Why we should listen to the 97%

[daveman]

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.

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]

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]

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?

Yes, I'm surprised you think Somalia has a democracy.

 

[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?

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*

I forgot that Obama is an anti-science Republican.

 

[daveman]

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.

Yes, but you're just a really stupid kid, so your ridiculous opinions (that you couldn't even form yourself) are immediately dismissable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Kyoto didn't take into account the science?
Next you'll tell me it was a political document.......

 

[daveman]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

And now you're an expert in primatology!

Let's see...expert in primatology, psychology, and climatology.

And all this before your 20th birthday!

She's also an expert in spent fuel reprocessing, nuclear proliferation and the extinction of all life in the Carboniferous.

 

[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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

Yes, but you're just a really stupid kid, so your ridiculous opinions (that you couldn't even form yourself) are immediately dismissable.

How old is PMZ?

 

[daveman]

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

Yes, but you're just a really stupid kid, so your ridiculous opinions (that you couldn't even form yourself) are immediately dismissable.

How old is PMZ?

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]

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.

Actually you are doing a fine job yourself of ridding the world of the conservative plague.

Keep up the good work.

 

[PMZ]

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.

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.

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]

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.

Actually, democracy has been very successful.

 

[daveman]

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.

Actually you are doing a fine job yourself of ridding the world of the conservative plague.

Keep up the good work.

I knew you were too chickenshit to do anything about it.

 

[PMZ]

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.​

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]

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.

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]

''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.

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.

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.

That was an IPCC official. You believe everything they say.

So you now admit they're wrong?