Marc Morano:
'Now that the United Nations has officially 'solved' man-made global warming, does this mean we never have to hear about 'global warming' fears again!? Does this mean we can halt the endless supply of federal tax dollars funding 'climate change' studies? Does this mean we can stop worrying about 'global warming's' ability to end civilization and cause wars, and increase
prostitution, bar
room brawls, rape, airline turbulence, etc.? Can we finally move on to other issues? I spent the last week in Paris marveling at how so many believe a form of modern witchcraft: That a UN agreement or EPA climate regulations can alter Earth's temperature and the level of storms. But now I realize that if they truly believe the UN has solved 'climate change' even skeptics should rejoice! Now that the UN treaty has 'solved' global warming, can we all just move on to something else?'
70 comments:
Of course they're weeping...tears of joy at the thought of the carbon tax haul.
They'll need a new crisis starting next year.
Remember when they propagated the thought that the UN would prevent future wars. There used to be a line that if we had joined the League of Nations, then WWII would never have happened......I think the chance of one's being wrong is directly proportional to the self righteousness of one's belief. In any event too much self righteousness is itself a vice.
In science, it's hard to prove a negative. I mean, when something doesn't happen, you can't be sure why. But it was important to get these accords in and signed in time to take credit for something that won't happen.
We stopped global warming, man...
The green police, they want inside of my head
The green police, they come off to me as reds
The green police, they're coming to arrest me, oh, no
As was said about much of our foreign aid decades ago "taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries." Now today under a new banner they are at it again. This robbery is exactly what it's designed to do, and it's the only thing it will succeed at, so it's no wonder that a bunch of the rich poseurs from around the world met at the trough in joyous agreement. And these same people will tell you they fret about how "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". We are getting robbed blind and broke by concern - hand-wringing, exaggeration-spewing concern. It's like Chicken Little was put in charge of taxation. What we need is to get these people to direct their hearts toward helping ISIS. That would hurt them more than all the sorties we can muster.
Exactly Chickie. How long before we start seeing news stories of how this theft is already slowing down the warming and saving the planet. I suppose it will start out with how it changed minds and personal habits toward helping, and then how the taxes have already started encouraging industry to what was needed to slow the warming. The thing is that emissions and the the CO2 level will likely continue to rise even as temperatures don't keep pace, thereby disproving the main tenet of the whole thing, but it won't matter. They will take the credit, and say they were right, because the science never had anything to do with it anyway. The warming is already far less than predicted just due to their good hearts and pure thoughts.
It seems to me that a lot of what happened at the summit was a realization that the planet was not going to warm like they planned, so an agreement was needed, and quick. If the temperatures do rise then they were right and can ask for even more, and if they don't rise, they can claim success and keep their prize money - win/win. The one thing they can't risk is no agreement, because if the rise continues to be elusive, they will be proven wrong with no prize money.
No one claimed it was solved. The only thing claimed is that they made a meager and insufficient, but necessary and important first step.
But that's more than Republicans and other obstructionists can accomplish so I guess it is worth highlighting and celebrating.
It's nice to know that Marc Moron believes that environmental destruction is inevitable and outside of human control. I will tell every chemical manufacturer of toxic sludge that his property will serve as an important test-case to that proposition. And then everyone in town will have a new garbage dump, as well! Thanks, Marc Moron!!!
But it was important to get these accords in and signed in time to take credit for something that won't happen.
Videos of things that haven't happened.
Chickie - do you honestly believe that the great coral reefs have are not being bleached and dying off?
It will be interesting to see once mollusks can no longer make shells how Chickie will rejoice in having his own negative not proved.
People who do not define their threshold level of evidence for being convinced or persuaded don't need evidence in the first place. They never did.
Check out the industries Chickie et al are willing to throw under the bus so that they can play favorites with Exxon-Mobil instead:
http://www.nrdc.org/media/2015/150223.asp
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/28/3713061/washington-oregon-ocean-acidification/
I guess they were on the wrong side of the winners and losers in the free market that you felt you had a right to choose for everyone else.
No solving. Preening and taxing.
No, we cannot do any of those restful things. All of this nonsense all of this buildup is only Act 1.
They went to France to eat and be merry to enjoy themselves and pretend some relevance some way to assuage their own gnawing guilt of their own excesses. Filling the giant hole consuming their empty lives void of meaning like a Florida sinkhole, a cenote their cenotaph .
