Paris Climate Summit - what does it mean?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

It appears from what I've read, this is another exercise in futility, as the accord/agreement/hugs and good wishes agreement is non-binding, voluntary, with no penalties and no congressional approval needed. Why bother?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/world/europe/a-climate-deal-6-fateful-years-in-the-making.html

So what changed from Copenhagen to Paris? In short, three things: a fundamental change in the geopolitics of climate change; a shift in the perception of global warming from a distant warning to an immediate threat; and the art of French diplomacy during the event and in the months beforehand to soften the sharp elbows of negotiators and reduce the chances that major points of contention might kill a deal again. In particular, they made sure that each country, regardless of its size or wealth, felt its voice would be heard.

French diplomacy, indeed. How to surrender and not accomplish anything. :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35086346

Some nice graphics here to make everyone feel <less> warm and fuzzy about....accomplishing nothing. :rolleyes:

The climate deal reached in Paris is "the best chance we have to save the one planet we have", US President Barack Obama has said. He said it could be a "turning point" towards a low-carbon future.
...
Nearly 200 countries took part in tense negotiations in the French capital over two weeks, striking the first deal to commit all nations to cut emissions. The agreement - which is partly legally binding and partly voluntary - will come into being in 2020.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/13/kerry-touts-climate-deal-as-jobs-creator-defends-criticism-about-no-sanctions-penalties.html?intcmp=hplnws

He also said the mandatory reporting every five years “is a serious form of enforcement and compliance.” And, like President Obama, Kerry touted the deal as a jobs creator, contrary to critics who say the demand for lower carbon emissions will hurt the U.S. fossil fuel industry and other sectors of the economy.

“I think it actually sends a big powerful message to the marketplace,” Kerry said. “A lot of jobs are being created.”

Jobs being created? This reminds me of Nancy Pelosi insisting unemployment benefits were the fastest way to create new jobs. :rolleyes:

[davew]

Jobs being created? This reminds me of Nancy Pelosi insisting unemployment benefits were the fastest way to create new jobs. :rolleyes:


It will take a lot of capital and manpower to produce green electricity costing 2-6 times current costs.

[Tom]

Re-distribution of wealth.
Nothing more.

That 2 degrees was pulled out thin air.
No scientific basis for it.

[boxcar]

It will take a lot of capital and manpower to produce green electricity costing 2-6 times current costs.

Yes! And at a time when the entire world is already teetering on the edge financial disaster of apocalyptic proportions.

[boxcar]

It will take a lot of capital and manpower to produce green electricity costing 2-6 times current costs.

Yes! And at a time when the entire world is already teetering on the edge financial disaster of apocalyptic proportions.

[Tom]

This will cause much suffering world-wide.
Stupidity is running wild.

[classhandicapper]

Jobs being created? This reminds me of Nancy Pelosi insisting unemployment benefits were the fastest way to create new jobs. :rolleyes:

It will create jobs. It will just destroy more than it creates. The democrats usually leave that part out.

[tucker6]

Either us schmucks on a horse player board are getter smarter, or the politicians are getting sloppier. Did anyone NOT know that this entire climate discussion was simply a redistribution of wealth scheme? There is zero proof that anyone has been harmed by global warming, if in fact it is real and caused by man in the first place. What an embarrassing farce.

[zico20]

Either us schmucks on a horse player board are getter smarter, or the politicians are getting sloppier. Did anyone NOT know that this entire climate discussion was simply a redistribution of wealth scheme? There is zero proof that anyone has been harmed by global warming, if in fact it is real and caused by man in the first place. What an embarrassing farce.

Not to mention a power grab by DC to take away states rights and individual rights. Plus, the inevitable carbon tax to come to pay for this whole farce.

[sammy the sage]

Re-distribution of wealth.
Nothing more.

That 2 degrees was pulled out thin air.
No scientific basis for it.

THIS time I agree w/Tom...damn I'm dizzy :eek:

[ArlJim78]

How much hubris does it take to think that that meeting saved the planet.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

How much hubris does it take to think that that meeting saved the planet.

To read the text of the agreement is surreal. A marked up version is near the bottom of the page at this link:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-final-paris-climate-deal

While I agree with the suspicions of others, and that this issue is an example of where the "reds hijacked the greens", what I can't do is connect the dots and translate any of this to concrete actions by .Fed. This contrasts sharply with Obamacare, in which not only did we see the changes coming, but once the Supremes ruled it a tax, the catastrophe was baked in the cake.

These sneaky bastards are taking a different track here. Not sure how they're going to get any monies without Congressional approval. Looks like a great issue for the election.

[davew]

I feel it will be one of 0bama / Kerry's greatest accomplishments; right up there with the Iran deal they made with themselves.

[delayjf]

Did anyone NOT know that this entire climate discussion was simply a redistribution of wealth scheme?

Indeed, to the tune of 100 billion dollars A YEAR.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I feel it will be one of 0bama / Kerry's greatest accomplishments; right up there with the Iran deal they made with themselves.

http://qz.com/575430/a-single-word-almost-wrecked-the-landmark-paris-climate-change-agreement/


This article requires developed countries to undertake economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets but developing countries to only “continue to enhance” their mitigation efforts. In the draft that was presented for adoption there were two critical words—“shall” and “should”. The expression “shall” applied to the developed countries’ obligation and the word “should” applied to the developing countries’ obligation.

The US wanted both developed and developing countries to agree on the same, more lenient word: “should.” In effect, the US only wanted to commit to trying to cut emissions, but not be legally bound to do so. Without the US onboard, the deal couldn’t go through.

....

In the end, France proposed a diplomatic solution, decreeing that “shall” was a typographical mistake, and should have been “should” all along.

Yes, Kerry and Obama can claim success of the agreement, built on a lie. Well, actually many lies.

A perfect example of how useless politicians really are, and why we shouldn't be in the UN....which is just a collection of second rate politicians and bureaucrats....

[delayjf]

Any chance this gets ratified?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Any chance this gets ratified?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/opinions/sutter-cop21-climate-5-things/

For the agreement to have legal force, it must be ratified by at least 55 of the 195 countries that adopted it without objection Saturday. Those 55 countries must represent at least 55% of all global-warming emissions. This is seen by many observers, including me, as a formality. There was broad consensus in support of this agreement and the message it sends about climate change. The Obama administration also argues the agreement can be ratified by an executive action, meaning it won't have to go before the U.S. Senate, where many members of the GOP majority are skeptics of climate science and resist action.
...
...
It clearly doesn't exist yet. Over the weekend, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly said the Paris agreement could be "shredded in 13 months" if a Republican is elected to the White House. Most of the leading Republican candidates for the U.S. presidency are climate skeptics, and most of the GOP candidates flunk climate science, according to a group of scientists The Associated Press assembled to analyze their public statements on this topic. (Jeb Bush did the best of the Republicans, but he only scored 64 of 100; the Democrats scored between 87 and 94 in terms of their accuracy.)

Republicans are apparently not too smart on climate science...... :D

[Steve 'StatMan']

Republicans are apparently not too smart on climate science...... :D

Well, not in the eyes of climate scientists who believe in global warming, oopsie, climate change.

In the eyes of those of us who know how scientists lies through statistics and fool themselves, they know plenty.

There are Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Climate Change Studies. you can prove anything you want with Statistics if you try hard enough and manipulate the data and conditions enough to suit your agenda, and to keep/get your government funding.

[davew]

They failed the indoctrination test by climate alarmists?

[zico20]

The redistribution has begun. 500 million going to the Green Climate Fund. This is the first payment of 3 billion Obama has pledged. Two senators are threatening legal action.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/11/senators-accuse-state-dept-defying-congress-with-500m-un-climate-payment.html?intcmp=hplnws

[davew]

Obama keeps forgetting about Congress approving his spending. $500 million is just like his wife and all her friends taking a couple week trip to a foreign country, pocket change for the king.

[OntheRail]

The redistribution has begun. 500 million going to the Green Climate Fund. This is the first payment of 3 billion Obama has pledged. Two senators are threatening legal action.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/11/senators-accuse-state-dept-defying-congress-with-500m-un-climate-payment.html?intcmp=hplnws
What you want to bet it's the ONLY MONEY in the FUND.. :rolleyes:

[Hoofless_Wonder]

The Obama administration – despite resistance from congressional Republicans -- has committed the U.S. to contributing $3 billion to the fund, a program established by the United Nations to help poor countries adopt clean energy technologies to address climate change. Nearly 200 other nations have agreed to provide $100 billion per year by 2020, from private and public sources.

