More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[skookerasbil]

polarbear, the point is we are all human beings and we all depend on nature. climate instability brings about greater risks and we see these risks manifested by more disasters that create unnecessary human suffering. human suffering is not the goal of the public good and runs directly counter to principles of human equality. but in the private life we often neglect what's good for the public to pursue self-interest, even i do--but its a matter of how far will your private gains cause you to forfeit the public good? its the idea of profits over people. now if the "economy" does better, it helps everyone, right? well, short term it does. but this such short term thinking betrays our capacity as human beings. don't use the fact your aren't caught in a tornado as evidence climate change is fake or that mankind has nothing to do with it.

indeed, it betrays our understanding that climate change brings definite risks that can potentially decimate the global economy via droughts, floods, acidification of oceans, which extinguishes coral life 100% (by ~450ppm) and obviously the marine life that depends on coral.

i don't know what the hell you are saying about the IPCC but their range is between 2.4C (lowest estimate) and 6.2C (highest) by the end of the century. so we can expect a happy medium of 3.x, and these 2300 envrio biologists give us this exact anticipation. just because you disagree with a PhD (Suzuki) on A COMPLETELY UNRELATED TOPIC does nothing to undermine the validity and expertise of other PhDs. that's really reaching to make a flippant argument.

if lying and fallacious arguments are essential to your beliefs, it does not bode well for your position's validity.

Climate experts (i.e., those with a high self-assessed level of knowledge and high number of publications) estimated, on average, that temperature will increase between 3.3°C and 3.5°C over the next 100 years. These estimates are conservative relative to the range of “likely” projected temperature change by the end of the century, according to the IPCC summary for policymakers (2.4°C–6.4°C; Bernstein et al. 2007). Most of our respondents provided answers within the range of IPCC projection boundaries, and the estimates of the climate experts are higher, but few approach the high end of the IPCC's “likely” range.

The IPCC states this in its fifth assessment:

Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.

I encourage you to actually read the IPCC's fifth assessment. You might actually come to a better understanding of your own position if you stop attacking and attempt, like I am, to understand each other's position. For you, it would lead to lowered blood pressure, guaranteed...and that's healthy for us all--it reduces stress on overburdened medical system

The IPCC is rigged sweetie.



Convinced that local and global citizen and workers’ participation is central to resolving sustainable
242 development governance issues. Streamlining management of multilateral environment agreements, drawing on
243 the foundations of community participation and governance structures and education for sustainable
Further
7
development can provide deeper foundations for understanding and tackling the complex sustainability 244 issues
245 facing humanity today. Such action can help respond to and engage with the recent social uprisings in Central
246 Asia, Africa, Europe and the Near East to encourage future democratic and social change movements;
247 As sustainable development concerns economic, social and environmental aspects of development, a coordinated
248 and integrated involvement of civil society from diverse sectors including environment, the human right
249 movement, the empowerment of women, youth, labor, health, populations, older persons, and sexual and
250 reproductive health is indispensable to promote more sustainable development pathways.



We call for the preparation and implementation of green economy roadmaps, adoption of sustainable
360 development goals in critical areas, and implement governance reforms to foster the transition to a green
361 economy and to improve the institutional framework for sustainable development.
362 We propose that where the current economy aids inequity, destruction and greed, it should be replaced by a
363 green economy that [ensures social equity,gender equality, protects the ecological balance and creates economic
Further
10
sufficiency; the core idea of a Green Economy should be to] enhances sustainable development 364 and prosperity of
365 all nations,including occupied territories and nations, ensures the wellbeing of all people,ensure equal
366 remuneration of unpaid domestic and care work between women and men, andenhance the vitality of ecosystem
367 services and other natural capitals for future generations, and protect life in all its forms and expressions, now
368 and in the future.






These passages from a genuine UN document from a training manual ( link below ).......emphasis on "sustainable development" and how essential the "green economy" is in establishing those goals!!!

