Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise


Fred has always been on the cutting edge of 40 years ago.


I understand how someone with consistent principles might be a surprise to you.

As to the others, yeah yeah yeah, you were all against communism especially in hindsight... You were all against the Soviets ... in hindsight... remember how you yelled and screamed about the insane Reagan and how he was going to destroy the world... kinda sorta like you did with George W and the Middle East... not one of you is ever for standing up against oppression, the real kind but you certainly are brave at standing up against democratic governments that will do nothing more than give you street cred for your "brave stances." Save it for your Occupy Wall Street gatherings... not impressed.


My guess is that most liberals from Forumosa at the time (that weren't in pampers or in kindy--attending not teaching :laughing: ), preached peaceful co-existence as these academic eggheads did (that Tigerman references in his post).

How wrong they were!!! :laughing: ... ow#p188250


Fred, what do you think about 2010, warmest year on record since records began? Think we are heading for a new record high in the next 5 years? I'd say it's coming. Drought conditions in the US could last for many years this time too.


when did "records begin?"

Perhaps, but what are you going to do about it?

Sorta kinda like the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s before "CO2 emissions were driving manmade global warming?"


Since late 1800s, coincidence, scientists don't seem to think so, it follows the climatic models.

Yes drought cycles are part of normal climate change, but should be exacerbated by rising temperatures. This IS a big deal considering how important US corn is to the worlds food apply. Doesn't help that 40% of it is turned into biofuels for no good reason though.


Let's make a simple analogy even you can understand. Everywhere in the world has murders. But if the rate starts spiking everywhere then we have a serious problem. It would be really pointless, even if true, to argue that because the rates are only a high as during meideval times there is nothing to worry about. The pace of change would be exceptionally disruptive. Imagine South African level of murder rates in the US and the effects on business, education, and general civility.

Climate change presents similar worries. We simply aren't prepared for the worst, continuous droughts, floods and once in a century storms, to become the norm.


Yes, we were against Communism, against the Soviets. We just didn't think that threatening them with nukes was the right way to go about opposing them.

Sorry, but your views about what liberals think are not informed by reality, but rather by the bizarre strawman caricature concocted by the likes of Limbaugh. If you want to know what liberals think, ask liberals. I base my opinions about conservatives on things that they actually say.

Thankfully Gorbachev came along and it was his actions that led to the end of Soviet and Eastern Bloc Communism. I cheered when the Berlin Wall fell, and also when the Soviet Union fell.


Ah yes, those famous models which are whichever one is right this time?

So biofuels were once the solution for so many of these problems and well, the results are not what they should have been and they had unfortunate side effects in making food very pricey indeed for all those poor people that were supposed to suffer disproportionately because of climate change. I would suggest that many of the solutions being proposed would pose similar problems. But don't let that stop you all from rushing to prove that you are true soldiers to the Cross, er, cause. After all, it is all about "making a difference" whether you do and whether it is a good difference, well, how rude of someone to question people of pure purpose, right?


The whole 'we opposed the Soviet Union with an arms race' and it worked is up for debate. It worked...this time. But it almost resulted in a full scale nuclear war, multiple times! (look at 53 minute onwards)

Estimated casualty figure for a full scale nuclear war was 100 million. ... 983-a62648

It was in fact an extremely high risk strategy that could have literally blown up in the worlds faces.


Yes, it was all due to Gorbachev, nothing to do with Reagan, right? Would you take Gorbachev's word regarding the fall of the Soviet Union as gospel and others from former Communist nations? or is this one of your many decisions that will be governed by your emotional dysfunctionality regarding Republicans and their capabilities and motives? Wow. What did you have to do at St. Olaf anyway? work in the cafeteria? insulting to your dignity? or was the lutefisk and Christmas Choir celebration just too much?


Sometimes you roll the dice and it goes your way, that's what happened in the cold war and there was nothing inevitable about it. You should admit that Fred.