Nice. Leaving the US funding 90+ percent of this.

Let's hope the lawsuit works out - it's an impeachable offense IMHO.

[Valuist]

It gets nuttier every day:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/

[PaceAdvantage]

It gets nuttier every day:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/And yet, these very same people think Cruz is dangerous...you're right...nuttier every day.

Here we have a member of the sitting administration taking SERIOUSLY the NOTION of THOUGHT CRIMES...and nobody even winces...well, nobody on the left.

But they'll spend all this time and energy deriding and assassinating Donald Trump...and others will go out of their way to shut down his rallies...but the DOJ prosecuting people for thought crimes is AOK in their books apparently.

Really? And you think Cruz/Trump are dangerous to the country? Are you kidding me?

I'm sure Elkabong will be applauding the DOJ and the sitting AG...and Rookies will be along with a witty new name for our Attorney General...

Then again, how can you top "Drumpf" and "Ladonna"...George Carlin you two ain't.

[Tom]

This is hwy we need Trump.
The POSPOTUS has no right to do this and yet the GOP losers cannot stop him.

Why would ANYONE consider voting for ANY GOP jackass?

Obama is a nothing but a thief. He is the enemy of this nation and should be treated that way.

Thought police?
And they call Trump a Nazi?

Certainly, over the last 7 years, Obama has demonstrated far more Hitler-like actions than anyone in our recent history, why, I daresay since Hitler himself?

[davew]

The next budget includes a proposed $10 / barrel tax - that should help everyone.

[davew]

OMG, I didn't know it was so bad, global warming is KILLING people all over the world.

http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/03/likely-die-extreme-climate-events/

[rastajenk]

Funny stuff, dave :D The headline says "extreme climate events" but the chart calls them "extreme weather events." Those Climatistas are pretty clever in a sublte way, aren't they?

It also suggests that Iraq and Armenia are safe places to live.

[davew]

Just say NO to signing an agreement next month

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/274068-time-to-fess-up-and-walk-back-our-paris-pledge

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There is an interesting documentary called Merchants of Doubt that ties in the original campaign of the tobacco companies with PR campaigns conducted by the flame retardant people and the big oil companies on climate change.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/merchants-of-doubt-2015

Much like the Religious discussion here, you can't tell the true believers on either side anything. If there is anything really scary, it is that science and fact can be trumped (no pun intended) by opinion and ideology.

On a topic that would benefit from reasoned and informed debate, the closed minded on both sides would rather rather plant roots on their position.

[zico20]

Good news, good news on climate change. It looks like we no longer have to worry about the Earth warming and killing us all one day. It seems an asteroid or meteor is going to do that to us, and real soon. How soon? Try by the end of April. Which April? This April!

Maybe Obama and the rest of the leaders should be building asteroid blasting missiles instead of spreading around trillions of dollars on a hoax.

http://nypost.com/2016/04/06/newly-discovered-planet-could-destroy-earth-any-day-now/

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Good news, good news on climate change. It looks like we no longer have to worry about the Earth warming and killing us all one day. It seems an asteroid or meteor is going to do that to us, and real soon. How soon? Try by the end of April. Which April? This April!

Maybe Obama and the rest of the leaders should be building asteroid blasting missiles instead of spreading around trillions of dollars on a hoax.

http://nypost.com/2016/04/06/newly-discovered-planet-could-destroy-earth-any-day-now/
I only believe stuff that first appears in the National Enquirer.

[davew]

There is an interesting documentary called Merchants of Doubt that ties in the original campaign of the tobacco companies with PR campaigns conducted by the flame retardant people and the big oil companies on climate change.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/merchants-of-doubt-2015

Much like the Religious discussion here, you can't tell the true believers on either side anything. If there is anything really scary, it is that science and fact can be trumped (no pun intended) by opinion and ideology.

On a topic that would benefit from reasoned and informed debate, the closed minded on both sides would rather rather plant roots on their position.

I put this on top of my Netflix Queue. I think a counter book/movie needs to be made, something like 'purveyors of doom'.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I put this on top of my Netflix Queue. I think a counter book/movie needs to be made, something like 'purveyors of doom'.
I saw the documentary as the way the people on one side of an issue find experts who are often not really credentialed to refute the other side's experts. You'd have to admit the tobacco companies did know that cigarettes could kill you, but not only tried to hide the fact, but fought using what they hoped would be seen as experts equally credible to the scientists showing the harm of tobacco. They were able to hold off regulations for decades, long after there was a scientific consensus. It turns out many of the experts were in fact lobbyists and PR people. The flame retardant issue was an especially heinous example of using experts to defend the use of flame retardants. The film describes how manufacturers of flame retardants worked to protect their sales after toxic effects of the retardants were discovered. They used real medical doctors who essentially lied to legislative committees.

I realize the climate change issue is one that some people believe is still up in the air (no pun intended). There is certainly an argument to be made regarding the margin of error in the long term models, but you can't argue about the measuring instruments (unless you find thermometers suspect), the atmospheric chemistry (carbon dioxide and methane do absorb heat), and the observable trend. You also can't argue with the physical result if temperature does rise. But you can certainly spend a lot of time arguing about the level and type of action that is warranted at this time. Science should inform policy, not vice versa.

I'm not looking to have an argument with whatever the other side of the issue is called. I thought the documentary made a fair and compelling case that one side has real scientists with peer reviewed research and the other side didn't. I also thought the documentary made the tie between the previous campaigns by the tobacco companies and the flame retardant manufacturers and the anti-climate change faction.

Ultimately we should be able to agree on the science and have the policy makers spend time figuring out what should be done.

[incoming]

I saw the documentary as the way the people on one side of an issue find experts who are often not really credentialed to refute the other side's experts. You'd have to admit the tobacco companies did know that cigarettes could kill you, but not only tried to hide the fact, but fought using what they hoped would be seen as experts equally credible to the scientists showing the harm of tobacco. They were able to hold off regulations for decades, long after there was a scientific consensus. It turns out many of the experts were in fact lobbyists and PR people. The flame retardant issue was an especially heinous example of using experts to defend the use of flame retardants. The film describes how manufacturers of flame retardants worked to protect their sales after toxic effects of the retardants were discovered. They used real medical doctors who essentially lied to legislative committees.

You conveniently didn't mention the biggest liar of all......OUR GOVERNMENT. The endless games they play to get their tax revenues are countless. We only become aware of the most egregious. Should I submit my list. The American people are in the middle this very moment of starting the process to rid ourselves of just a small part of these corrupt politicians.
Guess who is fighting it tooth and nail.....the entrenched government.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You conveniently didn't mention the biggest liar of all......OUR GOVERNMENT. The endless games they play to get their tax revenues are countless. We only become aware of the most egregious. Should I submit my list. The American people are in the middle this very moment of starting the process to rid ourselves of just a small part of these corrupt politicians.
Guess who is fighting it tooth and nail.....the entrenched government.
Oh come on. I conveniently only mentioned that the documentary is about three specific cases because that is what it was about. When someone does a documentary about the biggest liar of all - OUR GOVERNMENT - I'll watch it and have a comment.

Whatever you think of the government doesn't change what tobacco or the flame retardant industry did. The government's behavior doesn't make it ok to lie about smoking killing you or flame retardant chemicals poisoning you.

Start a thread with your list of the biggest lies government told. I'm sure it will be popular.

[incoming]

Oh come on. I conveniently only mentioned that the documentary is about three specific cases because that is what it was about. When someone does a documentary about the biggest liar of all - OUR GOVERNMENT - I'll watch it and have a comment.

Whatever you think of the government doesn't change what tobacco or the flame retardant industry did. The government's behavior doesn't make it ok to lie about smoking killing you or flame retardant chemicals poisoning you.

Start a thread with your list of the biggest lies government told. I'm sure it will be popular.
Am I not allowed to refute your claims?

[davew]

I saw the documentary as the way the people on one side of an issue find experts who are often not really credentialed to refute the other side's experts. You'd have to admit the tobacco companies did know that cigarettes could kill you, but not only tried to hide the fact, but fought using what they hoped would be seen as experts equally credible to the scientists showing the harm of tobacco. They were able to hold off regulations for decades, long after there was a scientific consensus. It turns out many of the experts were in fact lobbyists and PR people. The flame retardant issue was an especially heinous example of using experts to defend the use of flame retardants. The film describes how manufacturers of flame retardants worked to protect their sales after toxic effects of the retardants were discovered. They used real medical doctors who essentially lied to legislative committees.

I realize the climate change issue is one that some people believe is still up in the air (no pun intended). There is certainly an argument to be made regarding the margin of error in the long term models, but you can't argue about the measuring instruments (unless you find thermometers suspect), the atmospheric chemistry (carbon dioxide and methane do absorb heat), and the observable trend. You also can't argue with the physical result if temperature does rise. But you can certainly spend a lot of time arguing about the level and type of action that is warranted at this time. Science should inform policy, not vice versa.


Ultimately we should be able to agree on the science and have the policy makers spend time figuring out what should be done.

Sure you can, much of the 'repeated' arguments by the propaganda promoters are bad science.

[hcap]

I realize the climate change issue is one that some people believe is still up in the air (no pun intended). There is certainly an argument to be made regarding the margin of error in the long term models, but you can't argue about the measuring instruments (unless you find thermometers suspect), the atmospheric chemistry (carbon dioxide and methane do absorb heat), and the observable trend. You also can't argue with the physical result if temperature does rise. But you can certainly spend a lot of time arguing about the level and type of action that is warranted at this time. Science should inform policy, not vice versa.I really don't understnd why there are continuing threads here on off topic about human caused climate change. There is ABSOLUTELY NO equivalency between all of the the worlds scientific agencies, climate experts and scholarly journals and the few so-called "experts" denying reality. Scientific journals like Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-waves-droughts-and-heavy-rain-have-clear-links-to-climate-change-says-national-academies/

Heat Waves, Droughts and Heavy Rain Have Clear Links to Climate Change, Says National Academies

Connection to hurricanes, tornadoes, hail and wildfires less certain, according to extreme weather report

The findings are included in a sweeping report the National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852/attribution-of-extreme-weather-events-in-the-context-of-climate-change) released last week that tries to answer the question often posed after a nasty spell of weather.

[rastajenk]

It's as settled as food science. Which isn't very settled.

[hcap]

It's as settled as food science. Which isn't very settled.All of you are full of shit.

Who should we believe rastajenk or Scientific American and the National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Am I not allowed to refute your claims?
First, of course you are. Second, I wasn't making claims, I was describing what a documentary said about the tobacco lobby, the flame retardant manufacturers did to try an bury evidence their products were toxic, and how the anti-climate change people are using the same playbook as the tobacco lobby in an attempt to discredit climate scientists. If I tell you the sun rose this morning, you can't refute that by telling me the government lies. You can't refute what the tobacco companies did, especially since the documentation is irrefutable, by saying the government lies. If you want to refute what the documentary said, find equivalently solid evidence to the contrary.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I really don't understnd why there are continuing threads here on off topic about human caused climate change. There is ABSOLUTELY NO equivalency between all of the the worlds scientific agencies, climate experts and scholarly journals and the few so-called "experts" denying reality. Scientific journals like Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-waves-droughts-and-heavy-rain-have-clear-links-to-climate-change-says-national-academies/

Heat Waves, Droughts and Heavy Rain Have Clear Links to Climate Change, Says National Academies

Connection to hurricanes, tornadoes, hail and wildfires less certain, according to extreme weather report

The findings are included in a sweeping report the National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852/attribution-of-extreme-weather-events-in-the-context-of-climate-change) released last week that tries to answer the question often posed after a nasty spell of weather.
You realize I was saying the science surrounding human contribution to climate change is solid, and it is important to have the discussion among the policy makers regarding what we should do, right?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Sure you can, much of the 'repeated' arguments by the propaganda promoters are bad science.
Funny, that's what the documentary says about the anti-climate change people. Well, one of them must be right.

[davew]

All of you are full of shit.

Who should we believe rastajenk or Scientific American and the National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine?


The Scientific American article is saying that climate is changing, not that it is all caused by humans.

Here is another for you with NASA and Science ...

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/29/144431640/debunked-science-studies-take-heat-in-2011

[hcap]

You realize I was saying the science surrounding human contribution to climate change is solid, and it is important to have the discussion among the policy makers regarding what we should do, right?I do realize that and I was reinforcing your overall point. These absurd threads repeat ad nauseum over and over again. I have fought the good fight against all the bogus "scientific" arguments and monumental cosmic conspiracy theories posted by the amateur climatologists here many many times. At least a 2 dozen of these threads, (perhaps more). You joined to late to o be part of the minority supporting AGW on this board, historically speaking.

Welcome.

PS: If you thought the religious thread was a waste because of one poster, there are dozens very much like him here on climate change, and be patient, boxcar posts total factual garbage and nonsense on this thread as well.:lol: :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

The Scientific American article is saying that climate is changing, not that it is all caused by humans.

As I told you before you are out of your league. Way, way out.

From the article and fom the study the article references
Was it triggered by humanity’s carbon emissions?

Answering it can be challenging, not least because the question is badly crafted. All scientists agree that human-caused climate change has fundamentally altered the planet. All weather is caused, to varying degrees, by both nature and climate change.
http://www.nap.edu/books/21852/gif/6.gif

[davew]

If the model simulations were so darn good, you would think they could predict something in the future (not change the past to their current ideas).


Why do you have a prepublication copy? are you a paid propagandist?

[hcap]

If the model simulations were so darn good, you would think they could predict something in the future (not change the past to their current ideas).


Why do you have a prepublication copy? are you a paid propagandist?
If you had bothered to check out the report the National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine Scientific American based their article on, you would have the answer to your preposterous, silly babble. :confused:

So ignorant and so unwilling to read anything other than your typical bullshit. I would put you on ignore but would then miss out on the occasional chuckle. :D :D

[rastajenk]

All scientists agree that human-caused climate change has fundamentally altered the planet. What does that even mean, the "fundamentally altered" part, not the "all scientists agree" part? I already know that's b.s.

[Tom]

What does that even mean, the "fundamentally altered" part, not the "all scientists agree" part? I already know that's b.s.

Means hcap left his Kool Aid out in the hot sun.

[davew]

What does that even mean, the "fundamentally altered" part, not the "all scientists agree" part? I already know that's b.s.


All does not mean the typical 100% most people would assume - it has different meanings for radicals. Scientists is limited to the ones getting funding and pushing their form of crap science. Fundamentally altered means something is different now than what can be remembered in their short lifetime.

[hcap]

What does that even mean, the "fundamentally altered" part, not the "all scientists agree" part? I already know that's b.s.

"fundamentally altered" at least over the last million or so years.

http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/11_19_15_Brian_800KDot.gif

[hcap]

More recently over the lat 100 years as the industrial age peaked we can easily distinguish between natural and human causes.

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/models-observed-human-natural.png

From

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

[rastajenk]

Oh, it's from the EPA. I'm sure that's trustworthy. :rolleyes:


:kiss:

[Tom]

What can you say about someone who believes anything the government or its stooges tells the? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Cranial Cooling?

[hcap]

Oh, it's from the EPA. I'm sure that's trustworthy. :rolleyes:


:kiss:Ridiculous! I cite legitimate sources, peer reviewed studies and you gents simply are in denial without any real evidence. Just a monumental cosmic conspiracy theory that "the government" is out to get you. :sleeping: :sleeping:

[hcap]

The Union of Concerned Scientists was founded in 1969 by faculty and students of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The organization's founding document says it was formed to "initiate a critical and continuing examination of governmental policy in areas where science and technology are of actual or potential significance" and to "devise means for turning research applications away from the present emphasis on military technology toward the solution of pressing environmental and social problems."[2] The organization employs scientists, economists, and engineers engaged in environmental and security issues, as well as executive and support staff.
.................................................. .........

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.VwkZEnr2S-R

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/global-climate-drivers.PNG

Heat-trapping emissions (greenhouse gases) far outweigh the effects of other drivers acting on Earth’s climate. Source: Hansen et al. 2005, Figure adapted by Union of Concerned Scientists [5]

The figure above also depicts the sharp cooling influence a large volcanic eruption can have as it spews tiny particles high into the stratosphere (the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere where weather typically occurs). The massive explosions from Krakatoa (Indonesia) in 1883 and Mount Pinatubo (Philippines) in 1991, for example, can be seen as the two largest downward spikes in the blue volcanic data depicted in the figure. These particles prevented the full energy of the sun from reaching the surface of Earth and thus created a cooling trend for several years.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/Mauna-Loa-CO2.PNG

[boxcar]

Or for that matter, Ice. What in the world are the Chicken Littles going to do now? The Climapocalypse is coming! :rolleyes:

But much likely that a sci-fi movie about this will reach us first. :lol: :lol:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-could-become-hotter-thought-study-warns-012305983.html?nhp=1

[Tom]

Global Warming caused Sharknado, you know!

[Clocker]

Global Warming caused Sharknado, you know!

It's true! I saw a peer reviewed movie about that. :p

[Tom]

Good one.
Would you like a nice 7 Crown?

[Clocker]

Good one.
Would you like a nice 7 Crown?

This is America. We came here to get away from the Crown. Some bourbon would be nice in honor of the Derby.

Oops, wrong thread.

[davew]

The Union of Concerned Scientists was founded in 1969 by faculty and students of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The organization's founding document says it was formed to "initiate a critical and continuing examination of governmental policy in areas where science and technology are of actual or potential significance" and to "devise means for turning research applications away from the present emphasis on military technology toward the solution of pressing environmental and social problems."[2] The organization employs scientists, economists, and engineers engaged in environmental and security issues, as well as executive and support staff.
.................................................. .........

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.VwkZEnr2S-R

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/global-climate-drivers.PNG

Heat-trapping emissions (greenhouse gases) far outweigh the effects of other drivers acting on Earth’s climate. Source: Hansen et al. 2005, Figure adapted by Union of Concerned Scientists [5]

The figure above also depicts the sharp cooling influence a large volcanic eruption can have as it spews tiny particles high into the stratosphere (the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere where weather typically occurs). The massive explosions from Krakatoa (Indonesia) in 1883 and Mount Pinatubo (Philippines) in 1991, for example, can be seen as the two largest downward spikes in the blue volcanic data depicted in the figure. These particles prevented the full energy of the sun from reaching the surface of Earth and thus created a cooling trend for several years.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/Mauna-Loa-CO2.PNG

Data from Mauna Loa Observatory is tainted and biased - it is located within 40 miles of the largest volcano in the world and even its website has propaganda such as this

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/climate.html

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Data from Mauna Loa Observatory is tainted and biased - it is located within 40 miles of the largest volcano in the world and even its website has propaganda such as this

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/climate.html
By 2013 there had been 24,950 articles published on various aspects of climate science, and 26 of them denied that human activity contributed to higher greenhouse gas levels. That's a pretty amazing conspiracy.

One thing you should know is that emissions from any source can be fingerprinted. It's pretty simple science. The data isn't tainted when they can pinpoint the source, and it's pretty easy to tell which sources are natural, like volcanoes, and which sources are man-made. The people doing the work are really smart people, even if you think they are misguided. And they are smart enough to know not to make a very simple mistake like confusing volcanic emissions with power plant emissions, because if they did they'd get caught and there goes any credibility they might have.

I'm sure you also realize that the so-called "greenhouse effect" is what has allowed life on earth for billions of years. Solar radiation comes in as shortwave radiation (UV). Some is reflected back into space, some is absorbed and sent back out as long wave radiation (infrared). The infrared that doesn't make it back to space is absorbed by atmospheric gases like methane and CO2. It's pretty simple science that the more "greenhouse gases" there are in the atmosphere, the more infrared that can be absorbed. This isn't mumbo-jumbo. We've understood how the earth stays warm enough for life for a very long time, and we understand atmospheric chemistry very well because frankly it's pretty elementary stuff.

I spent a lot of time with academics and scientists, including people from the National Center for Atmospheric Research at the University of Colorado where I did my graduate work. I can say two things without equivocation. One, if the data wasn't real, or if the whole thing was a big hoax, the guy who proved it would be like the Louis Pasteur of climate science. Two, the effort they put into making sure their research is bulletproof is amazing. Their entire academic career rests on them doing credible scientific work, as does any funding they might compete for.

As I've said, you can argue about the models and what margin of error they have, and whether the earth will warm 2 degrees C or 4 degrees C. That part is tricky business. By the way, you verify predictive models by modeling already known results, and if the models work then you can try to predict the future. Almost everybody has given up on trying to discredit climate science, and has moved on to the real issue. What do we do if anything? You can argue about the right policy approach to deal with it. But the data is really verifiable and the atmospheric science was settled many decades ago, and if you take the time to examine the data and verify it, it is hard to come to a conclusion different that 99.9% of scientists have.

[hcap]

Data from Mauna Loa Observatory is tainted and biased - it is located within 40 miles of the largest volcano in the world and even its website has propaganda such as this

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/climate.htmlThere is NOTHING, zero, NADA zilch in your linked article that makes your absurd claim.

Nothing !!!!!!!!

[Clocker]

If you thought the religious thread was a waste because of one poster, there are dozens very much like him here on climate change, and be patient, boxcar posts total factual garbage and nonsense on this thread as well.

That's where this topic belongs, in the religious thread. Religion is faith, which means believing something that cannot be proved or disproved. The same applies to AGW.

It doesn't matter how many "experts" you line up end to end, they don't reach a proof. I for one don't believe in "majority rules" for "settled science", which is all you have to offer. If you opt to believe it, fine. I remain an agnostic, as do many scientists, your "proofs" not withstanding.

[hcap]

You can believe whatever you want, but it strikes me strange that there is not ONE scientific agency, scholarly journal, university, or more than a scant handful of climatologists WORLDWIDE who back you up****.

Odd that you think your unsupported belief is the non-religious one.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

*** At least the master of phony endless religious yammering boxcar does backs you up. :rolleyes:

[davew]

You can believe whatever you want, but it strikes me strange that there is not ONE scientific agency, scholarly journal, university, or more than a scant handful of climatologists WORLDWIDE who back you up****.

Odd that you think your unsupported belief is the non-religious one.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

*** At least the master of phony endless religious yammering boxcar does backs you up. :rolleyes:


If the scientific claim was so obvious, why does the data need to be fabricated and altered to support the hypothesis?

[hcap]

If the scientific claim was so obvious, why does the data need to be fabricated and altered to support the hypothesis?Nonsense. Prove your assertion

[davew]

Nonsense. Prove your assertion

So you are civilized debater with no scientific background?

http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/LI-03-Climate-Chage-e1424844092992.png

[rastajenk]

By 2013 there had been 24,950 articles published on various aspects of climate science, and 26 of them denied that human activity contributed to higher greenhouse gas levels. That's a pretty amazing conspiracy.Did those 24,950 articles agree on what to do about it? Or is that left to the politicians and bureaucrats, you know, the non-scientists?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Did those 24,950 articles agree on what to do about it? Or is that left to the politicians and bureaucrats, you know, the non-scientists?
That is not the nature of publishing data and I've said that multiple times. Once you have the information it is left to the policy makers to decide what to do with it. If they want to consult with scientists, fine. But we have a democratic system that determines who needs to take what actions. Science should inform policy, not vice versa.

[rastajenk]

Totally agree, but many of us on the skeptical side think the vice versa is what's happening. And for that we are labelled deniers, anti-science kooks, and other marginalizations: common political tactics that both sides use, but political tactics, not science-based, nonetheless.

This battle is being fought on several fronts, and the accuracy of the charts and graphs is just one. The notion that our democratic-based process will produce a class of decision-makers that will altruistically lead our society and all humankind towards a better place seems like another battlefront, and for resisting that notion I'm a lowly "denier?" That's not healthy political discourse.

And I'm also to believe that the scientific community is above or immune to that kind of othering? They are still human, are they not? Some of us are merely opposed to the tyranny of consensus.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Totally agree, but many of us on the skeptical side think the vice versa is what's happening. And for that we are labelled deniers, anti-science kooks, and other marginalizations: common political tactics that both sides use, but political tactics, not science-based, nonetheless.

This battle is being fought on several fronts, and the accuracy of the charts and graphs is just one. The notion that our democratic-based process will produce a class of decision-makers that will altruistically lead our society and all humankind towards a better place seems like another battlefront, and for resisting that notion I'm a lowly "denier?" That's not healthy political discourse.

And I'm also to believe that the scientific community is above or immune to that kind of othering? They are still human, are they not? Some of us are merely opposed to the tyranny of consensus.
I've tried to avoid any discussion of what the policy should be. I've only maintained the basic data - temperatures are getting warmer and the presence of increased greenhouse gases is some part of the explanation - is no longer being disputed, even by oil and coal people. That being said, there are some scientists - James Hansen comes to mind - who started out reporting but became political.