Entering Act 2 You will all now eat, drink, sleep, work, think, speak, poo Global Climate Change.
Your new world religion and you will worship and you will love one another in peace and harmony without firearms for Global Climate Change is your protector.
You will tithe and tithe again for the new religion stands for a great reawakening and sorely needed repair. Then tithe again for your new Global Climate Change, IS a wealth transfer shell game, you know, actually from all strata of developed nations to the wealthy of undeveloped nations for it is they who know best among them and they are our friends. Friends of the Earth and all that is love. Critical points for new channels of economic flow cut out of yours.
Real trickle-down Reagan Economics, these Global Climate Change religionists. How they have suffered so long for want of religion, and now GLORY that aching need is fulfilled.
Yes you will tithe upon tithe, you will twitiethe and you will thirtithe and that not being enough you will fortiithe and fiftenthe .
Know what I mean?xxxxxxxx Do you know what is meant?
On your knees and pray for forgiveness.
Stone your apostates.
With we, your high priests positioned ourselves at the confluence of your economic channels and redirecting the flow to new channels opened by us. Remora steer sharks like Paul Atreides steer sandworm.
Pay your goddamn indulgences.
Now, SUCK
the
BIG
LEEZORD !
Amen.
Sorry dear, I'm agnostic. No wait, I'm atheist. No wait, agnostic. No wait. You know what? Shut up. We agnostical atheists love science. We love science mentally. We love science emotionally with emotion that is well informed scientifically. We love science in the morning, noon, and night, we sing science in the bathroom and the elevators and or worktables, we love science thoroughly. We love science sexually.
Science is my girlfriend.
So, no church for me. I'm busy fucking science in the plastic mouth for I so love all this science-y science. Do you think it is easy out crackpotting a crackpot? It's work. Dedication.
Is this the last we'll hear about it? Uh, WE have to pay for it. So, no, it's not. The last we'll hear about this blatantly obvious scam to redistribute money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
I love how the media report that "nations came together",. No they didn't. Elite leaders and rich corporatists came together.
All sorts of horrible things are happening because of global pollution. Not "Climate" - which is ever changing anyway due to factors out of our control. Unless John Kerry married an even wealthier woman with the keys to the sun.
Chip's never done a science experiment in his life.
But he does write a tendentious, distracting, personal postmodern diatribe better than anyone.
All sorts of horrible things are happening because of global pollution. Not "Climate" - which is ever changing anyway due to factors out of our control.
Hilarious.
"Human actions may pollute the planet but NOT change the way it regulates temperature." So decreed, so noted.
The priestess of THE EARTH IS STRONGER THAN US movement has declared it so.
Just as we were never able to crack the atom we will never be able to fully comprehend the earth's systems of climate regulation. Or, of course, impact them.
This must be stated regularly and with religious certainty in order to decree that those who disagree and have evidence to back it up are the obstinate ones.
Chips assessment that climate change is a scam is closer to the truth when you consider that these environmentalists reject nuclear.
Nuclear power would significantly reduce emissions more than anything else out there.
"Videos of things that haven't happened yet" shows a glacier melting.
My home town in Pennsylvania had a glacier. It was a mile thick and it melted too...10,000 years ago. That town had a steel mill run on coal, so that's probably why.
It will be interesting to see once mollusks can no longer make shells how Chickie will rejoice in having his own negative not proved."
CO2 levels are high and rising. They have been higher in the past, although not the recent past. Stealing money from poor people and giving to rich people has not been shown to correlate with CO2 levels. More study is needed.
I don't have an opinion on global warming.
How often do you read that on the great World Wide Web?
But, I do see plenty of reason to doubt the motives of the bureaucratic hustlers running the show here.
Plus, I'm beginning to see disturbing signs that the demand for PC and for racial and sexual quotas is making inroads in the STEM academic disciplines. I have mathematician and hard science friends, both in real life and here in fantasy land, who are pretty outraged at the demands for ideological conformity and quotas in the STEM disciplines.
So, I see plenty of reason to doubt.
My home town in Pennsylvania had a glacier. It was a mile thick and it melted too...10,000 years ago. That town had a steel mill run on coal, so that's probably why.