The issue of biofuels is really interesting,I have always been against it as it doesn't make any sense to drain aquifers and burn fuel and use fertiliser to grow corn to then turn it back into fuel again and create more pollution while you are doing it. Now it's causing huge knock-on effects for food prices. But the farm lobby absolutely love it. There were a lot of misguided environmental types who went for it at the start too. Presidents such as GWB loved it as they could claim they were creating 'energy independence'. It deserves it's own thread I think.


I'm not surprised at all when I meet people who have not changed their positions since they were 10. Sadly they tend to believe this consistency is a virtue as demonstrated by your post above.

As for cheering the Soviets, that would have got me in a whole lot of trouble at the catholic schools I attended from grade 1-12. :laughing:


The collapse of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with Reagan and everything to do with Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika.

My opposition to Republicans has everything to do with their policy positions.

I did work in the caf, by the way, by choice. I did it for the experience. And believe it or not, I looked forward to the lutefisk every Christmas. :lick:


I can understand planned economies, but planned weather? What doe the Commies have to do with global warming? Yet another plot?

Possibly a "short" term trend, but the weather windows for long distance sailing have changed quite significantly over the last 30 years. More frequent and more severe storms are appearing outside the usual seasons. This is well documented by route planners.


No. It is that those who once supported Communism moved effortlessly into radical militant environmentalism (hello Joschka Fischer) after communism was discredited and with nary a mea culpa. Same redistributionist policies. Same failed intelligence. Same class resentment and hostility to traditional family values (haha deliberate so deliberate and yet so true...) As to those who claim to have rolled the dice and won or lost, we stood up against Communism and fought it tooth and nail for the evil system that it was while the left sought to accommodate it and to even EMULATE it. Thatcher and Reagan not only rolled it back abroad but also at home... Unfortunately, the good fight was watered down and even Republicans like George W. were opening the troughs to expenditure for "the good of the people."


I've heard of people battling their own demons, tilting at windmills (the non-generating type of course), and arguing against strawmen, but Fred does take it to a whole other level. :bravo: :laughing:


[quote="fred smith"]
No. It is that those who once supported Communism moved effortlessly into radical militant environmentalism (hello Joschka Fischer) after communism was discredited and with nary a mea culpa. quote]

No, you have failed to give any evidence at all of any signifcant migration from communism to environmentalism.


OK, fred, I'll address your points.

Yes, I agree. When I make a statement, I usually agree with myself. :slight_smile:

Yes. What is your point? Would you have preferred they include any Tom, Dick or Harry with an opinion on climate change? This is basic stuff. They wanted to get an idea of where climate scientists stood on the subject, and so they established a logical and neutral parameter for who would be included in the study. The parameter was a minimum of 20 publications on the subject of climate change. I will ask again: Do you have any specific objections to the selection and research methodology used by the National Academy of Sciences? If not, do you concede the accuracy of their findings?

Your remaining two points (restated multiple times in various ways) are that 1. Not everybody benefits from the transition away from fossil fuels and that 2. The costs of the solutions may exceed the benefits. In response, I will say that I agree some individuals will not benefit. People who work in the fossil fuel industry will not benefit, at least not in the short term. And the higher costs could negatively impact many others, in the short term. What I should have said was that all people will benefit in the long term.

Here is a simple truth. Fossil fuels will eventually run out. It's in our rational self-interest as a species to figure out a way to fuel our societies with renewable energy sources. At the same time, refining crude fossil fuels, and using the end products, generates by products that harm the environment in a multitude of ways, and contribute to global warming. It's in our rational self-interest as a species to control and shape our environment to our needs. Regarding the cost benefit analysis of such measures, I've heard scientists speak with optimism about reducing carbon emissions and converting to renewable energy sources, but I can't give you a dollar for energy unit estimate if that's what you're after. I doubt any such thing exists. You're asking for absolutes in a world of uncertainty.

To be honest, I am concerned about the long term feasibility of converting to renewable energy sources. Will they be enough to power our cities and towns? Will they be profitable enough to entice industry? I am in favor of funding research into renewable energy, but I wouldn't want it to become an industry dominated by government subsidies, and all of the political intrigue that entails. What we need is for clean, renewable energy sources to become profitable in the free market.

I don't know how to make that happen, but until it does, "going green" is just a pipe dream.


Ranting and raving here, who cares?