I've said that the graphs showing future changes are based on models, and certainly all the models don't agree on amount of change even if they do agree on direction. That's part of the scientific discussion. But it's not incredibly complex to verify temperature changes or the presence of greenhouse gases or the source of those gases.

You have to be careful about how you characterize trends. If I won the last two races the trend based on that data looks like I'm never going to lose again. On the other hand if I lost the previous eight races that would express a different trend. But, the DATA ARE IRREFUTABLE because it actually happened. It's how I've manipulated the data. I believe in the base data, and that's the only point I'm making.

Predicting the future is always along a continuum. Can we do something? Can we do it without eviscerating the economy? Those are questions left to the policy makers.

[Tom]

So you are civilized debater with no scientific background?

hcap is a scientific debater with no civilized background! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[classhandicapper]

My models are predicting that:

1. R&D on new forms of energy will continue and cleaner energies will continue to gain market share when they make economic sense.

2. The companies that develop economically viable forms of cleaner energy will make piles of money and then left wingers will suddenly find a reason to tax the shit out of those greedy bastards.

3. In 20 years, 50 years, and 100 years the temperature of the earth will not be a significant concern.

Of course all that assumes the global economic system doesn't collapse under the weight of left wing economics and we can actually continue making progress.

[hcap]

So you are civilized debater with no scientific background?
On the bottom of your bogus chart the simple model observations goe way past the present. Whose "simple model observations " are you believing.....hook line and sinker, and whose data are those schmucks using? Obviously there can be NO observations extending past now until 2040.

What kind of website is "legalinsurrection.com" where you got it from, and who are the idiots in charge?

Any legitimate charts from any real sources to back up your assertion about re-writing past data.?

You must be a Lamar Smith fan? Must be.

[rastajenk]

Of course all that assumes the global economic system doesn't collapse under the weight of left wing economics and we can actually continue making progress.That's a big part of why it's a hard sell for me. No one alive today will witness the benefits of drastic socialized climate-based policies, but everyone alive can experience the pain of unintended consequences.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Of course all that assumes the global economic system doesn't collapse under the weight of left wing economics and we can actually continue making progress.

The left wing economies all are based on the fact that right wing economies have to bail them out.

Liberalism is not sustainable.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Of course all that assumes the global economic system doesn't collapse under the weight of left wing economics and we can actually continue making progress.
The last time the global economy almost collapsed it seems like it was not left-wing economics, but overt greed and, might I say, sheer ignorance on the part of the quintessential capitalists, the Wall Street banks. Did I miss something?

[Clocker]

Did I miss something?

Only the encouragement and complicity of the Clinton and Bush administration, Congress, the Federal Reserve, and Fannie and Freddie.

[boxcar]

The last time the global economy almost collapsed it seems like it was not left-wing economics, but overt greed and, might I say, sheer ignorance on the part of the quintessential capitalists, the Wall Street banks. Did I miss something?

Yeah...you forgot to mention the "Party" of Greed politicians. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Yeah...you forgot to mention the "Party" of Greed politicians. :rolleyes:

That would be "Parties", the Evil Party and the Stupid Party.

[Tom]

The last time the global economy almost collapsed it seems like it was not left-wing economics, but overt greed and, might I say, sheer ignorance on the part of the quintessential capitalists, the Wall Street banks. Did I miss something?

Sounds like everything.

[boxcar]

That would be "Parties", the Evil Party and the Stupid Party.

By "Party" I meant the Uniparty.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Only the encouragement and complicity of the Clinton and Bush administration, Congress, the Federal Reserve, and Fannie and Freddie.
Well at least nobody figured out a way to blame Obama....yet

[Clocker]

Well at least nobody figured out a way to blame Obama....yet

It's coming. The Obama administration has been strongly pushing subprime mortgages again, and there is another similar potential problem with subprime auto loans. Financial analysts are worried about bubbles in both areas.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It's coming. The Obama administration has been strongly pushing subprime mortgages again, and there is another similar potential problem with subprime auto loans. Financial analysts are worried about bubbles in both areas.
I think the larger issue is the "too big to fail" banks still trading in derivatives. While people can argue about the cause of the 2007 meltdown, I think the sale of derivatives in which the banks really had no clue of the actual contents of the portfolios, plus rating agencies that were giving triple A ratings also without having a clue on the actual nature of the loans. You can blame Clinton for pushing to expand home loans, but he was never pushing to have banks give $700,000 loans to low paid janitors. And yes, Fannie and Freddy were suckered by the big banks and pressured, but the meltdown occurred six years after Clinton was out of the picture, and if everyone wasn't so obsessed with making huge amounts of money, perhaps somebody from the Bush government might have picked it up sooner. There is plenty of blame to go around, but most of the blame rests with the banks that were out of control and the absence of anybody in the regulatory agencies watching the store.

[Clocker]

I think the larger issue is the "too big to fail" banks still trading in derivatives.


The issue is moral hazard. Let them trade in all the derivatives they want, but keep it separate from their retail business, and don't bail them out if they screw up. And if they screw up really bad, throw a few folks in jail.

A root cause of the housing bubble was the push by the Clinton and Bush administrations for home ownership. That is government social engineering, and, as usual, had unintended consequences. We are all better off when the government sticks to its constitutionally defined business and doesn't try to micromanage society.

[delayjf]

You can blame Clinton for pushing to expand home loans, but he was never pushing to have banks give $700,000 loans to low paid janitors. And yes, Fannie and Freddy were suckered by the big banks and pressured, but the meltdown occurred six years after Clinton was out of the picture, and if everyone wasn't so obsessed with making huge amounts of money, perhaps somebody from the Bush government might have picked it up sooner

The Bush administration did speak out and warn Congress of the potential problems brewing regarding Fannie and Freddy in 2003 and 2004, but was rebuffed by House Financial Services Committee , specifically Barney Frank.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

[classhandicapper]

The last time the global economy almost collapsed it seems like it was not left-wing economics, but overt greed and, might I say, sheer ignorance on the part of the quintessential capitalists, the Wall Street banks. Did I miss something?

Yes (you missed something).

You are viewing all republicans as being right wing when it comes to economics, but many are really just a different version of the same Keynesians that micro manage the economy, run deficits, promote easy money from the Fed etc...

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, etc.. are examples of hard money free market republicans.

[PaceAdvantage]

hcap has all the markings of someone who is quite insecure with his own position.

I mean...really...why would he waste time arguing with clueless individuals (his words, not mine). Why would ANYONE do that?

Do any of you stand around and debate with crazy homeless people on the street? No? Neither do I. I go out of my way to avoid interacting with them.

But hcap continues to argue AND NAME CALL those who dare question his global climate change positions.

Either he enjoys arguing with crazy people (his words), or he's not all that secure in his own position (or the position of the scientific community he continues to laud here to us).

And I don't think he, like most of us, enjoys arguing with crazy people. So that leaves the other option.

[davew]

Coming o a theater near you in a few weeks 'Climate Hustle'.

I wonder if it is about the Nazi-like tactics of the followers of Gore.

[Tom]

And I don't think he, like most of us, enjoys arguing with crazy people. So that leaves the other option.

I LOVE arguing with crazy people.
That is why hcap is so dear to me! :lol::lol:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The Bush administration did speak out and warn Congress of the potential problems brewing regarding Fannie and Freddy in 2003 and 2004, but was rebuffed by House Financial Services Committee , specifically Barney Frank.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html
My primary point was that it was the derivatives that were full of high risk mortgages and rated Triple A by the ratings agencies that almost caused the financial collapse. Loan defaults would have increased and would have had an effect on real estate markets - much like what happened - but without the derivatives I don't believe the economy would have come as close as it did to falling off the cliff. We've had two large financial crises in the last 30 years. Black Monday in 1987 when the Dow Jones dove, and the crisis of 2007.

Call a spade a spade. The homeowner loan debacle was a bipartisan effort from the 90's on forward. But the issue with derivatives that should have never been rated more than junk bonds - that table was set because everyone with any pull in the administration came from Wall Street banks, including Paulsen.

While I'm sure Barney Frank spoke up, the House was under Republican control until 2007.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yes (you missed something).

You are viewing all republicans as being right wing when it comes to economics, but many are really just a different version of the same Keynesians that micro manage the economy, run deficits, promote easy money from the Fed etc...

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, etc.. are examples of hard money free market republicans.
That's an interesting point. While most of the Republicans are in lock step about lowering taxes and making government smaller, neither side seems particularly interested in dealing with the spending side, including the entitlements. The fact is that if we cut every penny of discretionary spending and left defense, prisons and the entitlements intact, we'd only cut governmental spending by 17%. We've really snookered ourselves in terms of options.