Actually, before the ice age that ended 11,700 years ago there were many glaciers at that latitude.
CO2 levels are high and rising. They have been higher in the past, although not the recent past.
The recent past of the current holocene epoch is what matters because that's when agriculture began and human civilization was made possible. Concern for AGW is not just a concern about the natural world but about the conditions that made civilization possible, including the fact that the vast majority of settled human habitation occurs near large bodies of water whose surface levels are fine right where they are already thank you very much.
Chips assessment that climate change is a scam is closer to the truth when you consider that these environmentalists reject nuclear.
This is the tribal thinking of the Arabs. I will accept this if you accept that blah blah blah blah. You have no idea who embraces what other resolutions and if they did or didn't that would have no bearing on the primary issue of concern which is AGW itself.
Allow for reprocessing and more people will favor nuclear over the alternatives whose prices keep dropping year by year anyway. But it is curious that certain people seem to have a preference for utilities that are monopolized while always doing their utmost to discourage energy sources that anyone could just hoist onto their own rooftop. Curious, indeed.
It turns out that my previous comment was incorrect. There is an obvious and positive correlation between rich people stealing money and rising CO2 levels. Throughout history as the stealing has increased in amount so has the CO2 levels in tandem. This can only mean that this UN agreement is almost certainly going to lead to an unprecedented rise in CO2, an ability to bake pizza on the side walk, and platinum blonde coral reefs.
Exxon-Mobil is stealing money from Oregon's fisheries, then.
As Bags would say, "Let them eat oil!"
In the 60's it was estimated that the U.S. would have thousands of nuclear plants by 2000, which would have reversed the growth of our carbon footprint. In essence it would do a thousand time more than what this agreement ever will,and it would have already been done. Unfortunately, environmentalists, of which I was one, fought nuclear with an unscientific, and religious zeal, making it virtually impossible to build a plant for the last 3 decades. We were wrong, and if not, we most certainly would be now.
If you look up the subject you will see endless opinion and claims on how it won't help, or is completely misguided. The overwhelming volume of that is from global warming alarmists. They are not serious about solving the problem, if there is one. That's why most of them continue to live their private lives as if there is nothing to worry about.
There's global warming on Mars. Despite the fact that it's cold as hell.
How unfortunate that Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your taxes based unscientific consensus.
The government pays a lot better than the oil companies. And nobody goes to prison for fiddling data that supports the will of the establishment.
No one is against nuclear; they're against nuclear waste, which reprocessing would mitigate by over something like 97%. They're also against favoring a domination of big energy utility monopolies over the industry, which is another thing that renewables can prevent much better than any other source.
It's almost like a game of how many good reasons do you need to reject any obviously better resolutions. I think you just prefer not knowing and not doing anything to going on the best evidence. And it's hilarious how you require absolute philosophical virtue from everyone, involved or not in the argument, before you can make an obvious public policy decision. It would have been like opposing statutes against murder because in the society there were and always have been murderers and hypocrites. Ok, what a great reason to oppose acting in the best public policy interest. There are non-purists in the government so clearly what they advocate is wrong. Look who's making the issue one about moral virtue rather than about science and smart decisions.
All the endless lying and obfuscation that goes into supporting global warming. It must be exhausting.
The landers exploring Mars have a variety of instruments that perform experiments to look for the existence of various minerals and compounds. One required by the government is designed to detect even the slightest concentration of money in the soil. The UN found vast quantities in the earth's atmosphere last week.
Like a fatass couch potato, K-Martel bitterly clings to the wasteful inefficiency of not thinking, debating or acting on something to thinking, debating or acting.
It's almost like he thinks his own laziness is an argument for anything. It is. It's an exhibit in being a lazyass.
At 3 AM some night in the distant future, there will be paid programming featuring K-Martel confessing to an entrepreneur the downsides of his previous life of laziness, and how opening up a book and thinking and discussing issues changed his life for the better.
What you got against K-Mart, Ritmo?
I'm glad you got in your usual "Read a book" thingee for us hillbillies. We would never think of it otherwise.
I saw The Goracle, that bloated fat fuck, front and center at the Global Paycheck Redistribution Festival. The perfect mascot for the global warming movement. Oil plutocrat politician making even more money ripping off regular people.
I saw The Goracle, that bloated fat fuck, front and center at the Global Paycheck Redistribution Festival. The perfect mascot for the global warming movement. Oil plutocrat politician making even more money ripping off regular people.
For similar imagery and themes, check out the people who entertain Illuminati and related conspiracy theories.
Anyway, ST was trying to convince me that you actually read from time to time. Way to disprove that suggestion!
It's the same barrage of unconvincing and insulting verbiage every time, ST. Heavily larded with baseless insults and accusations. I doubt anyone in here sweats his feeble attacks.
It's the same barrage of unconvincing and insulting verbiage every time, ST. Heavily larded with baseless insults and accusations. I doubt anyone in here sweats his feeble attacks.
Shorter version: "Kiss my ignorant fat ass before you post a comment here!"
Dude, no one was talking to you anyway. Lem, Bags, Chick and April are perfectly capable of having a conversation without requiring that others give them a psychological hand-job the way you do.
That's why I didn't bother to address you - even after three of your own irrelevant comments. Their irrelevance stood for themselves.
By the fourth one, it got annoying. And I could see how you weren't going to leave without getting your ass stomped. So I gave you the kind of personalized comment that seemed like it just might fulfill your masochistic need to hear one.
I hope you felt as insulted as you wanted to feel.
I can deal with a lot of shit, Ritmo, but not that "Dude!" stuff!
I can deal with a lot of shit, Ritmo, but not that "Dude!" stuff!
Ok. Lol. So noted. Then how's this:
You da man!
It seems to be an expression making the rounds a lot lately.
I find it interesting that republicans don't believe in global warming and democrats do.
I blame Al Gore.
tits.
"No one is against nuclear"
Really. I seem to remember a bunch of concerts with Bruce Springsteen and Jackson Browne and bunch of other commie fucks preaching against nuclear energy.
Climate change fanatics are just against industrialization and progress. They are mostly rich dilettantes and the elitists who want to impose their religion on coal miners and poor people who depend on cheap energy while they tool by in their private jets and big fancy cars.
Believe what you want to, while defending industries with negative growth potential as a way of fighting for the common man.
Nothing I stated in this thread regarding the facts of AGW was "religious". They were wall-to-wall secular assertions that no one has refuted. Not a one. It might be trendy to go all O'Reilly and declare anyone unashamed of the facts that inform their reasoning as religious zealots, but that's because being a blowhard gets a lot of mileage these days. Industrialization is not how you measure "progress" in 2015. Industrialization was a process that America completed a century ago. The challenge now is to prevent industrial processes from doing and perpetuating things like this. It takes someone entirely ignorant of economics to pretend that progress is measured by how much filth and disease you spread, while making the rest of the world unliveable, and seeing how much of the life we depend on you can destroy. That's not where the growth is, anyway. People want a clean and sustainable planet to live in, not a fucking dump. And not a place that's been sterilized of all the living things that make all other life possible. Some people can make money by killing and polluting as much as possible, but the entire economy will not grow without looking at the opportunities for doing away with the backwash.
I'm waiting for one of these big wealthy powerful global warming alarmists to insist the China clean up its act. *crickets*
That's exactly what the meeting was about, April. Read.
"Global Paycheck Redistribution Festival."
Oooh, I like that. A perfect description. They want to take a huge slice out of everyone's paycheck and give it to rich fuckers who play with them. I repeat EVERYONE's paycheck. The biggest, most regressive, most unfounded, and immoral tax scheme in history. How about a 3000% tax on private air travel. Double if it's done in the name of "climate change".
Chip's never done a science experiment in his life.
Hey, it is ritmo expounding on science. I wonder if he read up on the NOAA models? I love this page, because there are quotes like this:
"The current version (ERRST v3) has satellite SST data not included in previous versions. However, the addition of satellite data led to residual biases. The ERSST v3b analysis is exactly as described in the ERSST v3 paper with one exception: ERSST v3b does not use satellite SST data. "
What, they don't use satellite data? Why not?
