Conservatives waking up to climate change

[PMZ]

AGW is a fraud. If it weren't you could present a measurable metric for real scientists to test. That IS how science works you know. You should look up the SCIENTIFIC METHOD some day and you will see that one aspect of REAL science is REPEATABILITY...by ANYONE.

Climatologists are the only "scientists" who refuse to hand over their work so others can test it. I wonder why

I can't imagine what planet you're reporting from.

Go to the Scienceofdoom.com website for one of many. Or the IPCC Web site. But you have to actually study them.

The IPCC is the last place you'll find "real science." They're a political organization. They don't do science.

Actually they are the science behind AGW. You're thinking of Rush radio and Fox News. They don't do science. Or politics for that matter. They are a religious cult for ignorant people paid for by businesses buying votes.

 

[PMZ]

I get it, English is not your primary language

Did you seriously just post that??!!!

Damn, this board needs an irony font!!!

I think we should have a special font for socks, fakes, liars, and crybabies... Yours could simply be all pink, whatever the font.. That way the newer people could see that if they keep reading, soon you will resort to crying like a punk.. Maybe put a pacifier in place of the Question mark, or make your fonts show a Diaper pin for a exclamation point...

But sadly no such luck.. I have to make do with this....

Great TRUE conservative imitation.

 

[PMZ]

AGW is a fraud. If it weren't you could present a measurable metric for real scientists to test. That IS how science works you know. You should look up the SCIENTIFIC METHOD some day and you will see that one aspect of REAL science is REPEATABILITY...by ANYONE.

Climatologists are the only "scientists" who refuse to hand over their work so others can test it. I wonder why

I can't imagine what planet you're reporting from.

Go to the Scienceofdoom.com website for one of many. Or the IPCC Web site. But you have to actually study them.

Oh, but I have dear silly person. There is not one single experiment that you can do that supports the idea that a 200 or 300 ppm increase in CO2 will do anything. Not one. If there is then by all means show it to us....

And by experiment I mean just that. No computer models are allowed.

It's strange that you trust computer models with your life in cars and planes but not to predict weather.

 

[PMZ]

S.J.

There are - obviously - IMMENSE amounts of proof.

I'd be more than happy to post, say, three studies produced in conservatively governed countries, and produced by agencies with fairly consevative reputations. Each on a slightly different aspect of climate change. Let's say one on glaciers, one of the Arctic, and one on the link between CO2 & temperature.

Are you willing to commit to reading and thinking about them with an open mind?

If it was "IMMENSE' amounts of proof, there would be no need systematically to hide contrary evidence.

Actually it's the IMMENSE proof of AGW that makes political conspiracy theory the only tool for conservatives to sell their particular brand of irresponsibility.

 

[PMZ]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC is admitting AGW has nothing to do with the climate

Apparently you are of the mind that those who primarily caused, and benefitted from, AGW should pass the buck on to the poor nations of the world. TRUE conservatism.

There is no "buck" to pass, nitwit. Global warming hasn't cost any country a dime.

Check out how much more Americans are paying for extreme weather recovery now. NYC alone just committed a billion dollars in means to keep rising sea water out of the city.

 

[PMZ]

Yep, quite right.
True conservatives will never change their minds.

Liberals are always changing their minds because they are always being proven dead wrong.

That's called learning. You'll never experience it. Dunning-Kruger.

 

[Ernie S.]

Conservatives waking up to climate change

I woke up to rain.

Look, idiot! No one disputes that the climate is changing. It has changed even more drastically many times before before humans were burning fossil fuels.

 

[PMZ]

Conservatives waking up to climate change

I woke up to rain.

Look, idiot! No one disputes that the climate is changing. It has changed even more drastically many times before before humans were burning fossil fuels.

You're right. The last time that all of the CO2 that we put in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels was there it was completely natural and created a climate inhospitable to life.

 

[Saigon]

Conservatives waking up to climate change

I woke up to rain.

Look, idiot! No one disputes that the climate is changing. It has changed even more drastically many times before before humans were burning fossil fuels.

So does the climate change because it feels like it, or because something happens to MAKE it change?

If the latter - why would you assume the cause would always be the same?

 

[PMZ]

Conservatives waking up to climate change

I woke up to rain.

Look, idiot! No one disputes that the climate is changing. It has changed even more drastically many times before before humans were burning fossil fuels.

So does the climate change because it feels like it, or because something happens to MAKE it change?

If the latter - why would you assume the cause would always be the same?

Conservatives assume that their cult leaders are alway right because they say they are, and believing is so much easier than learning.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Has anybody pointed out that the extremely anti-american "conservative" party in New Zealand would be considered communists here in America?

No, they haven't - because that would be factually wrong and completely illogical.

The National Party of NZ are pro-US and deeply conservatve. They were actually the international poster boy for free-market economics as recently as the 1990's.

Define pro-US. Define deeply conservative. There are a lot of words being used that I suspect have different definitions to different people. Then when we add the extra obstacle of using our own definitions of words to explain what another country means when they use words like "conservative" then we end up in a rhetorical swamp. Then, on top of that, we use these "designer words" fitted with our own definitions in an attempt to support our own bias when it comes to a pseudo science cause celebre like global warming. On top of that, the pseudo science can only be "fixed" by conveniently implementing far left wing programs that only pretend to help the fake problem by hurting our real economy. Oh... ON TOP OF THAT EVEN, I now have to hear (according to you) that being pro free-market is deeply conservative even though most democrats in this country are for a free market. Even Obama calls himself a "fierce" free market advocate. On top of everything else, I have to mow my lawn. I hate mowing that stupid lawn!

 

[Saigon]

John -

I agree about the "rhetorical swamp" but this is a very straighforward case. In the late 1980's NZ (under the National Party) set about a massive program or asset sales and privatisaion, based upon a "user pays" model. There was even talk of privatising things like libraries. It was fairly extreme stuff.

The Minister of Finance, Ruth Richardson, even toured here in Finland celebrating NZ's wonderful economic miracle.

It was miraculous in reducing NZ's debt - but only for about 5 years, when the money from the asset sales was all gone, and NZ was left without things like a national airline. Six of the seven NZ trading banks were sold offshore (though some of those were private-private sales, to be fair).

By pro-US I mean that the Shipley administration reversed the anti-US policies of the left-wing Lange adminsitration, which had banned US ships from NZ harbours. NZ then rejoined the ANZUS alliance.

 

[Ernie S.]

Conservatives waking up to climate change

I woke up to rain.

Look, idiot! No one disputes that the climate is changing. It has changed even more drastically many times before before humans were burning fossil fuels.

You're right. The last time that all of the CO2 that we put in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels was there it was completely natural and created a climate inhospitable to life.

Moronic post is..... well, moronic.

Explain this:

 

[Ernie S.]

Conservatives waking up to climate change

I woke up to rain.

Look, idiot! No one disputes that the climate is changing. It has changed even more drastically many times before before humans were burning fossil fuels.

So does the climate change because it feels like it, or because something happens to MAKE it change?

If the latter - why would you assume the cause would always be the same?

Why would you assume the cause would be different? The above graph shows wild and abrupt fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 happened well before man started burning even wood, much less fossil fuels.

 

[PMZ]

John -

I agree about the "rhetorical swamp" but this is a very straighforward case. In the late 1980's NZ (under the National Party) set about a massive program or asset sales and privatisaion, based upon a "user pays" model. There was even talk of privatising things like libraries. It was fairly extreme stuff.

The Minister of Finance, Ruth Richardson, even toured here in Finland celebrating NZ's wonderful economic miracle.

It was miraculous in reducing NZ's debt - but only for about 5 years, when the money from the asset sales was all gone, and NZ was left without things like a national airline. Six of the seven NZ trading banks were sold offshore (though some of those were private-private sales, to be fair).

By pro-US I mean that the Shipley administration reversed the anti-US policies of the left-wing Lange adminsitration, which had banned US ships from NZ harbours. NZ then rejoined the ANZUS alliance.

Conservatives waking up to climate change

I woke up to rain.

Look, idiot! No one disputes that the climate is changing. It has changed even more drastically many times before before humans were burning fossil fuels.

You're right. The last time that all of the CO2 that we put in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels was there it was completely natural and created a climate inhospitable to life.

Moronic post is..... well, moronic.

Explain this:

The Carbon in our fossil fuel was in the atmosphere at the beginning of the Carboniferous Period. The climate was hostile to life.

At the end of that period that carbon was sequestered underground. The climate was friendly to life.

You say coincidence. Science, GHG theory, data says it was to be expected. You're free to believe what you want and so are we. We're going with the evidence.

 

[PMZ]

Science has explained the GHG fluctuations throughout history including the current one. If you're interested, study science. Not politics.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I am a supporter of Global Climate Change. If the Earth wants the climate to change, who the fuck are we to argue? And what the fuck could we DO about it, anyway?

We can't make a warming climate cool down.

We can't make a moderate climate get hotter OR colder.

We can't make a cooling climate heat up.

WE don't have any ability to appreciably influence climatic change.

It is ego-maniacal to believe we have any such ability.

This explains why the lolberals lap that horseshit right the fuck up.

 

[PMZ]

In order to communicate, we need to use the common definitions of the language and not our own. To describe current American conservatism, look up 'reactionary'. There are well to the left of there, conservatives. To the left of there, centrists, and to the left of middle, liberals. The reason is that if the media cult called itself what it really is, reactionary, nobody would pledge allegiance. By recruiting reactionaries however, and branding it conservatives, people who don't know better fall like a ton of bricks.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

In order to communicate, we need to use the common definitions of the language and not our own. To describe current American conservatism, look up 'reactionary'. There are well to the left of there, conservatives. To the left of there, centrists, and to the left of middle, liberals. The reason is that if the media cult called itself what it really is, reactionary, nobody would pledge allegiance. By recruiting reactionaries however, and branding it conservatives, people who don't know better fall like a ton of bricks.

^ PMS is a graduate of the FakeySmarmy school of false labeling.

He graduated Magna Cum Gargle.

 

[Ernie S.]

Science has explained the GHG fluctuations throughout history including the current one. If you're interested, study science. Not politics.

They have attempted to explain "GHG" fluctuations with the same level of credibility as they have predicted sea level rises.
Again, if we approach science with a predetermined bias, we have only politics, and not real science.

How many emails do you have to read about fudging data and excluding contradictory studies do you have to read before you become skeptical of the gods of your religion.

All you have left is faith, but rather than having faith in a higher power, you place faith in a bumbling politician who has a larger "carbon footprint" than several small countries.