[davew]

My primary point was that it was the derivatives that were full of high risk mortgages and rated Triple A by the ratings agencies that almost caused the financial collapse. Loan defaults would have increased and would have had an effect on real estate markets - much like what happened - but without the derivatives I don't believe the economy would have come as close as it did to falling off the cliff. We've had two large financial crises in the last 30 years. Black Monday in 1987 when the Dow Jones dove, and the crisis of 2007.

Call a spade a spade. The homeowner loan debacle was a bipartisan effort from the 90's on forward. But the issue with derivatives that should have never been rated more than junk bonds - that table was set because everyone with any pull in the administration came from Wall Street banks, including Paulsen.

While I'm sure Barney Frank spoke up, the House was under Republican control until 2007.


One of the problems is the trading departments of big banks and brokerage houses. The traders take big risks to get big bonuses when it goes their way. They are trading in stuff too complicated for the CEOs and supervisors to understand. If you have not seen it 'Rogue Trader' with Ewan McGregor is highly recommended.

[davew]

0bama saving the world from itself going to cost poor more - does that mean the government will give us more, or will we have to move to a lower cost of living country south of the border?

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/04/24/report-obama-s-global-warming-plan-would-cost-poor-americans-44-billion-raise-taxes-166

[hcap]

hcap has all the markings of someone who is quite insecure with his own position.

I mean...really...why would he waste time arguing with clueless individuals (his words, not mine). Why would ANYONE do that?

Do any of you stand around and debate with crazy homeless people on the street? No? Neither do I. I go out of my way to avoid interacting with them.

But hcap continues to argue AND NAME CALL those who dare question his global climate change positions.

Either he enjoys arguing with crazy people (his words), or he's not all that secure in his own position (or the position of the scientific community he continues to laud here to us).

And I don't think he, like most of us, enjoys arguing with crazy people. So that leaves the other option.What a monumental crock!

Another unwarranted criticism aimed at me, from the politically biased owner and moderator. You are entitled to your OWN opinions, but NOT your own FACTS.

Your so-called "facts" on AGW are as misguided as your ASS-sumption that I am the crazy one deserving to be singled out any more than the overwhelming legion of anti-liberal, anti-democrat, anti-Obama posters engaged in endless ranting and their own name calling in a 24/7/365 24 hour a day mutual circle jerk. :lol: :lol:

Name calling?

[PaceAdvantage]

What a monumental crock!

Another unwarranted criticism aimed at me, from the politically biased owner and moderator. You are entitled to your OWN opinions, but NOT your own FACTS.

Your so-called "facts" on AGW are as misguided as your ASS-sumption that I am the crazy one deserving to be singled out any more than the overwhelming legion of anti-liberal, anti-democrat, anti-Obama posters engaged in endless ranting and their own name calling in a 24/7/365 24 hour a day mutual circle jerk. :lol: :lol:

Name calling?My aren't you touchy!

If you calm down a sec and reread what I wrote, I never ONCE directly called you crazy or even implied it.

Read it again sir.

[Tom]

Post # 96....it was me that called you crazy.
In my defense, the rising warmth is affecting my judgement.

[boxcar]

My aren't you touchy!

If you calm down a sec and reread what I wrote, I never ONCE directly called you crazy or even implied it.

Read it again sir.

It's springtime, so Hcap has already shed his always-too-thin-anyway thicker skin. :D

[hcap]

My aren't you touchy!

If you calm down a sec and reread what I wrote, I never ONCE directly called you crazy or even implied it.

Read it again sir.But you implied I was the only one here who argues due to my uncertainty of my case and the facts thereof. You singled me out, once again for being the only one who name calls (which I do no more than the righties in return for their accusations of propagandist, "alarmist" and crazy liberal, etc)......somehow as supporting evidence for your absolutely absurd case that I should not debate because NO ONE HERE believes anything I say anyway. :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

But you implied I was the only one here who argues due to my uncertainty of my case and the facts thereof. You singled me out, once again for being the only one who name calls (which I do no more than the righties in return for their accusations of propagandist, "alarmist" and crazy liberal, etc)......somehow as supporting evidence for your absolutely absurd case that I should not debate because NO ONE HERE believes anything I say anyway. :rolleyes:What I said was simple.

Either you enjoy arguing with crazy people (because you believe those who don't buy into your Climate Change agenda are crazy)...OR...you are arguing your case because you aren't as secure in it as you claim.

There is no other reason to keep beating your head against the wall like you do.

[davew]

Post # 96....it was me that called you crazy.
In my defense, the rising warmth is affecting my judgement.


Just make sure that when the 20 miles deep ice at the poles melt, and the ocean rises 100 feet, you go to high ground, otherwise you will drown.

[fast4522]

What I said was simple.

Either you enjoy arguing with crazy people (because you believe those who don't buy into your Climate Change agenda are crazy)...OR...you are arguing your case because you aren't as secure in it as you claim.

There is no other reason to keep beating your head against the wall like you do.

He can't help it, got a blue moon in his eyes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSUIQgEVDM4

another one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDkCiUhHCc

[hcap]

What I said was simple.

Either you enjoy arguing with crazy people (because you believe those who don't buy into your Climate Change agenda are crazy)...OR...you are arguing your case because you aren't as secure in it as you claim.

There is no other reason to keep beating your head against the wall like you do.Who and how many have I called crazy? Or "name called"?

Your ASS-sumptions are wrong just as your claim that all climate deniers here on this biased off topic board are doing is "only questioning." :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What a crock. You evidently are not reading the unending absurd threads on global warming on off topic.

[boxcar]

Who and how many have I called crazy? Or "name called"?

Your ASS-sumptions are wrong just as your claim that all climate deniers here on this biased off topic board are doing is "only questioning." :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What a crock. You evidently are not reading the unending absurd threads on global warming on off topic.

Not reading the absurd arguments by all the Chicken Little fear mongers is a sure way to keep one's sanity. :ThmbUp:

[hcap]

Not reading the absurd arguments by all the Chicken Little fear mongers is a sure way to keep one's sanity. :ThmbUp:If I ever were to call someone crazy, insane, totally oblivious to the sciences and ignorant of math and modern technology............
:sleeping: :sleeping:

[Tom]

Just make sure that when the 20 miles deep ice at the poles melt, and the ocean rises 100 feet, you go to high ground, otherwise you will drown.

I can swim, and the nice thing about it is that the water will be warmer!:lol:
XV1DK9tSHio

[hcap]

I can swim, and the nice thing about it is that the water will be warmer!:lol:
Ice melts at 32 degrees. You live near Buffalo. Global warming may increase the surrounding water temperature and water level, but before you get out your scuba gear, you can still suffer hypothermia. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Ice melts at 32 degrees. You live near Buffalo. Global warming may increase the surrounding water temperature and water level, but before you get out your scuba gear, you can still suffer hypothermia. :lol: :lol: :lol:
I lived in Buffalo for four years. If the people there are in favor of global warming that's perfectly understandable.

[davew]

Ice melts at 32 degrees. You live near Buffalo. Global warming may increase the surrounding water temperature and water level, but before you get out your scuba gear, you can still suffer hypothermia. :lol: :lol: :lol:

It is melting much lower than that for the south pole to be 'melting' as claimed by the conmen.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Why do you think all these researchers would risk their careers by lying about the results of their studies? Especially when all the work could be duplicated by anyone. If they were shown to have falsified data, that could cost them their career. In academia, academic fraud is one of those things that can warrant the death penalty. Why are a lot of energy/oil companies advocating for a carbon tax?

If we agree that the discussion needs to move out of the scientific research phase and to the decision makers to determine what the best policy is to deal with the issue, wouldn't we be better off? Do we not trust the Congress to frame the issue clearly and make a rational decision about how to handle it? Is the issue that they are as likely to be bamboozled as to develop the right program?

[Tom]

If we agree that the discussion needs to move out of the scientific research phase and to the decision makers to determine what the best policy is to deal with the issue, wouldn't we be better off? :lol: :lol: :lol:

You mean those same people who are making millions of the fraud, and those same people who have carbon footprints bigger than BigFoot?

When those snake-oil salesmen start walking the talk, let me know. Until then THEY are not taking any active roles personally, so why should we?