If you cant read this and connect the dots, its time to head back to school for reprogramming >>>>

http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/ngoconference/shared/Documents/Draft%20One%20Version.pdf




Everything UN is a scam.



Or......continue to be a bubble dweller hopelessly consumed in the matrix. Not that I blame you.......many, many are navigating their way though life buying everything created by the Reality Manufacturing Company.

 

[skookerasbil]

378 The impact of manufacturing on our carbon footprint must be addressed. To this effect, we call upon the UN
379 General Assembly proclaim 21 December each year as International Low-Carbon Lifestyle Day, to be a day of
380 reflection to live more simply and to create a lighter environmental footprint, and to call upon UN Member
381 States, international institutions, civil society and individuals to mark the day with appropriate low-carbon events
382 worldwide.



Another passage from above link.


Some of this shit could be interjected right into a preface of Sir Thomas More's "Utopia" which was written over 500 years ago. He certainly would approve.



Global warming is what it has always been........a vehicle to expedite a transition to world government and sustainable development/wealth redistribution. Make no mistake.......its always been what it is about.

 

[ScienceRocks]

skooks,

Wouldn't it be a more peaceful and productive world if we all had one government with smaller local governments? Same economic policies, same culture, etc...Sounds like a more peaceful world that has more wealth. If the government has good policies.

 

[skookerasbil]

skooks,

Wouldn't it be a more peaceful and productive world if we all had one government with smaller local governments? Same economic policies, same culture, etc...Sounds like a more peaceful world that has more wealth. If the government has good policies.

Nope.


Not a chance. And lets hope that in our lifetimes, it doesn't even come close to happening because if it does, 100% certainty there will be a lot of dying before it happens. These things you desire are not possible s0n and there are thousands of years of history to prove it.

Utopias exist only in the minds of men. There are no solutions to some problems.......that's just the way it is and will always be.

 

[gnarlylove]

Why is 280ppm normal?

Can you do any homework on your own? You must have been one of the many kids who was always rushing to finish their homework before class and cheating because they never studied.

It was 280 ppm...in pre-industrial times, and has risen to 392 ppm in 2013 with a daily average at Mauna Loa recording 400 ppm as of 10 May 2013.

You have consistently refused to do anything in the way of research and yet you deny AGW because you think you disagree with it. What is really going on is your severe lack of focus prevents you from understanding these matters thoroughly or doing any reading on them. So you pony-up by skimming through well-funded politically based reports that are eager to support your ignorance.

 

[gnarlylove]

...100% certainty there will be a lot of dying... ...and there are thousands of years of history to prove it.

Utopias exist only in the minds of men. There are no solutions to some problems........

Sounds like a pretty bleak worldview SKOOKS. No wonder you are filled with rage and hate.
There is inner peace ya know? Public Peace is also attainable albeit unimaginable. If you think its unattainable you are living without hope and life should mean less than the sweet release of death (or so I strongly believe).

What drove evolution to our current ability to solve complex social problems of scarcity, transportation etc. is precisely the industriousness of humanity. The state we are currently in with your ability to flip a light switch or burn rubber all day along came from a long 50k year history of cultural evolution=competition + cooperation. As problems arose, we either innovated or died.

We are here today and I think that is major repute for our ability to solve problems--indeed as time has progressed we've managed to solve formerly unimaginable problems like getting to the moon with precision and far beyond.

However, as the global connectivity has occurred, now more than ever our individual actions effect the globe. The more profit over people we see (that is to say inflated ego), the less likely we will solve our problems. Hence I can understand your squarely pessimistic outlook. But with cooperation we can come to understand each other and solve complex problems.

We can diffuse this risk/attain peace by acting accordingly. It requires we know what actions lead to what. The only problem stopping us today is the same problem that has always been around: money/ego is winning over cooperation/public good.

If in your own life all you see is division SKOOKS, then no wonder you think so dismally. Start cooperating more and the natural law of the universe will show you cooperation is beneficial in solving problems, big or small. It will become evident in your life and you might come to have hope.

 

[flacaltenn]

co2 is and is not pollution. for humans, its natural to expel. for plants, it natural to absorb (then give off upon decay). at normal levels like 280ppm, it hardly drives the climate. at 400ppm like we are reaching today, it has changed the earth. i'm not saying man is 100% responsible, but if you continue to neglect OUR PART, we neglect the whole. undoubtedly this leads to greater profits among fossil fuels as well as greater risks, more propaganda and on it goes till climate change is a runaway frieght train that is going to severly impact global economies whether we do anything or not. there is a time when it's too late, just like there would be a time when its too late to realize an asteroid is about to collide with earth. we won't be able to reverse it and tyring to "reverse" climate change is highly risky. addressing excess co2 from humanity is essential to not hurrying major economic and environmental problems.

take a deep breath kiddo ---- and try again.. I'm not getting a pulse from that post.. Nothing.

We should panic because an oil company might make a profit. A 40% in CO2 concentration has caused about 1degC temp change in your life.. But during the Ice Ages, a 40% change in CO2 caused an 7 or 10degC change.. So what's the diff? Where's the MULTIPLIER that AGW predicts?

runaway freight train? More like NYCity Handsome Cab..

 

[gnarlylove]

we clearly traffic in different worlds. you don't even consider me alive. what comedy show are you running in your indisposed brain? we aren't talking about past changes and no response should dignify your red herring tactics.

we know the earth changes! that's my point (and yours too?). temps have increased globally by over a degree (C). we agree here. this has already had an impact and is detailed across the globe. we have to deal with changes that effect us today. like higher rates of home owners insurance, reduced snow pack in the sierra nevadas causing drought, islands gone in the Philippines causing climate refugees to flee homes. co2 is driving this change. the 36B tons of output last year is significant enough to accumulate and drive climate change. We are seeing it in the coral reefs and their decline. upon reaching 450ppm we will see shortly thereafter a sharp decline in coral population to eventual extinction.

Just because we can sit at our computer without having noticed major catastrophe is not a reason to dismiss it. All climate science predicts a roughly 3.5 C temp increase by century's end (most conservative estimate is 2.4). That will bring greater effects. We will notice these trends as the years tick by and so will the number of people who un-subscribe to such an anathema.

these aren't new issues in the least but we are undeniably linked to a steady increase in global temps going all the way back to the 60s. i'm not expecting a know-it-all like yourself to EVER admit anything but you often roll out stumbling blocks, not arguments.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is 280ppm normal?

Can you do any homework on your own? You must have been one of the many kids who was always rushing to finish their homework before class and cheating because they never studied.

It was 280 ppm...in pre-industrial times, and has risen to 392 ppm in 2013 with a daily average at Mauna Loa recording 400 ppm as of 10 May 2013.

You have consistently refused to do anything in the way of research and yet you deny AGW because you think you disagree with it. What is really going on is your severe lack of focus prevents you from understanding these matters thoroughly or doing any reading on them. So you pony-up by skimming through well-funded politically based reports that are eager to support your ignorance.

It was 280 ppm...in pre-industrial times

There were billions of years of "pre-industrial times".
So what makes 280 ppm normal?

 

[flacaltenn]

we clearly traffic in different worlds. you don't even consider me alive. what comedy show are you running in your indisposed brain? we aren't talking about past changes and no response should dignify your red herring tactics.

we know the earth changes! that's my point (and yours too?). temps have increased globally by over a degree (C). we agree here. this has already had an impact and is detailed across the globe. we have to deal with changes that effect us today. like higher rates of home owners insurance, reduced snow pack in the sierra nevadas causing drought, islands gone in the Philippines causing climate refugees to flee homes. co2 is driving this change. the 36B tons of output last year is significant enough to accumulate and drive climate change. We are seeing it in the coral reefs and their decline. upon reaching 450ppm we will see shortly thereafter a sharp decline in coral population to eventual extinction.

Just because we can sit at our computer without having noticed major catastrophe is not a reason to dismiss it. All climate science predicts a roughly 3.5 C temp increase by century's end (most conservative estimate is 2.4). That will bring greater effects. We will notice these trends as the years tick by and so will the number of people who un-subscribe to such an anathema.

these aren't new issues in the least but we are undeniably linked to a steady increase in global temps going all the way back to the 60s. i'm not expecting a know-it-all like yourself to EVER admit anything but you often roll out stumbling blocks, not arguments.

You bring up every event in the news as THOUGH CONCLUSIVELY they all derived from 400ppm CO2.. That's NOT what the science is saying.. There IS no CONCLUSIVE evidence that any part of the 400ppm CAUSED those events. You are embellishing the "maybes", coulds, and mights -- into statements that are not founded in reality.

Even the statement about 450ppm and the Coral reefs get shot in head is sheer panic and hype. What you WILL FIND -- is science saying that IF WE REACH 3 or 4degC anomaly, then these changes will happen. You are no different than a medicine man trying to earn a living by interpreting natural events for his personal profit..

I thought we had bonded in a way.. And the fact that I'm not attacking you or ignoring you should be enough evidence that I care..

 

[Abraham3]

There IS no CONCLUSIVE evidence that any part of the 400ppm CAUSED those events.

There is sufficient evidence for 97% of the world's climate scientists to conclude that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the global warming of the last 150 years.

 

[skookerasbil]

PS.....the whole 97% claim used by the AGW climate crusaders is statistical hogwash.......a total ruse >>>


Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims - Forbes



Remember......when people on the left throw up a statistic, it is invariably bogus.



Just like THIS.......

 

[skookerasbil]

LOSING



The 18 biggest green groups in America are pissed with the Obama SOTU speech. They don't like the "All of the above" policy. They want no fossil fuels. Mental cases.


INSIDE WASHINGTON: Greens hit Obama on energy plan - SFGate

 

[skookerasbil]

...100% certainty there will be a lot of dying... ...and there are thousands of years of history to prove it.

Utopias exist only in the minds of men. There are no solutions to some problems........

Sounds like a pretty bleak worldview SKOOKS. No wonder you are filled with rage and hate.
There is inner peace ya know? Public Peace is also attainable albeit unimaginable. If you think its unattainable you are living without hope and life should mean less than the sweet release of death (or so I strongly believe).

What drove evolution to our current ability to solve complex social problems of scarcity, transportation etc. is precisely the industriousness of humanity. The state we are currently in with your ability to flip a light switch or burn rubber all day along came from a long 50k year history of cultural evolution=competition + cooperation. As problems arose, we either innovated or died.

We are here today and I think that is major repute for our ability to solve problems--indeed as time has progressed we've managed to solve formerly unimaginable problems like getting to the moon with precision and far beyond.

However, as the global connectivity has occurred, now more than ever our individual actions effect the globe. The more profit over people we see (that is to say inflated ego), the less likely we will solve our problems. Hence I can understand your squarely pessimistic outlook. But with cooperation we can come to understand each other and solve complex problems.

We can diffuse this risk/attain peace by acting accordingly. It requires we know what actions lead to what. The only problem stopping us today is the same problem that has always been around: money/ego is winning over cooperation/public good.

If in your own life all you see is division SKOOKS, then no wonder you think so dismally. Start cooperating more and the natural law of the universe will show you cooperation is beneficial in solving problems, big or small. It will become evident in your life and you might come to have hope.

Sweets......I admire your idealism. I really do. It reminds me of me when I was 19 years old walking around the college campus with my NT Times under one arm and my Marx/Engels Reader under the other. I had read the "German Ideology" at least a dozen times. Hegel, Marx, Plato, Hobbes, More, Roussseau, Wittfogel et. al.......all fascinating.........remember thinking how stupid the rest of the country was who didn't know about the writings of these guys. I had fresh idea's and was going to school the naïve.

As I got into my twenties, I came to realize that none of these bozo's ever wrote about applying an ecomomic model in their utopia's. Hmmmm........then started studying the practical applications of their theories in the real world.......Keynesian economics........liberal social policy of the 60's..........history of multicultural efforts...........
Stumbled upon a guy named Thomas Sowell quite by accident. Changed my life.......he didn't write about theory. He wrote about the results of the application of progressive theory and its results. A fucking disaster.


But people like Gnarly........they don't care about "results". If the intentions are good and seem to make sense, it needs to be done.

Its a different way of thinking and thank God a distinct minority way of thinking.



Indeed......most people in the world ( by a margin of 2-1 by the way ) realize that life essentially comes down to a choice between SUCK and SUCKIER and that there are simply some problems that there is no "solution" for. People on the far left......the philosophers.......cant comprehend it. You make the best possible decision and try to live with the necessary tradeoffs. The zero sum game manner of looking at solving problems........the way a progressive thinks............really is silly when it comes right down to it. Will be silly hundreds of years from now too. Because "results" don't matter to these people. Thankfully.......for most, results do matter and by pure numbers, insulates us from the destructive nature of progressive public policy.

 

[skookerasbil]

The far left progressives despise this book!! Why? Because the statistics layed out......the results of the "good intentions" public policy of the 60's.......was a fucking Jonestown for the people it was supposed to assist. Its part of the ruse......if you increase government dependency of the population, you achieve far more power.

Unlike the progressives on this thread, Im educated on both sides. Progressives/far left DO NOT read this stuff because it decimates their world view. It is an absolute truth. WHen you gain knowledge into the thinking of the left, you understand why global warming is a key to them establishing PERMANENT power.

 

[skookerasbil]

OK....screw this philosophy crap.........time to get back to the winning!!

 

[zeke]

It won't make a fucking bit of difference what we in the USA do about this issue.

Billions of people in China and India and elsewhere, just like a skooker (whatever that is) they could give a flying fuck less about what happens to this earth.

Change is gonna come in India an China. All those billions are looking forward to skook approved activity, burning gas and oil.

It's gonna be so great.

But one think I have learned from the likes of a skooker; man can't effect the environment. Which means that when scientists used to say that IF we engaged in a full out nuclear war, that there wouldn't have been no "nuclear winter". Right skooks. Cause man just doesn't have it in him to effect the worlds environment.

And burning vast amounts of carbon is GOOD for us. Skook the kook say so. Gotta be true then. Right skoooker.

 

[gnarlylove]

That's NOT what the science is saying.. There IS no CONCLUSIVE evidence

...not founded in reality.

get shot in head is sheer panic and hype.

You use some science-type language using words like science, evidence, reality. But most of this is dispersed between a network of opinion and an attempt to stretch your beliefs into reality.

What you disagree with is less science and more a desire to be right. As I've said plenty before, you are here to commandeer discussion through apocrypha style denial. Your language gives it away every post. Let me illustrate below with 3 quotes.

his personal profit..

I have been saying that about you and now you reverse it. Why did it take you so long to engage in the same tactics your pals do?The same pals who think there is CATEGORICALLY NO evidence that man has ANYTHING to do with nature or carbon dioxide.

It'c clear you prefer the fraudulent Oregon Petition to the IPCC fourth assessment that notes not 50%. not 75%, not even 95%, its a whopping 97-98% of peer reviewed scientists across the globe (unlike yourself and these message boards which you often fail to back up your sources like I show below).

I think any percentage beyond 80% should DEFINITELY capture your attention and CANNOT, scientifically be refuted by merely disagreeing. That's because you and your buddy westwall claim science as your own but then CHUCK OUT the WHOLE scientific method: good science is only good science when it is repeatable and undergoes a jury of its peers. Your science is a bunch of old data and fudged sets that don't stand up to modern scientific scrutiny.

I thought we had bonded

I think your sexy too. But as far as your beliefs, they are about as appealing as hog shit from a factory farm. Only people with ulterior motives support your view and write politicized books, not quality science. If you can't admit the probability is outrageously stacked against you then there is no hope for compromise. You can SAY all you want about what you think but the majority of professors and science researchers say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you conclude.

What you WILL FIND -- is science saying that IF WE REACH 3 or 4degC anomaly, then these changes will happen.

Support this view. Links or something..
I don't think this is what science is saying will kill them. Warmer water isn't a bad thing for coral. Warm water allows for coral to thrive. Plus the water does not imbibe the same ratio of warmth or uv rays as the land surface so if land warms by 3C then the water may differ, more or less.

It's the acidification that comes that the Oceans absorb (57% of carbon.) THIS ACIDIFIES the water and the coral.

So if you can accept air measurements with sources are at currently ~398ppm (and was 280ppm pre-industry), and most science predicts this is going to get worse (whether or not we think mankind has a role), then I think it's quote obvious WE ARE GOING TO LOOSE ALL CORAL AND MARINE LIFE THAT DEPENDS ON IT.

You think it has nothing to do with our activity but clearly you are turning a blind eye to explaining the 36 billion tons of co2 we released just last year alone! This is what acidifies the Ocean and is already threatening coral as we speak.

 

[gnarlylove]

It won't make a fucking bit of difference what we in the USA do about this issue.

US burns more fossil fuels than China or India. Sounds like an obligation to take the first step. However, China alone added more solar in one year than US. It's not to say China isn't burning massive amounts of coal so that in some cities visibility is very low due to smog.

But one thing I do know certain, thinking action is never worthwhile is just poor critical thinking skills. If no one moves, no one responds. If one responds, at least some one else might too. Like the rest of your post though, got skooks on his toes.

 

[polarbear]

i don't know what the hell you are saying about the IPCC but their range is between 2.4C (lowest estimate) and 6.2C (highest) by the end of the century. so we can expect a happy medium of 3.x, and these 2300 envrio biologists give us this exact anticipation. just because you disagree with a PhD (Suzuki) on A COMPLETELY UNRELATED TOPIC does nothing to undermine the validity and expertise of other PhDs. that's really reaching to make a flippant argument.

if lying and fallacious arguments are essential to your beliefs, it does not bode well for your position's validity.

Climate experts (i.e., those with a high self-assessed level of knowledge and high number of publications) estimated, on average, that temperature will increase between 3.3°C and 3.5°C over the next 100 years. These estimates are conservative relative to the range of “likely”

Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.

I encourage you to actually read the IPCC's fifth assessment. You might actually come to a better understanding of your own position

I did read it, but I know you have not...
This couldn`t possibly get any funnier than that.
You tell me to read AR5, claiming you did read it and post this link:
I encourage you to actually read the IPCC's fifth assessment.

Which is a link to the outdated AR4
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

This is what`s in AR5:

2100 are projected to likely exceed 1.5°C above 1850-1900 for RCP4.5,

Global mean temperatures will continue to rise over the 21st
century if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue unabated.
Under the assumptions of the concentration-driven RCPs, global
mean surface temperatures for 2081–2100, relative to 1986–2005 will
likely1 be in the 5 to 95% range of the CMIP5 models; 0.3°C to 1.7°C
(RCP2.6), 1.1°C to 2.6°C (RCP4.5), Global temperatures averaged over the period 2081–2100
2100 are projected to likely exceed 1.5°C above 1850-1900 for RCP4.5,
RCP6.0 (high confidence),

There is only 1 model, RCP8.5 which would go as high as what your biology experts with an "excellent self assessed knowledge" agreed on.
And that model assumes 1250 ppm CO2 and 8.5 watts/m^2 radiative forcing:

This is the one your source picked...while they were telling you they picked the "most conservative estimate" ...and you believed it

that temperature will increase between 3.3°C and 3.5°C over the next 100 years. These estimates are conservative relative to the range of “likely”

One (of your many problems) is that you are too stupid to read and understand what`s in AR5 and prefer to read what the alarmists you keep quoting said about it.
And the thought that almost all of them might pick the most exaggerated scenario never even crossed your simple mind.
Over and over again you have shown that your IQ and education level got stuck at around an elementary grade 5 level.