|
Originally Posted by SayAlt
(Post 2104866)
Yeah? How about you fear-mongers actually prove the theory BEFORE spending tens of billions of taxpayer funds trying to implement the solutions to the problems the unproven theory claims to pose. I know, I know. It's a novel concept for some folks. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 2104867)
What level of proof would be acceptable to you?
I know, that's asking to much. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox
(Post 2104829)
The climate has ALWAYS been changing. It's been much much warmer and colder before, even during human existence.
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 2104863)
Intelligent conversation with you is impossible, since you fundamentally do not understand the issue.
This would be like during the Great Depression or the Global Economic Crisis saying, the stock market 'has ALWAYS been changing. It's been much' higher and lower before, and banks are always going out of business. |
Originally Posted by Flytolive
(Post 2104972)
Amazing, isn't it?
This would be like during the Great Depression or the Global Economic Crisis saying, the stock market 'has ALWAYS been changing. It's been much' higher and lower before, and banks are always going out of business. Global weather patterns and climate were here long before any human walked on this earth. Trying to equate that with a man made global economy is not going to help you push your agenda. Man could burn every paper bill and melt every coin - destroy every stock market and bank - abolish any credit system. Effectively reduce us back to a primitive barter economy, if everyone decided to make it happen. It wouldn't be easy, but it actually is theoretically possible. On the other hand, everyone could decide they didn't want summer to come (or winter if you're "down under") or maybe something a little simpler :rolleyes: like making the ocean warmer or colder (your pick) and we know that would be futile endeavor. |
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
(Post 2105027)
Global weather patterns and climate were here long before any human walked on this earth.
|
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
(Post 2105027)
I couldn't let this one go, since I actually laughed out loud when I read it.
Irony is completely lost on Flytolive, even as he posts about others failure to understand. He actually just tried to argue that economic theory is fundamentally different from climate theory. You can't make this chit up. https://media1.giphy.com/media/LbfT5qdS9m1zy/200.gif (edit: I stand corrected. Flytolive manages to do it, somehow.) |
Originally Posted by SayAlt
(Post 2104873)
How about that which is derived from integrity and scientific method that isn't manipulated to comport with the theory, for starters.
I know, that's asking to much. :rolleyes: My bad. That should be "too" much. :mad: |
Originally Posted by Flytolive
(Post 2104972)
Amazing, isn't it?
This would be like during the Great Depression or the Global Economic Crisis saying, the stock market 'has ALWAYS been changing. It's been much' higher and lower before, and banks are always going out of business. |
Exactly so, Tom.
|
Originally Posted by SayAlt
(Post 2104268)
Well la tee da. :rolleyes:
The point was fear-mongering warmists are now openly advocating for the arrest and killing of those who disagree with them. Across a host of issues, the radical left is seeking to stiffle debate ("The debate is over") and curtail the freedom of speech (using threats of imprisonment or death). Fascists will always be fascists, same as they've always been. And if you need someone to point it out or provide you links to it all, then you are not nearly as "informed" as you claim to be. |
Actually, Iceman, what I said was....
Originally Posted by SayAlt
(Post 2104268)
fear-mongering warmists are now openly advocating for the arrest and killing of those who disagree with them. Across a host of issues, the radical left is seeking to stiffle debate ("The debate is over") and curtail the freedom of speech (using threats of imprisonment or death). Fascists will always be fascists, same as they've always been. The letter sent Sept. 1 called on Obama, the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Attorney General Loretta Lynch to use the RICO racketeering law to investigate “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” (<--- Re-read that) The letter was harshly criticized by a number of other climate scientists such as Georgia Tech’s Judith Curry and hurricane expert Peter Webster, who say invoking the RICO statute was at least partly aimed at scientists who question the data and conclusions put out by organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, often cited by the Obama administration. RICO letter to Obama gets curiouser and curiouser - Watchdog.org Loretta Lynch has 'considered legal action against climate change deniers' | Daily Mail Online Meanwhile, warmists have written a play called "Kill the Deniers", which the playwrites have called a "fun" slant on the topic, a title which, if directed at your side of the debate, would undoubtedly be met with widespread outrage and condemnation... Kill the Deniers ? a government-funded fantasy play where ?guns? solve climate issues « JoNova And finally, as I have pointed out, there is a BIG difference in the proven science in the link between cancer and tobacco vs. the nebulous and unproven science of "climate change", which unmasks the desire to use RICO laws to investigate and prosecute "climate deniers" for exactly what it is...a fascist desire to stiffle debate and squash resistance to their political "consensus". As the "warmists" are so fond of telling us, "the debate is over". And now they want to use fear and intimidation to enforce their desires. But then, fascists will always be fascists. |
|
Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox
(Post 2105942)
stevengoddard
Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a blogger and the publisher of "Real Science," a website he established to promulgate his assertions that concerns over anthropogenic global warming are unfounded. Before establishing his own blog, Goddard built his reputation as a challenger to anthropogenic climate change theories through frequent postings on the Watts Up with That? blog. Goddard wrote pseudonymously until 2014 when he revealed his true real identity on his blog. He has a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Master's degree in electrical engineering from Rice University. https://tonyhellerakastevengoddardis....wordpress.com |
Originally Posted by Flytolive
(Post 2106053)
Why would you cite this guy in reference to global climate change? So let's be clear here, Flytolive. Your contention is that collusion and/or fraud have never taken place on the warmers side of the debate. No one has cooked or manipulated the data in ti fit the unproven theory in any way nor at any time? Don't dance around the question. Answer yes or no. |
Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming April 8, 2016 4:47 PM EST ByMegan McArdle The Competitive Enterprise Institute is getting subpoenaed by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands to cough up its communications regarding climate change. The scope of the subpoena is quite broad, covering the period from 1997 to 2007, and includes, according to CEI, “a decade’s worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information.” My first reaction to this news was http://i.imgur.com/52T12ys.jpg CEI has long denied humans' role in global warming, and I have fairly substantial disagreements with CEI on the issue. However, when last I checked, it was not a criminal matter to disagree with me. It’s a pity, I grant you, but there it is; the law’s the law. Speaking of the law, why on earth is CEI getting subpoenaed? The attorney general, Claude Earl Walker, explains: “We are committed to ensuring a fair and transparent market where consumers can make informed choices about what they buy and from whom. If ExxonMobil has tried to cloud their judgment, we are determined to hold the company accountable.” That wasn't much of an explanation. It doesn't mention any law that ExxonMobil may have broken. And it is also borderline delusional, if Walker believes that ExxonMobil’s statements or non-statements about climate change during the period 1997 to 2007 appreciably affected consumer propensity to stop at a Mobil station, rather than tootling down the road to Shell or Chevron, or giving up their car in favor of walking to work. State attorneys general including Walker held a press conference last week to talk about the investigation of ExxonMobil and explain their theory of the case. And yet, there sort of wasn’t a theory of the case. They spent a lot of time talking about global warming, and how bad it was, and how much they disliked fossil fuel companies. They threw the word “fraud” around a lot. But the more they talked about it, the more it became clear that what they meant by “fraud” was “advocating for policies that the attorneys general disagreed with.” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman gave the game away when he explained that they would be pursuing completely different theories in different jurisdictions -- some under pension laws, some consumer protection, some securities fraud. It is traditional, when a crime has actually been committed, to first establish that a crime has occurred, and then identify a perpetrator. When prosecutors start running that process backwards, it’s a pretty good sign that you’re looking at prosecutorial power run amok. And that approaches certainty when attorneys general start sending subpoenas to think tanks that ExxonMobil might have supported. What exactly would the subpoena prove? That ExxonMobil supported opinions about climate change? That the opinions tended to be congruent with its own interests? That this opinion might have been wrong, and if so, might have encouraged wrong beliefs in others? This is a description of, roughly, every person or organization in the history of the world, not excluding attorneys general. It’s also not illegal. Especially since, as the New York Times points out, “the company published extensive research over decades that largely lined up with mainstream climatology.” This isn’t preventing consumers from buying into a Ponzi scheme; it’s an attempt to criminalize advocacy. I support action on climate change for the same reason I buy homeowner’s, life and disability insurance: because the potential for catastrophe is large. But that doesn’t mean I’m entitled to drive people who disagree with me from the public square. Climate activists have an unfortunate tendency to try to do just that, trying to brand dissenters as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. It's an understandable impulse. It seems easier to shut down dissenters than to persuade people to stop consuming lots and lots of energy-intensive goods and services. But history has had lots and lots of existentially important debates. If you thought that only the One True Church could save everyone from Hell, the Reformation was the most existentially important debate in human history. If you thought that Communist fifth columnists were plotting to turn the U.S. into Soviet Russia, that was also pretty existentially important. We eventually realized that it was much better to have arguments like these with words, rather than try to suppress one side of them by force of law. Unfortunately those who wield the law forget that lesson, and we get cases like the CEI subpoena, intended to silence debate by hounding one side. The attorney general doesn't even need to have the law on his side; the process itself can be the punishment, as victims are forced to spend immense amounts on legal fees, and immense time and money on complying with investigations. (And if the law were on the attorney general's side in a case like this, then that’s a terrible law, and it should be overturned.) Prosecutors know the damage they can do even when they don't have a leg to stand on. The threat of investigation can coerce settlements even in weak cases. The enemies of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil should hold their applause. In a liberal democracy, every guerrilla tactic your side invents will eventually be used against you. Imagine a coalition of Republican attorneys general announcing an investigation of companies that have threatened state boycotts over gay-rights issues, and you may get a sense of why this is not such a good precedent to set. The rule of law, and our norms about free speech, represent a sort of truce between both sides. We all agree to let other people talk, because we don’t want to live in a world where we ourselves are not free to speak. Because we do not want to be silenced by an ambitious prosecutor, we should all be vigilant when ambitious prosecutors try to silence anyone else. Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming - Bloomberg View Emphasis in red my own. Once again, for the warmers... It is traditional, when a crime has actually been committed, to first establish that a crime has occurred, and then identify a perpetrator. When prosecutors start running that process backwards, it’s a pretty good sign that you’re looking at prosecutorial power run amok. |
|
|
No, more like this.... http://comicallyincorrect.com/wp-con...re-600-AEA.jpg ......and this.... http://batr.org/sitebuildercontent/s...-the-gulag.jpg |
|
Originally Posted by Glenntilton
(Post 2106832)
http://www.gwally.com/news/photos/catintinfoilhat.jpg |
Actually, given what fascists like you have done in history, Flytolive, it's very understandable, right, and proper that people would be paranoid of fascists.