Hey, got a bridge in Brooklyn I can get you a deal on...... :rolleyes:

[davew]

Why do you think all these researchers would risk their careers by lying about the results of their studies? Especially when all the work could be duplicated by anyone. If they were shown to have falsified data, that could cost them their career. In academia, academic fraud is one of those things that can warrant the death penalty. Why are a lot of energy/oil companies advocating for a carbon tax?

If we agree that the discussion needs to move out of the scientific research phase and to the decision makers to determine what the best policy is to deal with the issue, wouldn't we be better off? Do we not trust the Congress to frame the issue clearly and make a rational decision about how to handle it? Is the issue that they are as likely to be bamboozled as to develop the right program?

Researchers lie for more money (fraud). Congress is handling it - the president almighty is using executive orders and interpreting old laws to stick EPA on many businesses. Ask the coal miners if they would rather work or sit around and drink beer all day because the jobs are gone... maybe they just have not adapted quick enough for solar panel production and installation.

[Clocker]

Do we not trust the Congress to frame the issue clearly and make a rational decision about how to handle it?

This would be the Congress that decided they knew better than anyone how much water it takes to flush a toilet? The Congress that decided that our citizens were too stupid to make their own decisions about what kind of light bulb to use?

Any discussion would be moot any way as long as Obama is in office. He has pronounced AGW to be settled science and would veto anything not in line with his scientific opinions. Anything else would be on the wrong side of history.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Researchers lie for more money (fraud). Congress is handling it - the president almighty is using executive orders and interpreting old laws to stick EPA on many businesses. Ask the coal miners if they would rather work or sit around and drink beer all day because the jobs are gone... maybe they just have not adapted quick enough for solar panel production and installation.
Coal production in the U.S. had been pretty steady until 2015. A lot of coal that was being used domestically is being shipped to places like China. There is still a market for our coal. The Chinese have a voracious appetite for the stuff, but even they are moving away from coal in favor of other fuels. But you can't really blame Obama as much as natural gas prices that make it cheaper to use gas for electrical generation. It's also the case that a number of utilities have old coal plants that are being retired and replaced by gas. It's cleaner and more efficient than coal. Technology evolves and when it does some industries win and some lose. Most of the hard rock mining industry in America is gone, mainly because most mined items are priced on the world market and we just aren't competitive. Everyone associated with the horse and buggy business had to find something else to do. I understand that places like Wyoming and West Virginia are dependent on coal in ways that most of the country isn't, but New England was in the dumper after the textile industry moved out, and Detroit turned upside down when the auto manufacturers moved to other places. Coal was well on the way out for lots of reasons, and perhaps its demise was accelerated by new clean air rules and concerns about CO2 emissions. This shouldn't be a surprise, but electricity generated by coal is being phased out in California. Like Darwin noted, you adapt or you die. In the short run, the loss of the domestic coal market sucks for some, but in the long run it will work out the way these things always work out - those who adapt will prosper.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This would be the Congress that decided they knew better than anyone how much water it takes to flush a toilet? The Congress that decided that our citizens were too stupid to make their own decisions about what kind of light bulb to use?

Any discussion would be moot any way as long as Obama is in office. He has pronounced AGW to be settled science and would veto anything not in line with his scientific opinions. Anything else would be on the wrong side of history.
Well, it seems that if the Congress is the wrong entity to make legislative decisions, perhaps we need a new Constitution, since it is that document that gave them the job in the first place. You know, if the worst thing that the Congress ever did was specify low flush toilets - and as it turns out the evolution of the low flush toilet has made them as good and as cheap as conventional flush toilets - I'd say we have one helluva Congress. In places like the arid west, they were actually a good idea since people don't seem to be motivated to conserve just for the societal good. Of course, I'm sure you don't want me to remind you who signed the original national law mandating low flush toilets, but here's a clue - it was a Republican. But I get it. We should wait until the crisis hits before we even think about solving a problem. The market should decide - people should buy the crappiest crapper out there if they want. And you're right. The Congress keeps sticking it's nose into our safety in things like cars and food and drugs. What we really need is a Constitution that draws some bright lines that tell the meddling Congress to keep their government hands off our toilets.

The fact that the Congress doesn't deal with climate change in any meaningful way is the first problem. If they sent Obama a bill that represented an intelligent compromise solution, he couldn't get away with vetoing it. Of course the chances of the Congress actually doing something about anything important is a longshot. I could handle spending time on toilet flushing if they actually spent the right amount of time on the real problems they should be dealing with.

[Clocker]

Of course, I'm sure you don't want me to remind you who signed the original national law mandating low flush toilets, but here's a clue - it was a Republican.

Why would I care about who signed it into law? I am bipartisan; I have no use for either party. Bush signing the toilet law is appropriate. His administration went down the crapper when he invaded Iraq. With approval of the Dems in Congress, by the way. We have a two party system, the Evil Party and the Stupid Party, but it is getting really hard to distinguish between the two.

The point is that neither Congress nor the president have any business mandating toilets or light bulbs or otherwise interfering in the market if the public safety is not threatened. Nobody ever died from overflushing.

Car safety and other safety issues are legitimate concerns of government because cars drive on public roads and interstate commerce of dangerous drugs and the like are generally beyond the capability of any state to deal with.

There is no evidence that the public safety is being endangered by unnatural global warming, or that we could do anything about it anyway.

If they sent Obama a bill that represented an intelligent compromise solution, he couldn't get away with vetoing it.

Shirley you can't be serious. What are the chances of "an intelligent compromise"? What are the chances of people marching on the White House with torches and pitchforks if he vetoed a bill and told the country that he was on the right side of history?

[davew]

Shirley you can't be serious. What are the chances of "an intelligent compromise"? What are the chances of people marching on the White House with torches and pitchforks if he vetoed a bill and told the country that he was on the right side of history?


0bama's version of 'an intelligent compromise' is changing your ideas to his.

[hcap]

It is melting much lower than that for the south pole to be 'melting' as claimed by the conmen.Who says it is melting at "MUCH" lower temperatures? Have you any evidence other than your unsupported nonsense? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[davew]

Who says it is melting at "MUCH" lower temperatures? Have you any evidence other than your unsupported nonsense? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


http://www.accuweather.com/en/aq/amundsen-scott-south-pole-station/2258520/april-weather/2258520

[hcap]

http://www.accuweather.com/en/aq/amundsen-scott-south-pole-station/2258520/april-weather/2258520As I said nonsense. Where is there any discussion on the website you linked on ice melting at "much" lower temperatures than 32 deg Fahrenheit as you claimed? Where?

[davew]

As I said nonsense. Where is there any discussion on the website you linked on ice melting at "much" lower temperatures than 32 deg Fahrenheit as you claimed? Where?


Bring this up again the next time the temperature is above 32 degrees there. My theory is if it never (or very rarely) gets above 32 degrees and the ice melts, it must be melting at below 32 degrees.

[hcap]

Bring this up again the next time the temperature is above 32 degrees there. My theory is if it never (or very rarely) gets above 32 degrees and the ice melts, it must be melting at below 32 degrees.Air temperature are only one of the causes ice melts in polar regions. Ocean currents are the major cause. The world's ocean has been warming rapidly, absorbing much of the planet's excess heat. As a result, large glaciers on or around Antarctica that come in contact with the warming water have been melting rapidly. The latest scientific understanding suggests that when we look below the surface, there’s still great cause for concern.

And you are ignoring other polar regions whose average temperatures are also below freezing. Are you implying that the average year round air temps must be above freezing for substantial ice melt to occur? What about Greenland, and the Arctic?

You are oversimplifying a very complex subject

Not only all of the above, but there is another wrinkle."The main problem seems to be that the 'grounding line' between grounded and floating ice is receding. It's quite simple really: ice does not have to melt in order to contribute to the water levels. What is does have to do, is become separated from the grounded areas of ice. Once it detaches and floats free, most of the contribution to the sea level has been made - just like putting ice in a glass of coke. So the rise in temperature is causing the line of grounded ice to recede - so more ice is breaking off and floating free. Of course a lot of it is melting as well, but it is the disintegration of the main body which is most significant, as after this, the form of the ice makes little difference."

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This would be the Congress that decided they knew better than anyone how much water it takes to flush a toilet? The Congress that decided that our citizens were too stupid to make their own decisions about what kind of light bulb to use?

Any discussion would be moot any way as long as Obama is in office. He has pronounced AGW to be settled science and would veto anything not in line with his scientific opinions. Anything else would be on the wrong side of history.
I recommend the Toto if you're ever looking for the low flush toilet. It's an amazing flush machine. And the new LED bulbs are pretty good too.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Shirley you can't be serious. What are the chances of "an intelligent compromise"? What are the chances of people marching on the White House with torches and pitchforks if he vetoed a bill and told the country that he was on the right side of history?
Obama has shown on a number of issues - appropriations bills to keep the government open come to mind - that he will accept a compromise. In fact he has vetoed only nine bills in his administration.

It isn't the people with torches and pitchforks that you worry about. It's the people with briefcases and checkbooks. You really don't understand politics, do you?

[Tom]

He had dingy Harry run interference for him and keep many bills from ever being voted on in the senate. So he did not have to veto them.

[Clocker]

And a veto that would shut down the government doesn't help your legacy. Obama would have no problem shutting down the government if he could blame the Republicans.

[Clocker]

You really don't understand politics, do you?

I can see why you are an Obama fan boy. You share the same attitude of uninformed superiority.

I don't post personal information on the internet, but I would be willing to bet that I have more experience in working for government and in doing regulatory work for private sector firms than the vast majority of people here.

Personal digs based on little or no information are a last resort in debate, but I have learned to expect nothing better on the internet.

Have a nice day.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

And a veto that would shut down the government doesn't help your legacy. Obama would have no problem shutting down the government if he could blame the Republicans.
You would be totally wrong about that. And I'm not just guessing. It's a mortal lock he would never do that, but we'll never know for certain, will we.

[Tom]

Of course he would.
That is a no brainer.

[Clocker]

Of course he would.
That is a no brainer.

Surely you can't be serious. :eek:



"I am serious and don't call me Shirley." .

[classhandicapper]

I'm still hoping for global warming. It will give me some new options for relocating from the US that are currently too cold for my taste. ;)

[Tom]

Ahhh, balmy Minnesota! :cool:

[rastajenk]

The record cold for this date in this area was set in 2014, and re-set this morning in 2016. That's two out of the last three years we have set a record for cold on this date in May. There have been only four days so far this year that the temp reached 80.

Isn't that how the Apocalypsists use weather to sell their Doom? No wonder it's a tough sell that requires fascistic methods of control and coercion.

[Tom]

Global cooling! :eek:

[rastajenk]

Caused by global warming! :eek:

[tucker6]

snowed in PA yesterday at high noon only six weeks from the summer solstice. Latest snow date on record.

[rastajenk]

Cool!

I mean, not really, but if you're gonna go low, might as well go Jason Day low.

[classhandicapper]

If this keeps up the alarmists are going to have to hire a bunch of new statisticians to help cook the books. They can fly them in on jets to some posh mansions with huge carbon footprints. ;)

[Clocker]

This guy must be mistaken. He can't possibly be talking about peer reviewed articles, could he?

I’ve lost count of the number of recent papers in peer-reviewed science journals that conclude that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions is overstated. (Here’s the summary and abstract of the most recent one I have seen.) There are three new studies bearing on the issue that even Science magazine, which reported them this week, can’t help but note cast doubt on the high-end alarmist predictions.

Some background: Up to this point, climate scientists—and more importantly their models—assumed, without any empirical evidence, that there were fewer clouds in the pre-industrial era before the slight warming trend of the last 200 years began. Climate models assume that human emissions, especially sulfur dioxide particles, have increased cloud cover over the last two centuries, which has masked some of the expected temperature rise from increased CO2. (This is one of the contributing explanations for the recent temperature pause.)

New research from the CERN scientists in Europe suggest that this assumption was wrong.

The rest of the article at:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/major-setback-for-the-climatistas.php

[classhandicapper]

Hmmmn....back to the models and another tweak here or there?

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies


http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/27/study-shows-those-who-claimed-climate-debate-over-were-wrong/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-tw

[Clocker]

Hmmmn....back to the models and another tweak here or there?

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...w-cloud-studies (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies)


From that article:

three new studies show how naturally emitted gases from trees can also form the seed particles for clouds. The results not only point to a cloudier past, but they also indicate a potentially cooler future

The ice age is coming, the ice age is coming!!! :eek:

Looks like we need federal controls on trees. And government investment in development of new and improved dwarf and bonsai trees.

[classhandicapper]

This the part of it that the hard core climate change people refuse to acknowledge. Even assuming perfectly accurate data and no bias (which I am unwilling to assume 100%), it's all so darn complex, no one has a firm grasp on all the factors and interrelationships yet. Yet they are ready to jail or destroy anyone that dares question their proclamations and blow up the economy of the world to prevent something that may not even occur or may not be a net negative even if it does occur.

You would think the standards for such extreme action would be a little higher that we have a model but are still learning.

[Tom]

The earth has been a ball of fire and an ice cube.
And it will always be changing, despite the unmitigated gall of some idiots to suppose they can actually change that.

Climate Change is the litmus test we can use to spot the feeble minded sheeple.

[tucker6]

Hmmmn....back to the models and another tweak here or there?

It's settled science mister. Get with the program or be re-indoctrinated to the truth. :)

[tucker6]

Yet they are ready to jail or destroy anyone that dares question their proclamations and blow up the economy of the world to prevent something that may not even occur or may not be a net negative even if it does occur.

You would think the standards for such extreme action would be a little higher that we have a model but are still learning.
The goal is the redistribution of wealth and the putting of power into the hands of a few. Once that is understood, the decision-making process by the left on this issue actually makes sense.

[davew]

This the part of it that the hard core climate change people refuse to acknowledge. Even assuming perfectly accurate data and no bias (which I am unwilling to assume 100%), it's all so darn complex, no one has a firm grasp on all the factors and interrelationships yet. Yet they are ready to jail or destroy anyone that dares question their proclamations and blow up the economy of the world to prevent something that may not even occur or may not be a net negative even if it does occur.

You would think the standards for such extreme action would be a little higher that we have a model but are still learning.

Nope, all caused by fossil fuels - settled science - ask any democrat

[davew]

nothing but a sham?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/702f1555-b5e6-3924-a6fc-2dc4b8934bdf/ss_the-un-admits-that-the-paris.html

[incoming]

This is one of the latest debacles that the New Democrat Party has unleashed on our country. Just to name a few of the most recent debacles that has damaged the USA....ObamaCare, President Obama, latest candidate for President....Hilary Clinton, Russian interference in the last election, Clinton Foundation and the sale of uranium to Russia.

For myself, the most egregious debacle was abortion. This social engineering plan cost us over 50,000,000 lives of unborn American citizens and potential tax payers. In order to make up the loss of these innocent lives, we have had to compensate with open borders. Reason.... to help pay for the benefits of the baby boomers and future retirees safety nets.

The New Democrat Party should be remembered as the party of the well intentioned but very naive and shallow thinkers. Their latest debacles that are still in their infancy...change history and free speech.

In order to pay for their next debacle I suggest a huge yard sale. They should have nothing but hook, line. sinkers and KOOL- AIDE on display...the mainstay for every member of New Democrat Party's diet.:popcorn::popcorn:

[Tom]

If this keeps up the alarmists are going to have to hire a bunch of new statisticians to help cook the books. They can fly them in on jets to some posh mansions with huge carbon footprints. ;)

Hell, they will have to cook the books just to stay warm!:pound:

[davew]

so will Biden get back into the Paris Accord?


it gives a free pass for China until 2030 and will hinder North America and Europe.

[tucker6]

so will Biden get back into the Paris Accord?


it gives a free pass for China until 2030 and will hinder North America and Europe.

It’s what $10M/year should get you if you’re China. Biden needs to honor his contractual obligation to China or I will lose all respect for him as the American president. After all, we are only paying him $400k/year.

[davew]

special climate envoy John Kerry going to help negotiate the Paris Climate accords on behalf of pres Biden and the USA.

I love the way he dealt with Iran.


It seems like plane loads of cash will be going to other places in the world.

[PaceAdvantage]

Somewhere, someplace, ely is smiling

[Tom]

He is probably sitting in some Chinese restaurant eating a bowl of fried rice that he got gratis.

[davew]

Kerry said USA has less than 10% of 'greenhouse gasses' and even if we cut it to zero, it will still be too late.

We should kill our economy and cut emissions to zero just in case.

[davew]

can someone explain why the country has to be very aggressive with climate for our children and grandchildren ....


and yet printing money and adding trillions of national debt does not hurt our children and grandchildren?

[PaceAdvantage]

all part of the cucking

[xtb]

Somewhere, someplace, ely is smiling

He’s near his culvert.