Why we should listen to the 97%

[PMZ]

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.

Maybe if the human race goes extinct we'll get replaced by something better. No conservatives for example.

Or we'll be replaced by something smarter. No liberals, for example.

Lessor primates have no liberals now. They live just like they've always lived.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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?

I said lots of people, including me, didn't support it. Did you?

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]

Whenever government spending and coercion is involved, you can guarantee it's not the "least cost path".

Yeah, mankind was so much better off before government. In fact Somalia is still reaping those benefits.

You're right, the bigger government the better.

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

The difference is democracy.

Surprised?

 

[Foxfyre]

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!

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.

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

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

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

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

Re Kyoto:

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

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

 

[PMZ]

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!!

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?

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.

''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]

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]

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?

I said lots of people, including me, didn't support it. Did you?

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

The devil is in the details. What's important to me is the science. What's important to you are the politics.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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]

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.

I thought God gave us free will.

 

[PMZ]

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.

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.

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]

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?

I said lots of people, including me, didn't support it. Did you?

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

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

 

[Foxfyre]

Just curious what you actually meant when you wrote this.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

Look at communism as an example.

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

 

[daveman]

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.

You support science only if it supports your politics. It doesn't.

I support science when it's honestly and openly practiced.

Climate science is neither honest nor open. Any thinking person opposes that.

 

[PMZ]

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

Dificult concept to grasp I know.

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.

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.

That’s not their track record. It's yours.

 

[PMZ]

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.

You support science only if it supports your politics. It doesn't.

I support science when it's honestly and openly practiced.

Climate science is neither honest nor open. Any thinking person opposes that.

Actually, that's about as unthinking an opinion as I can imagine.

 

[PMZ]

Yep, there it is again -- the progressive Solution to dissent.

And it's their usual Final one.

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

Look at communism as an example.

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

I don't advocate conservatism because that's how lessor primates operate. I believe that we're much better than that.

 

[Abraham3]

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.

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

Dificult concept to grasp I know.

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

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

 

[daveman]

Ever heard of the Permean Extinction? This is what they think happened during that event.

Permian?Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Maybe if the human race goes extinct we'll get replaced by something better. No conservatives for example.

Boy, if you want to get rid of us, you need to step up.

NOTE:

Whining on the internet is NOT stepping up.

 

[daveman]

Yeah, mankind was so much better off before government. In fact Somalia is still reaping those benefits.

You're right, the bigger government the better.

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

The difference is democracy.

Surprised?

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