Your agenda may be different, but your tactics and methods are always the same. |
|
“This is a huge, looming planetary crisis, and we are sticking our heads in the sand about it,” said Justin Marshall, the director of CoralWatch at Australia’s University of Queensland. |
|
Originally Posted by badflaps
(Post 2107213)
For some reason the second largest reef in the world (Belize-Honduras) is doing just fine. Go figure.
|
|
Originally Posted by Flytolive
(Post 2107192)
Junk Science, cherry picking facts and arbitrary evidence = the inconvenient truth. I think this quote sums it up best.
|
Originally Posted by Flytolive
(Post 2106864)
Disclose.tv? That's hilarious. It is an example of a 'websh!te' thus called because the information on it is 'sh!te'. This 'websh!te' is especially sh!te in that its mission is covering conspiracy theories. Perfect.
http://www.gwally.com/news/photos/catintinfoilhat.jpg |
|
Let's let George Carlin have the last word on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4 Common sense delivered with his typical flair. Nothing more to say. :D |
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
(Post 2107433)
Let's let George Carlin have the last word on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4 Common sense delivered with his typical flair. ^^^^^^^^Devastatingly, hilariously accurate.^^^^^^^^^ :D Nobody exposes the enviro-wacko nut-jobs for who & what they are as well as Carlin did. |
Originally Posted by Glenntilton
(Post 2107409)
"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so — half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case." He also thinks that because the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature in degrees Kelvin is not linear that it doesn't exist. Yikes. I don't know what is funnier people citing this guy or George Carlin with regards to climate change. Who next? Kim Kardashian? Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus |
Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change
We undersigned scientists, who have been awarded Nobel Prizes, have come to the shores of Lake Constance in southern Germany, to share insights with promising young researchers, who like us come from around the world. Nearly 60 years ago, here on Mainau, a similar gathering of Nobel Laureates in science issued a declaration of the dangers inherent in the newly found technology of nuclear weapons—a technology derived from advances in basic science. So far we have avoided nuclear war though the threat remains. We believe that our world today faces another threat of comparable magnitude. Successive generations of scientists have helped create a more and more prosperous world. This prosperity has come at the cost of a rapid rise in the consumption of the world’s resources. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy. Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity. In response to the possibility of human-induced climate change, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the world’s leaders a summary of the current state of relevant scientific knowledge. While by no means perfect, we believe that the efforts that have led to the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report represent the best source of information regarding the present state of knowledge on climate change. We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process. Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades. Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessments. Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk. Mainau Island, Germany 3 July 2015 Nobel Laureate signatorees Peter Agre Hiroshi Amano J.M. Bishop David Baltimore Elizabeth Blackburn Aaron Ciechanover Martin Chalfie Elias Corey Steven Chu Robert Curl Claude Cohen-Tannoudji Johann Deisenhofer James W. Cronin Sheldon Glashow Peter Doherty Robert Grubbs Gerhard Ertl Leland Hartwell Edmond Fischer Dudley Herschbach Walter Gilbert Roald Hoffmann Roy Glauber Wolfgang Ketterle David Gross Walter Kohn John L. Hall Yuan T. Lee Serge Haroche Michael Levitt Stefan Hell John Mather Jules H. Hoffmann Arthur B. McDonald Klaus von Klitzing Edvard Moser Harold Kroto May-Britt Moser William Moerner Ryoji Noyori Ferid Murad Paul Nurse Ei-ichi Negishi John O'Keefe Saul Perlmutter Douglas Osheroff William Phillips Arno Penzias Richard Roberts Carlo Rubbia Kailash Satyarthi Oliver Smithies Brian Schmidt Jack Steinberger Hamilton O. Smith Thomas Steitz George Smoot Horst Störmer Jack Szostak Thomas Südhof Roger Y. Tsien John Sulston Harold Varmus Joseph H. Taylor J. Robin Warren Carl Wieman Arieh Warshel David Wineland Torsten Wiesel Robert Wilson |
|
Celebrity activists often sabotage their own credibility. Arriving at a climate conference in a private jet is like arriving at a PETA convention in a mink coat. :rolleyes:
|
|
|
|
|
Just saw this at Reason.com; "Liberals have other reasons to be leery. Sanders portrays climate change as "the single greatest threat facing our planet" even as he demands a ban on fracking. But the main reason the United States has been able to reduce carbon emissions in recent years is that we have replaced coal with natural gas—which has become more abundant thanks to fracking."
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:04 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands