Setting up the Global Warming lies to come

[....lybob]

Old news. Beef production is environmentally damaging on so many different levels.

 

But oh, so very, very tasty...

Après moi le déluge

[Gene Frenkle]

 

 

Yes, I've read the paper (it's one of the more interesting problems in global warming theory, that I've been harping on for years).

 

Believe me, it's not nearly as conclusive as SciAm makes it out to be.

I wasn't commenting on the data, just adding to your list of data points.

 

 

 

Watcha think about those fossilized palm trees in Greenland from many thousand years ago?

God did it to f with you and give you a chance to prove your faith and devotion.

[GG]

Funny how the global warming cottage industry tilts at the windmills, and the Earth sends a not so subtle reminder that she is still in charge.

[3rdnlng]

I wasn't commenting on the data, just adding to your list of data points.

 

 

God did it to f with you and give you a chance to prove your faith and devotion.

 

Ah, a true believer speaks. Glad to see you giving up on that global warming religion and finding real peace.

[TH3]

A Conservative Republican who supports both a government takeover of healthcare as well as HIGW?

 

Let's not construe "conservative" with anti liberal.

 

I have NEVER proposed any type of HC structure, supported the ACA etc....I have merely pointed out that the USA pays pretty much 2x for health than the rest of the industrialized world. I do have some structural concepts that might be interesting - I have shared them with health care professionals as well as corporate leaders with positive comments but on this board anything that doesn't rhyme with "Obama Sucks" doesn't get real airplay. There is nothing conservative about the way we deliver HC through mandated employer provision. There is nothing conservative about not coming up with a pragmatic executable alternative to the ACA. I would lay this alternative out but I believe that most posters here don't want to talk about actual solutions but more dream like no government panaceas.

 

AFA GW - Yes one can say there are not enough data points etc....but the data points that are there strongly suggest that the earth is warming and humans have there fingers in it....the CONSERVATIVE thing to do is take heed....there is nothing conservative about ignoring data or relegating it to merely political talk. If humans are causing GW and it continues - then by the end of the century sea levels will be raised by over a foot based on the current levels of rise and that wipes out TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS in coastal development. There is nothing conservative about ignoring that this is a possibility. The title of this thread already presumes that any argument not on the side of the OP is a liar.....

 

If you read my earlier posts you would see that i don't believe there is a pragmatic executable solution to replacing FF with non carbon alternatives.

 

As far as the Singer article - come on...if someone had posted a link that was not in line with your thoughts and the author of that article had been on the payroll of industry participants - you would immediately call him or her out as not credible - Gotta keep your standards equal or your own credibility is questioned......

Edited April 2, 2014 by baskin

[Gene Frenkle]

 

 

Ah, a true believer speaks. Glad to see you giving up on that global warming religion and finding real peace.

Absence of denial does not a true believer make.

[3rdnlng]

Let's not construe "conservative" with anti liberal.

 

I have NEVER proposed any type of HC structure, supported the ACA etc....I have merely pointed out that the USA pays pretty much 2x for health than the rest of the industrialized world. I do have some structural concepts that might be interesting - I have shared them with health care professionals as well as corporate leaders with positive comments but on this board anything that doesn't rhyme with "Obama Sucks" doesn't get real airplay. There is nothing conservative about the way we deliver HC through mandated employer provision. There is nothing conservative about not coming up with a pragmatic executable alternative to the ACA. I would lay this alternative out but I believe that most posters here don't want to talk about actual solutions but more dream like no government panaceas.

 

AFA GW - Yes one can say there are not enough data points etc....but the data points that are there strongly suggest that the earth is warming and humans have there fingers in it....the CONSERVATIVE thing to do is take heed....there is nothing conservative about ignoring data or relegating it to merely political talk. If humans are causing GW and it continues - then by the end of the century sea levels will be raised by over a foot based on the current levels of rise and that wipes out TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS in coastal development. There is nothing conservative about ignoring that this is a possibility. The title of this thread already presumes that any argument not on the side of the OP is a liar.....

 

If you read my earlier posts you would see that i don't believe there is a pragmatic executable solution to replacing FF with non carbon alternatives.

 

As far as the Singer article - come on...if someone had posted a link that was not in line with your thoughts and the author of that article had been on the payroll of industry participants - you would immediately call him or her out as not credible - Gotta keep your standards equal or your own credibility is questioned......

 

Who wrote the "article" you linked to?

[John Adams]

Watcha think about those fossilized palm trees in Greenland from many thousand years ago?

 

You're missing my point. 17 years or 140 years is a blip on the time scale. Trends in 140 years or 17 years are not causal evidence for either side of this debate. The GW people need to get off the 140 trend and the anti-GW people need to get off the 17 year trend.

[3rdnlng]

You're missing my point. 17 years or 140 years is a blip on the time scale. Trends in 140 years or 17 years are not causal evidence for either side of this debate. The GW people need to get off the 140 trend and the anti-GW people need to get off the 17 year trend.

 

The point is that there have been many warming and cooling cycles, partly evidenced by other warming cycles that have been found under ice packs. This 140 year warming cycle that we are supposedly in tells us nothing about the nature of the other warming cycles. The 17 year trend may or may not mean something. We have no real way of comparing this warming trend with any other warming trend. I mock the people who get all up in arms over global warming because they are just really being led around by an international religion of politics whose ulterior goal is a transfer of wealth.