"There must be clear-sky conditions to obtain infrared measurements, and cloud contaminated data are often difficult to identify. This contamination leads to a cold SST bias in the retrievals. There were attempts to correct these biases as mentioned in "Improvements to NOAA's Historical Merged Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880–2006)," but the adjustment did not fully compensate for the cold bias. While this small difference did not strongly influence the long-term trend, it was sufficient to change the rankings of the warmest months in the time series. Therefore, use of satellite SST data was discontinued. "
Did you get that, ritmo? The Satellite data has a bias to colder temperatures. You would think they calibrated those satellites prior to launch. But try as they might, they couldn't get the SST bias to work with the global warming models. So what to do? Hey, how about we just not use satellite data? Yep, that's what they did. They decided not to use the latest data available, because it didn't match to their super accurate ocean temperature data from 1880. And they just changed the rankings of the warmest month without that data.
I'm sure you knew all this, right ritmo? Because you are a scientist, right?
Yes, being a scientist means every little nit picked overturns the bigger picture. If space is largely empty, then a single particle within it would overturn that fact. If a crystal of salt has a single atom of iodide anywhere in its structure, it's no longer sodium chloride. If the glaciers are melting then some abstruse satellite data has to throw out that fact.
And if airplanes can fly, obviously the theory of gravity is wrong, also.
Thanks for the lesson on scientific perfection, Leland.
Thanks Leland. Of course there is tons of such disproving or at the least confidence destroying evidence out there, but Ritmo's kind of science (which is usually funded only if it supports the narrative) is not interested, but any tiny piece of supporting crap no matter how silly is bounced around the internet like a kitten video.
My relentless pursuit of the Higgs boson leaves very little time for me to make an informed opinion on this global warming thing. I do note, however, that those who were sutepefyingly wrong in the past have embraced the righteous cause of lowering CO2 emissions with the most passion and vehemence. My past study of phrenology leads me to believe that they have overdeveloped occipital lobes, and this this is the cause of their disturbed behavior.
All that ice melted but Bags looked into a satellite spectral reading (or whatever).
One thing he has confidence in: It's always better to do nothing and never know what to believe. Except what Exxon Mobil told him to believe.
Genuine science is about gathering evidence and testing the veracity of theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology.
Oh no, this is just the beginning of the never ending stream of wealth redistribution that will come our way en masse. Shit, I'm just waiting for UN Peacekeepers to land on every glacier in the world with blow torches ready to melt them to prove that climate change is real. REAL I SAY!!!
I figured if I came in here, Mr. Balls would be arm waving his hysteria and I am not disappointed. Mr. Balls, you do realize that the COP21 agreement is a farcical fraud don't you? Have you read the text of the agreement? I have. In fact, I just finished reading it a few hours ago. A couple of things jumped out at me right away as to this aberrant lie of Kabuki theater that just played out in France.
From within the text of the actual deal itself, the Global Carbon Market is voluntary. There is no mandate, there is no prerequisites within the language to enforcement of any kind. Proof from Article 6.3 of the COP21 Agreement:
Article 6. 3. The use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes to achieve nationally determined contributions under this Agreement shall be voluntary and authorized by participating Parties.
Furthermore, there is an exit clause for any country to leave the agreement for four years with a 5 year review later on that could potentially bring them back, but without any voluntary mandate to do so.
Article 28:
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depository.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.
With a four-month rescission period to boot:
Article 20:
This Agreement shall be open for signature and subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by States and regional economic integration organizations that are Parties to the Convention. It shall be open for signature at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017.
Continued:
All this did was simply create more UN bureaucracy job filling with nothing to show for it. This entire shit show was for theater to assuage Obama's alleged legacy, to say that they've done something. Anything. Even John Kerry has admitted this entire endeavor is a worthless waste of time:
"I understand the criticisms of the agreement because it doesn’t have a mandatory scheme and it doesn’t have a compliance enforcement mechanism. That’s true. But we have 186 countries, for the first time in history, all submitting independent plans that they have laid down, which are real, for reducing emissions. And what it does, in my judgment, more than anything else, there is a uniform standard of transparency. And therefore, we will know what everybody is doing.
The result will be a very clear signal to the marketplace of the world that people are moving into low carbon, no carbon, alternative renewable energy. And I think it’s going to create millions of jobs, enormous new investment in R&D, and that R&D is going to produce the solutions, not government.”
Government won't produce the R&D even thought his blatant lie has been propagated by government and government was its driver. Further proof that this entire thing is a fucking scam from top to bottom. More of John Kerry's bullshit:
"The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.
