was no royalty, nimrod.  The Founding Fathers were the first men ever to abolish royalty and the aristocracy.  They did, however, attempt to make merit a requirement of having a say in government.  Too bad they failed.  Now anyone who can fog a mirror has a say in running the lives of everyone else.



There were a great many early Americans that wanted to establish a royalty here.  There was a large movement to make George Washington our first king.  Check your history books.  And, while you're at it, regarding the first to ever abolish royalty, you might want to read about the city state of Athens.

The rest of your statement is about as unAmerican a comment as I've heard in many a day.  Why don't you find somewhere else to live, somewhere where they'll put up with an elitist asshole such as yourself.


----------



## Snookie (Oct 1, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > There was no royalty, nimrod.  The Founding Fathers were the first men ever to abolish royalty and the aristocracy.  They did, however, attempt to make merit a requirement of having a say in government.  Too bad they failed.  Now anyone who can fog a mirror has a say in running the lives of everyone else.
> ...


Poor guy.  I guess it's not easy being so special and having to live in a democracy.-+











********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************


----------



## PMZ (Oct 1, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > That's because ignorance is bliss.
> ...



By ''warmers'',  you mean believers in science? I think that being realistic is a comfort.  Trying to defend the indefensible,  on the other hand,  is quite frustrating as you've shown here.  I keep asking myself,  why?  What force would make one choose that miserable life?  I suppose it's the pat on the head daily from the Fox boobs and boobies. 

Good little conservative,  you've made us on the screen happy.  Go save America from the Americans for us.


----------



## Snookie (Oct 2, 2013)

PMZ said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Snookie said:
> ...



It's the fox ladies who flash beaver..  It's befuddled their puny minds.  The republican borg marches on.


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 2, 2013)

Snookie said:


> It's the fox ladies who flash beaver..  It's befuddled their puny minds.  The republican borg marches on.



Beaver?!?  Beaver, you say?!?!?  Do you have a link?  I mean... uh... I'm doing research on news media bias and... uh... yeah... just one will do.  In a PM if you could... you know...


;-)


----------



## Abraham3 (Oct 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> We're kicking your collective asses in the scientific arena



Listen, I got a bridge in Brooklyn that you really need to own.  It can be yours today.  You'll make a fortune from the tolls you can charge.  And the Martians that own it - they don't understand money or private property.  They'll give it to you for a box full of beads.  Really...


----------



## Snookie (Oct 2, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> > It's the fox ladies who flash beaver..  It's befuddled their puny minds.  The republican borg marches on.
> ...



Next time you watch the fox news hos look closely.  They flash some cool beaver.


----------