[Deranged Rhino]

The point is that there have been many warming and cooling cycles, partly evidenced by other warming cycles that have been found under ice packs. This 140 year warming cycle that we are supposedly in tells us nothing about the nature of the other warming cycles.

Excellent!

 

The 17 year trend may or may not mean something.

D'oh!

[Tiberius]

Funny how the global warming cottage industry tilts at the windmills, and the Earth sends a not so subtle reminder that she is still in charge.

It's a cottage industry? I thought you guys thought it was a Left Wing conspiracy to destroy capitalism?

[GG]

I have NEVER proposed any type of HC structure, supported the ACA etc....I have merely pointed out that the USA pays pretty much 2x for health than the rest of the industrialized world. I do have some structural concepts that might be interesting - I have shared them with health care professionals as well as corporate leaders with positive comments but on this board anything that doesn't rhyme with "Obama Sucks" doesn't get real airplay. There is nothing conservative about the way we deliver HC through mandated employer provision. There is nothing conservative about not coming up with a pragmatic executable alternative to the ACA. I would lay this alternative out but I believe that most posters here don't want to talk about actual solutions but more dream like no government panaceas.

 

 

The beauty of drive-by posters is their belief that just because something isn't discussed in a particular thread is tantamount the issue has never been discussed before. The WHOLE reason that all the attention is paid to ACA is because it is the operative law of the land. If you want to see opinions and alternative solutions, I suggest you use the Search function for thread debates prior to 2009.

[John Adams]

The point is that there have been many warming and cooling cycles, partly evidenced by other warming cycles that have been found under ice packs. This 140 year warming cycle that we are supposedly in tells us nothing about the nature of the other warming cycles. The 17 year trend may or may not mean something. We have no real way of comparing this warming trend with any other warming trend. I mock the people who get all up in arms over global warming because they are just really being led around by an international religion of politics whose ulterior goal is a transfer of wealth.

 

OK, so we agree. And I'm also mocking those who think that 17 years of relative consistency means something. Both are idiots.

[DC Tom]

OK, so we agree. And I'm also mocking those who think that 17 years of relative consistency means something. Both are idiots.

 

It does mean something. Two things, actually:

1) the past 17 years have been relatively consistent, and

2) models and theories that specifically predicted otherwise need to be revisited and reanalyzed.

 

And (2a) alarmist "scientists" who eschewed science and embraced proselytizing by making specious, exaggerated "predictions" that turned out to be false need to shut the !@#$ up. Yes, James Hansen, I'm looking at you.

[John Adams]

 

 

It does mean something. Two things, actually:

1) the past 17 years have been relatively consistent, and

2) models and theories that specifically predicted otherwise need to be revisited and reanalyzed.

 

And (2a) alarmist "scientists" who eschewed science and embraced proselytizing by making specious, exaggerated "predictions" that turned out to be false need to shut the !@#$ up. Yes, James Hansen, I'm looking at you.

 

And since 4 of those years have been historically hot, it also means that the ant-GW crowd shouldn't look at that small sample as proof of anything more than it is.

[B-Man]

Global Warming Defector

 

IPCC panelist Richard Tol on why he rejected new climate report.

 

 

.

[TH3]

Global Warming Defector

 

IPCC panelist Richard Tol on why he rejected new climate report.

 

 

.

Global Warming Defector

 

IPCC panelist Richard Tol on why he rejected new climate report.

 

 

.

 

Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate change

Edited April 4, 2014 by baskin

[3rdnlng]

Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate change

Did you even read the article? If so, you'd see why it makes perfect sense.

 

More importantly, I'm going to pull a page out of your own book---you know, the one where you badgered OC to respond to you when he wasn't even around. You've been around since I first asked the question: can you tell me who the author is of your little ditty that you linked to?

[B-Man]

Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate change

 

 

He is a member of the IPCC..................you are not

 

 

FTA:

 

Tol, who has been working with the IPCC since 1994, was the lead author of Chapter 10 of the report, on key economic sectors and services. He was also a contributor to Chapters 17 and 19, on the economics of adaptation to climate change and emergent risks, respectively.

 

He took his name off of the final summary because he felt the IPCC did not properly account for human technological ingenuity and downplayed the potential benefits of global warming.

 

 

 

It is embarrassing for you to dismiss his concerns regarding the report overstating its conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited April 4, 2014 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

He is a member of the IPCC..................you are not

 

 

FTA:

 

 

 

It is embarrassing for you to dismiss his concerns regarding the report overstating its conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Of all the observations he makes, you all pick the one ("the report doesn't account for unpredictable techonolgical change") that is the most asinine. When his only real, valid critism is:

 

Tol is far from a conspiracy theorist, but he nonetheless thinks the IPCC has built-in biases that keep it from adequately checking alarmism.

 

First, there is a self-selection bias: People who are most concerned about the impact of climate change are most likely to be represented on the panel. Next, most of the panelists are professors involved in similar academic departments, surrounded by like-minded people who reinforce each other’s views. Those views are welcomed by the civil servants who review the report, because their “departments, jobs, and careers depend on climate being a problem,” Tol says.

 

Tol's basically an ass who happened to get something right in a "blind squirrel" fashion. And your arguing he's right because he's a member of the IPCC, which is wrong?

 

You're all idiots.