If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world." Video of Kerry's admittance of the scam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAtiygrbTSg
Enjoy cheerleading the lie. You are just meaningless unthinking drone. Pathetic that you even can muster the energy to keep the lie going.
so in other words, Meth, China can continue to pour nasty sh*t into the ocean via all of their toxic rivers. Cool.
Thanks, Meth.
Just like the Iran Deal, and Obamacare for that matter Empty legacy padding based on obviously dubious presumptions (to say nothing of the outright lies), bypassing the will of the people, kicking the can down the road, bill to be submitted later. Heckuva job Barry!
Ritmo, you are aware that ExxonMobil was at COP21 in support of, in their words, "Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions the best option to meet Paris Climate Goals". YMMV, but I don't think Bags supports XOM's fascist message in support of government manipulation of markets. What about you, ritmo? You support a carbon tax like ExxonMobil and BP?
Leland, any company assisting in it's own slow suicide is fiduciarily defunct to its shareholders as far as I'm concerned. Furthermore that the perpetual lie that CO2 is a pollutant needs to stop. It is an essential gas for life and for these pricks to call it a pollutant is not only an unscientifically baseless conclusion, but it's just ignorantly wrong.
Honestly, Mr. Balls defense of COP21 or anything or anyone having to do with it requires a suspension of disbelief is untrustworthy.
Sugar is essential for life but it doesn't mean that diabetes can't kill you.
A pH of 7.4 is essential for life that doesn't mean that 7.7 or 7.2 can't kill you.
Engineers seem to not realize that biological and other natural systems are regulated so much more exquisitely than anything any person ever designed. It's usually a very bad idea to fuck with them, especially on a global scale.
As for the accord, if it lets China etc. off the hook more than I was led to believe by the reporting, then by all means bash it as inadequate. That's a totally legitimate criticism.
Ritmo, you are aware that ExxonMobil was at COP21 in support of, in their words, "Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions the best option to meet Paris Climate Goals". YMMV, but I don't think Bags supports XOM's fascist message in support of government manipulation of markets. What about you, ritmo? You support a carbon tax like ExxonMobil and BP?
I don't know. What about you, Leland? Do you support the devastation of American fisheries?
Make no mistake. AGW will ruin industries and our way of life no less than it could enhance those who claim to believe they'll benefit from it. As for Big Oil's latest incursions into the politics of all this, who knows what they're up to and if it's sincere or just PR? I don't trust their machinations, and I don't need to. I just know that for anyone to go on about how wonderful or neutral AGW will be there are at least as many industries and people whose lives will be ruined by it. This is the same mindset that Republicans pushed by getting us into "too big to fail," and then said, "Awww fuck it! Let the entire economy crash and never recover just to show those big banks a lesson!" It doesn't work. It's vengeance in search of a policy and an over-reliance on humongous companies' freedom to make bad choices, no matter how many innocent people are scorched in the process just by partaking in an economy so over-leveraged by those companies and a government so heavily bribed by those companies. For so long it's all been about letting the most powerful industries and companies play the tune, and watching all the small businesses and the little guy get screwed. AGW is no different.
Ah, so when it is pointed out, ritmo, that you are supporting the same thing as ExxonMobil; your response is to feign ignorance? Here's a thought; don't blame Bags, or me, for supporting Big Oil, when it is you agreeing with them. It means nothing to us, because it is a lie on your part. And it makes you look even more stupid for arguing based on a fallacy.
If you think what a company does for PR value is the same as what a company does because it wants to then you really are quite stupid. Big Oil is covering its bases and probably knows that once your shill gets elected, the whole agreement and anything having to do with carbon taxation will be torn up. You really must think I'm as stupid as you are. Go believe what the most powerful industry tells you as it conducts its PR coup. You think that I am lying but that Exxon Mobil are honest. That takes some plutonium-power stupidity. It would be a wonder if anyone with a brain ever believed a think you say. I'm certain you can't have a job that requires others to rely on your honesty or intelligence.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Sugar is essential for life but it doesn't mean that diabetes can't kill you.
A pH of 7.4 is essential for life that doesn't mean that 7.7 or 7.2 can't kill you.
Engineers seem to not realize that biological and other natural systems are regulated so much more exquisitely than anything any person ever designed. It's usually a very bad idea to fuck with them, especially on a global scale.
