Koko78 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I think Figueres’s admiration for China is not their results, but the form of rule that the UN lusts to have for itself, which this sentence from the Bloomberg story makes explicit: China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said. QED. It’s not about the environment. Single party dictatorships are the wave of the future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Single party dictatorships are the wave of the future! The Democrats are certainly working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 The Democrats are certainly working on it. Apparently all you need is a pen and a phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Apparently all you need is a pen and a phone. a teleprompter helps as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 a teleprompter helps as well. And hot chocolate and a onesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Climate: As I Was Saying. . . by Steven Hayward There’s the old observation that people who say “I hate to tell you this but. . .” don’t really hate to tell you that at all. Ditto for “I hate to say I told you so.” So for more than two decades now climate realists have been been saying “I hate to tell you this, but when economic reality intrudes, your climate dreams will disappear like most such wisps before it.” Yesterday the New York Times ran with this headline: Sluggish Economy Prompts Europe to Reconsider Its Intentions on Climate Change The European Union, which for years has sought to lead the world in addressing climate change, is tempering its ambitions and considering turning mandatory targets for renewable energy into just goals. The union’s policy-making body is also unlikely to restrict exploration for shale gas using the disputed technique known as hydraulic fracturing. A deep and lasting economic slowdown, persistently high prices for renewable energy sources and years of inconclusive international negotiations are giving European officials second thoughts about how aggressively to remake the Continent’s energy-production industries. There’s more of interest in the story, but it’s enough for me to say: I told you so. http://www.powerline...-was-saying.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Not a creationist...OC what you are saying is the data and positions in the article have no merit as they are fabricated by the authors to perpetuate a mass global conspiracy of academics and politicians to amass power and money. This conspiracy is amazing - taking advantage of a correlation of a man made rise in CO2 levels with a spike in global land and sea temps. All behavior is self serving...and there probably is an element of it in GW science....as there is in negating the science behind GW as done by the Fossil Fuel Industry (no!....smoking does not cause cancer circa 1960's). That being said - I looked at the article and others...there has been a deceleration in air temps rise in the last 15 years - although 2013 was the hottest on record. While the rise in air temps have shown a decel, ocean temps continue rise at a static rate and the hold much more energy that air - so in terms of total global energy storage - that continues to rise. As long as the temps continue to rise - and as well - anecdotal incidences of GW continue - I don't see anything falling apart. I think it is quite micro - "the pause" - to make a claim that the whole of science behind GW is "falling apart" - and as long as total global "heat" continues to rise at a predictable and historically fast rate...what exactly is falling apart? What is easily proven is the total energy storage on the planet continues to rise but precipitants of this are not easily or totally predictable. Makes sense to me. Jesus Christ on a crutch! I'm not making any claims here! It is upon them/you to defend their claims. If they/you can't, or can only do so with 2 of the most hilarious things I have ever heard? Then it's time to pack it up, just like Al Gore has. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/the_global_warming_tipping_point_is_near.html Tipping point indeed! It's coming soon. You can bet that in less 18 months, this whole thing dies...for serious people. The unserious are now defending the entire AGW theory....not with the empirical evidence that should have resulted from their own modeling. No. We all KNOW that's a lost cause. Your "water stores more energy than air"....defense? I already laughed that off. Reality: the EMPIRICAL DATA has now blown up, if not seriously threatened, the entire AGW theory, especially when one considers that MORE CO2 has entered the atmosphere than they expected(or, for some models we are at the upper limit of expectation)...so now we have 2 save-ass speculations. That's the amazing part here: 2 speculations are the only thing standing between AGW, and it's total demise. How the hell did we get here....with so much "settled science"? And, I can't help but notice: you've left the "pollution both creates AGW, and prevents it, at the same time" speculation all alone? What's the matter? Don't like that one? Why not? It has about as much chance of being true, as the "bottom of the ocean". And notice something else: I didn't say "ocean temps". I said: "bottom of the ocean". That's because: they said specifically, the "bottom of the ocean". Why haven't you spoken to that? Why does it have to be the bottom of the ocean? Why not stored throughout the ocean in various streams...you know, in a way that might even sorta approach theromodynamic reality, or how we've observed the ocean...to actually behave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsA0RR84E9M