Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise


The problem with this response is twofold. First you are categorizing any attempt to address the issue as redistributing wealth, I can see the logic when applied to Kyoto, but if a direct tax was applied to fossil fuels and perhaps offset by a reduction in corporate tax to ease the burden on business, I don't see how you reach the conclusion you do.

Second you conflate the hysteria surrounding global warming with what we know about global warming itself. Where do you get the idea that AGW is only accountable for 15% of the current warming? Seems to me you need to fudge the figures in order to minimize the effect AGW is having, which as I said, makes the moral dilemma of not doing anything seem so much more palatable. Just pretend it's a lot less than virtually everyone suggests, that it's a good thing. I hear you Fred, you go on and keep telling yourself that, if it provides comfort for you.

Just don't expect anyone to want to talk more deeply on what to do, at what cost, and what it will achieve. That would be pretty pointless as you reject the mainstream scientific opinion. It would be kind of like discussing the moral dilemma of unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape with Todd Akin who thinks this is a non issue, because of some bullshit he just made up. to back up that 15% figure with some hard facts?


It has been settled for years.

That depends on what steps we take.

Reducing carbon output.

  1. Why will this be a [strike]universally[/strike] bad thing?[/quote]


Reduction of carbon output and global temperature increase.

If you want to discuss the science (which you clearly do not), please accompany your posts with quotations from the relevant peer reviewed professional scholarly literature.



This is completely false. No one is asking you to have faith; you have been inundated in verifiable scientific facts. Additionally, no one has said it is not supposed to make sense; on the contrary, it is plain, simple, and primary school children can understand it.

That is very clear. You can't afford to acknowledge the fact, because it conflicts with your ideological and political beliefs.


Conservatives don't believe in science. They believe in a Christian God. So setting aside science for the time being, its clear that this hurricane is God's wrath sent down to punish the Republicans... :laughing:


At least that makes sense. They're well overdue for a divine whipping.


So the science is settled and Fred Smith and his misbegotten Republican cohorts are behind the learning curve... so why then are all the governments of the world doing less and less since the 1990s? Kyoto was the high mark of the "international effort" and all that promised to do was stave off global warming by meaningless amount at a great cost in the BEST of scenarios ACCORDING TO THE PROPONENTS.

Now, all we have is well-meaning (haha) types going to international conferences where they find their inner aboriginal type and beat drums to placate Mother Earth. Laughable? or just plain sad? You decide and you don't need your much vaunted "settled science" to do that.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:


I do want to try to understand the reasoning of not believing in global warming -- which is not inherently republican or democratic -- but the arguments brought up are so pathetically stupid...


So once again you are going to avoid addressing any of the science and simply rehearse your denialist script.


Well, apparently, I and all the world leaders and world governments and world bureaucracies and major corporations (except for their pandering green ads to SELL MORE CONSUMERIST SHIT) are all on the same page. Now, now, now, be sure and turn to page 6 for Baba Yaga; the Tooth Fairy is on page 12 and, better yet, head to page 23 for the Bad Easter Bunny. Your kindergarteners will be soooo impressed.

Reminds me of all the hype over the Occupy Wall Street protests... Today, what is left? financial services companies marketing their products on Bloomberg to would-be investors with the promise that they can become "one of the one percent." Ah... the unintended ironies... What if the French Revolution had ended with massive ads about "eating royally" or "living like a king?"

Perhaps, we will eventually see Taco Bell marketing burritos that will "warm your world." Or better yet, salsa verde that will "need a hurricane of unparalleled intensity" to quench your thirst? Maybe Abercrombie and Fitch with models so hot that they will "melt the polar ice caps" when you wear their T-shirts? I think that it is only a matter of time... And think of what a hero you can be to your kindergarteners when you tell them that, like Galileo, you fought the evil atavistic anachronistic forces of reactionary religion ever so bravely why so bravely that you were like a knight on a steed charging against the windmills... whoops... guess Don Quixote beat you to the punch... which will have so much of an alcohol kick that it will "result in species extinction!" Get those credit cards out folks cuz someone here is "this close" to being nominated for a CNN Hero nomination! Our very own! Force of intepred intellectual integrity! Fortigurn! and what better sidekick than Big John Pancho Sanchez on his donkey... (but you know the word that I really want to use, right?)

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:


Do you honestly believe anything you actually write?


Science is ALWAYS "a matter for dispute". That's what makes it SCIENCE, as opposed to religion.


You're equivocating. As a discipline, science encourages reasoned dispute as part of the peer review process. However, when scientific conclusions have been established through repeated verification, multiple independent witness, and robust peer review, and have resisted falsification persistently, they are no longer considered matters of dispute. Those who do dispute them typically do so with complete disregard for the scientific method, and for ideological purposes. They are cranks, and are self-excluded from the realm of intelligent discourse.

So there is no 'vaccination dispute', there is no 'creation/evolution dispute', there is no 'geocentrism/heliocentrism dispute', and there is no 'anthropogenic global warming dispute'. There is a scientific consensus on all of these issues, and those who dispute them are typically gibbering loons whose intellectually impoverished spittle-flecked shrieks are unencumbered by rational thought.


Equivocating? ha that is rich.

so what does your science tell you is going to happen to the earth and has that born out? and more important what is your policy prescription for solving the "problem" when even the IPCC report notes that it will not be a "problem" for the whole world AND how will transfers of money to corrupt nonfunctioning Third World nations "solve the problem?"

Yes, there is a lot of equivocating except when it comes to the liberal mindless left and its need to spend other peoples money to feel good about itself. I believe that is called "making a difference" or perhaps "being an agent for change," or "taking action." Whatever you want to call it is fine with me as long as you do it on your OWN dime.


See the link I gave you previously.

Yes. As you have been shown previously, the science of global warming was established in the 19th century, the mechanism of anthropogenic global warming was also understood in the 19th century, and by the end of the 19th century there was already evidence for anthropogenic global warming. In the 1950s Gilbert Plass made three key predictions concerning climate change on the basis of AGW science; all three predictions came true around 50 years later. In 1981 James Hansen and his colleagues made a future global temperature projection based on observations of past and existing conditions; their projection proved highly accurate.


Highly accurate? Okay. I will accept that for the sake of argument. So, if it is highly accurate then why should I as an American worry. It will be beneficial to the US and Canada overall. Works for me. Why should my money go to fight something that is expected to be a major net benefit to me and my country? Now, let's hear about the transfers of wealth that are needed because we are to blame for other countries' suffering. And then tell me how giving hundres of millions to island states in the Pacific or Caribbean or the usual cast of African basket cases is going to help resolve this issue. Cannot wait. Cannot wait. And remember, you should not be angry at me. After all, I am just following the lead of ALL major countries in the world in doing nothing about global warming... right?


What evidence do you have that AGW is beneficial to the US and Canada overall?


Cue the definitive report, that must not be doubted, from Heartland or Cato institute in 3, 2,1.

After all the pontificating Mr. Smith does on the unknowns of modelling, future trends, unpredictability and complexity of nature and how much is still uncertain. He states as fact, " It will be beneficial to the US and Canada overall", that one we know for sure! Must-try-to-contain-my-contempt.


It seems fred has become a warmist.

My 'solution' to the 'problem' ( :smiley: ) would be for governments to stop fucking with price signals. That's it.


Overall I agree with you. But I think that AGW is new enough as a theory which is widely supported by the scientific community to allow some space for challenge and critical thinking, perhaps not of the core science, but of the somewhat alarmist assumptions some people have of rising sea levels, killer storms etc based on some of the possible effects mentioned by the scientists.


Those aren't part of the science, so my original point remains; there is no controversy, there is no debate, the science is settled, and this is not a matter of dispute. I certainly agree with you that the alarmist assumptions some people have should be quashed, and qualified scientists are typically the people doing exactly that. Ironically such scenarios are typically invoked by the media (irresponsible), and those who refuse to accept the scientific consensus (ignorant), who want people to believe that's what the scientists are actually saying (which they aren't).


What was the last start up industry that didn't get a leg up from the government? Rail? Aerospace? Hi-tech? :laughing: Auto? :roflmao:

Is CO2 not an effluent? Does it not have greenhouse properties? Why not managed like any other? and, thanks to the clean water act, clean water is regulated.