As for the accord, if it lets China etc. off the hook more than I was led to believe by the reporting, then by all means bash it as inadequate. That's a totally legitimate criticism.
Oddly, i never asked you about the essential nature of sugar for life, given that it requires a careful daily dose for survival with some plus or minus depending on tolerance and any medical/disease issues that crop up from it via hypoglycemia, diabetes as you mentioned, or even those with Syndrome X or NIDDM (non-insulin dependent diabetes) which can cause a whole range of issues, but can be detectable with a glucose insulin tolerance test. A test this engineer has worked on for some time in prior work.
So no, i guess I wouldn't know a darned thing about sensitivities of natural biological systems at all. :rolleyes:
I mean, if we are on the subject, I'd say sodium chloride poisoning is on par if not more rampant that glucose poisoning.
Whether you asked or not, that's the proper analogy. CO2 is required to keep the planet warm. If 0.03% was the norm and that small amount did as much as it did to retain heat all this time, it's nonsensical to assume that a 50% to 200% increase won't do anything.
Well, it's circumstances right? For example there were higher ppm's of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to human existence, but the sun produced warmth at lower levels, so it created equilibrium. But CO2 is not the driver of climate, since high periods of CO2 during those times were also experienced with high points of glaciations in earths past and since no human activity was involved, you have to turn to geological and solar reasons for why. After all, 450 million years ago, the ppm of CO2 was around 3000 and people do a lot of pretzel twisting over six time less.
For example there were higher ppm's of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to human existence, but the sun produced warmth at lower levels, so it created equilibrium.
Can you cite this? And "equilibrium" means there was feedback between "sun warmth" and climate. But the sun does not adjust its radiance in response to earth's climate. They are separate systems.
But CO2 is not the driver of climate, since high periods of CO2 during those times were also experienced with high points of glaciations in earths past and since no human activity was involved, you have to turn to geological and solar reasons for why.
That's true. But citing that assumes that we should expect an ice age to return so as to neutralize the effects of warming. Which I don't think is the cautious thing to do. If an ice age returns, one thing is certain: We've lived through it before.
After all, 450 million years ago, the ppm of CO2 was around 3000 and people do a lot of pretzel twisting over six time less.
Whereas this comparison is to a time-point and climate when humans weren't even around. Vertebrates had barely even evolved, let alone mammals.
I don't see why the conservative position is to assume that civilization will do as well or better in situations in which it never existed than in the climate situations in which humans at least had been living.
For example there were higher ppm's of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to human existence, but the sun produced warmth at lower levels, so it created equilibrium.
Can you cite this? And "equilibrium" means there was feedback between "sun warmth" and climate. But the sun does not adjust its radiance in response to earth's climate. They are separate systems.
Of course they are separate systems. You state the obvious for no reason at all. Especially when the sun is the primary driver of climate on earth and the climate systems of earth simply regulate the energy output as best as they can. However, 450 million years ago, the sun was a much different sun than we have now.
Citation: http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf
Whereas this comparison is to a time-point and climate when humans weren't even around. Vertebrates had barely even evolved, let alone mammals.
Again, stating the obvious, but maybe missing the point. The point is that at 3000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, just prior to invertebrates, you had that much CO2 floating around. It had to come from somewhere. Rock erosion, volcanic activity, massive atmospheric electrolysis, great amounts of surface ozone? Who knows, but it was there and yet here we are and some do nothing France saved the Erf.
An Erf that even up until 3 million years ago the last time CO2 was similar to current levels during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X11001099
Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level - http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1886/157.full.pdf+html
Again, you steer the conversation away from the prime target that you defend. The scam that is AGW or whatever the flavor of calling it becomes. I showed you irrefutable proof of the scam. You say not one word, but only address other adjunct questions. I get it, shattered perceptions and all that. You can pick and choose what you want to deal with, but it's there in black and white and on video that the perpetuation of the lie will continue and even in the face of the lie, willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance will reign supreme. After all, we got to see what real mass hysteria looked like at COP21 in France. Urkel gets his legacy on the world stage for all to see and everyone goes home knowing he's a nothing in the end, but he doesn't care. I'm sure your pom poms need to be replaced after being melted from the sheer friction you generated using them after this 'agreement' occurred. You and your ilk perpetuate the lie. Shhhh, don't fight me, just let it happen.
Post a Comment