Edited January 23, 2014 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 UN climate chief sees her job as “sacred.” The United Nation’s “Executive Secretary for Climate,” Cristina Figueres, sounds like she’d be more at home in a temple to Gaea than in a position supposedly dealing with empirical science. Her job, you see, is sacred: The top climate official at the United Nations has described her role in pushing nations to contain the Earth’s climate as a “sacred” job. “We are truly defining the quality of life for our children,” Christina Figueres, the U.N.’s executive secretary for climate, told USA TODAY on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “We have to do everything we can because there is no plan B because there is no planet B,” she said. “I fully intend my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be able to live on this planet. This job is a sacred responsibility,” Figueres said. She also notes that the world has spent a trillion dollars so far to fight climate change and that we need to spends trillions and trillions more. Every year. And all controlled by the UN, I’m sure. Okay, we’ve all heard people at times sacralize their job, usually to show their dedication to a task that involves significant risk or hardship. Military and police come to mind. And, sure, politicians often prattle on about the sacred trust they’ve been given by their constituents, but most of us recognize that as a rhetorical device. Perhaps that’s the case for Ms. Figueres, too. But I don’t think so. Instead, it has the ring of sanctimony that brooks no debate or challenge. Indeed, if you question man-caused global warming or what, if anything, needs to be done to fight it, you’re putting her descendants at risk. It moves from being a matter of empirical, testable science, on which there can be reasonable disagreement, to a tenet of faith and morality, something holy. Disagree with her “sacred mission,” and you become a “denier,” one who has denied the faith. It’s a short step from there to being designated a “traitor to planet” and perforce evil. It would be funny, if only these people weren’t in positions of influence and power, with the ability to implement their programs to our great harm, if we don’t keep a close eye on them. That’s our “sacred responsibility.” When Did Global Warming Begin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Was this AGW? http://themindunleashed.org/2014/01/huge-underwater-pyramid-discovered-near-portugal-navy-investigating.html The pyramid was found in an area of the mid-Atlantic that has been underwater for about 20,000 years. Considering this is around the time of the last ice age where glaciation was melting from its peak 2000 years prior, whatever civilization, human or not, that was around before the ice age, could be responsible for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Aliens! Aliens and Atlantians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 2, 2014 Author Share Posted February 2, 2014 Was this AGW? http://themindunleas...estigating.html The pyramid was found in an area of the mid-Atlantic that has been underwater for about 20,000 years. Considering this is around the time of the last ice age where glaciation was melting from its peak 2000 years prior, whatever civilization, human or not, that was around before the ice age, could be responsible for This is infinitely more interesting, if true, than whatever nonsense is coming from environtologists. I say we divert all climate research funds to this project, as this is likely to give us more answers to a slew of questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 This is infinitely more interesting, if true, than whatever nonsense is coming from environtologists. I say we divert all climate research funds to this project, as this is likely to give us more answers to a slew of questions. I agree with you that this article and its contents are infinitely more interesting than continuing the tired, completely ridiculous debate over whether or not climate change is real and/or man-made. Of course, if you explore the implications of what this find might mean in the big picture sense of human evolution, you might find the answers even more terrifying to your political philosophies than the issue of climate change. It's the old saying, "careful what you wish for..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 3, 2014 Author Share Posted February 3, 2014 I agree with you that this article and its contents are infinitely more interesting than continuing the tired, completely ridiculous debate over whether or not climate change is real and/or man-made. Of course, if you explore the implications of what this find might mean in the big picture sense of human evolution, you might find the answers even more terrifying to your political philosophies than the issue of climate change. It's the old saying, "careful what you wish for..." The difference between you and me: The facts don't terrify me. Every single fact is capable of changing my views. You can't say the same. It doesn't matter if you won't. You can't. I will prove it below. I am an empiricist, and I've seen enough "big plans" from people who aren't qualified to make "big plans" in my work(16 Fortune 500 major projects so far, and yes, I've seen more good "big plans" than bad ones)...to be doubly skeptical of those, clearly unqualified, who claim they can "make things better" on a national scale, with their "big plans". We are currently living in the "Great Society". How great is it? How's the "war on poverty" going? How abotu the "war on drugs"? The promise/premise was it was going to be so "great", that all our problems would be solved...so...now...why do we need more? Obamacare is the same recycled nonsense. See? I'm an empiricist. If this was work, and the global warming and Obamacare projects were work projects, every manager on this board would cancel them immediately, and route their resources elsewhere. That's called: competence. They'd do it, because not doing it means: termination. But, you can't cancel them. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't or won't. Your ideology demands incompetence and inefficiency, they are embedded. Your ideology is not about getting the answers, or solving the problem: your "political philosophy" is about abritrarily stealing resources/assets from some, and making enough others dependent on you, by giving them just enough to survive, but never enough to thrive, and break their dependence on you. Thus, when you make "big plans", why should anyone be shocked when they produce incompetence and inefficiency? If things are too competent/efficient, you run the risk of the poor/unionized becoming self-reliant, and no longer needing you. You need the poor to stay poor, so you need incompetence and inefficiency...hence your solution to everything is government. I would devote the resources to this, not because I'm afraid of the answer, but precisely because I want the answer, and, I fully recognize, as a competent manager, that this project is most likely to produce the best/most useful scientific results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The difference between you and me: The facts don't terrify me. Every single fact is capable of changing my views. You can't say the same. It doesn't matter if you won't. You can't. I will prove it below. I am an empiricist, and I've seen enough "big plans" from people who aren't qualified to make "big plans" in my work(16 Fortune 500 major projects so far, and yes, I've seen more good "big plans" than bad ones)...to be doubly skeptical of those, clearly unqualified, who claim they can "make things better" on a national scale, with their "big plans". We are currently living in the "Great Society". How great is it? How's the "war on poverty" going? How abotu the "war on drugs"? The promise/premise was it was going to be so "great", that all our problems would be solved...so...now...why do we need more? Obamacare is the same recycled nonsense. See? I'm an empiricist. If this was work, and the global warming and Obamacare projects were work projects, every manager on this board would cancel them immediately, and route their resources elsewhere. That's called: competence. They'd do it, because not doing it means: termination. But, you can't cancel them. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't or won't. Your ideology demands incompetence and inefficiency, they are embedded. Your ideology is not about getting the answers, or solving the problem: your "political philosophy" is about abritrarily stealing resources/assets from some, and making enough others dependent on you, by giving them just enough to survive, but never enough to thrive, and break their dependence on you. Thus, when you make "big plans", why should anyone be shocked when they produce incompetence and inefficiency? If things are too competent/efficient, you run the risk of the poor/unionized becoming self-reliant, and no longer needing you. You need the poor to stay poor, so you need incompetence and inefficiency...hence your solution to everything is government. I would devote the resources to this, not because I'm afraid of the answer, but precisely because I want the answer, and, I fully recognize, as a competent manager, that this project is most likely to produce the best/most useful scientific results. I like the part where you presume to know my philosophies and the opine on them with incorrect conclusions derived from your own narcissistic view point. You should teach that trick to the rest of the internet. I think they would find it novel and exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I like the part where you presume to know my philosophies and the opine on them with incorrect conclusions derived from your own narcissistic view point. You should teach that trick to the rest of the internet. I think they would find it novel and exciting. Everyone please note: THIS IS NOT ME. It does bear a passing resemblance to my writing style, but it's not me. I don't need an alias to let OC know he's a narcissist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Everyone please note: THIS IS NOT ME. It does bear a passing resemblance to my writing style, but it's not me. I don't need an alias to let OC know he's a narcissist. It's just tgreg, and we all know his philosophies. He's just being a bag of hot air at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Everyone please note: THIS IS NOT ME. It does bear a passing resemblance to my writing style, but it's not me. I don't need an alias to let OC know he's a narcissist. You're an idiot and a !@#$ing moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I like the part where you presume to know my philosophies and the opine on them with incorrect conclusions derived from your own narcissistic view point. You should teach that trick to the rest of the internet. I think they would find it novel and exciting. Birdbrain does this all the time. I find it mighty humorous, and egg him on for jollies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 It's just tgreg, and we all know his philosophies. He's just being a bag of hot air at the moment. If so, what other lengths would tgreg go to avoid his great debate with Rob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts