Setting up the Global Warming lies to come

[TheMadCap]

Most progressives rely on this type of talking head "science expert" to push their agenda.

 

I find the fastest way to make these ridiculous arguments disappear is to ask them what science says about a 24-week-old fetus which they have no problem aborting.

 

I dont have a problem destroying thier BS science talking points, because I am extremely dangerous to thier ideology, as I know way more than the average hack on this particular subject...

[DC Tom]

I dont have a problem destroying thier BS science talking points, because I am extremely dangerous to thier ideology, as I know way more than the average hack on this particular subject...

 

The global warming movement has a word for your type: denier.

[TheMadCap]

 

 

The global warming movement has a word for your type: denier.

 

The other problem for them is that I can equally destroy the other sides inaccuracies as well, as I did to the points in the original posting of this thread. I'm truly the man in the middle, not only am i right, but I have the knowledge to back it up.

 

God damn, I sound just like you. I've been hanging out here far too long...

[/dev/null]

The global warming movement has a word for your type: denier.

 

He needs to be re-educated

[DC Tom]

The other problem for them is that I can equally destroy the other sides inaccuracies as well, as I did to the points in the original posting of this thread. I'm truly the man in the middle, not only am i right, but I have the knowledge to back it up.

 

God damn, I sound just like you. I've been hanging out here far too long...

 

Now kill your father, and take his place at my side...

[/dev/null]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/01/obama-signs-global-warming-executive-order-to-prepare-nation-for-effects-of-climate-change/

[TheMadCap]

http://www.theblaze....climate-change/

 

Just a CYA to show his left wing supporters that he's "listening and doing something" about thier concerns. They'll get together, waste a **** ton of money in meetings, ordering food, and publish a report a year later with their recomendations. The report will go in a drawer somewhere. No biggie...

[Who is Yuri?]

I'm not sure if the majority of readers, or even the posters of said material realize, that what is being touted as News in this thread is propaganda.

I'm not sure if the majority of readers, or even the posters of said propaganda, realize that this tactic was more accepted in the USSR than it shall be in the USA.

I'm not sure if I give a damn if it's progressives or conservative who are touting said propaganda, but I'd like to conduct an experiment.

You take your gas engine vehicle into your garage, shut the door, stay with it, and keep the engine on.

I'll take my electric car into the gargage, next door, shut the door, stay with it, and keep the engine on.

To hell with wacko liberal scientists. I just want to see what will happen. Let me know how you make out.

[B-Man]

Has he issued five-year plans for shoe factories yet? What? Oh, right, we don´t have shoe factories any more.

 

Obama takes control of climate change policies with executive order that will bypass Congress

 

President Obama used his executive powers on Friday to create a 'Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.'

Obama's plan would be put in place through executive order, bypassing Congress, which has stalemated over climate legislation in recent years.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2jUeMrViN

 

.

[Koko78]

Has he issued five-year plans for shoe factories yet? What? Oh, right, we don´t have shoe factories any more.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2jUeMrViN

 

.

 

At this point, I really wouldn't be that surprised if Obama declared a permanent state of emergency in January of 2017 and decreed (by executive order, of course) that he needed to stay in office indefinitely so that he could take care of us all, without that pesky Congress or court system getting in the way.

[/dev/null]

At this point, I really wouldn't be that surprised if Obama declared a permanent state of emergency in January of 2017 and decreed (by executive order, of course) that he needed to stay in office indefinitely so that he could take care of us all, without that pesky Congress or court system getting in the way.

 

Why would he do that? The Democrats have the electoral system rigged enough where they stay in power, just with a different mascot. We'll go from Ronald McDonald to Wendy.

 

And I don't mean hot young Wendy.

http://www.kidfreeliving.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Wendys_ThatsBetter2.jpg

 

 

I mean the chunky one with cankles

[B-Man]

Antarctica Not Melting: Ice Levels At Record High

 

 

Far from disappearing, Antarctic ice levels reached a record high on Sept. 22. Climate alarmists are now being forced to reconcile this evidence with their unquestioning belief in global warming.

 

The Washington Post’s Jason Samenow reported the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s findings that Antarctic ice had reached record levels. The previous record was set in 2012.

 

 

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2k02jbHdY

 

 

 

 

.

[TheMadCap]

Antarctica Not Melting: Ice Levels At Record High

 

 

Far from disappearing, Antarctic ice levels reached a record high on Sept. 22. Climate alarmists are now being forced to reconcile this evidence with their unquestioning belief in global warming.

 

The Washington Post’s Jason Samenow reported the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s findings that Antarctic ice had reached record levels. The previous record was set in 2012.

 

 

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2k02jbHdY

 

 

 

.

 

Another piece of data. More evidence that we don't understand climate over long periods of time. It no more disproves "global warming" than would the ice sheet melting prove it.

 

What most people don't understand, is that by the time something changes globally, it is usually too late to do anything about it. In other words, if one day "global warming" IS proven to be due to humans, it will be late to really do anything other than ride it out...

Edited November 8, 2013 by TheMadCap

[B-Man]

Virginia is for Warmers

 

 

FTA:

Speaking of politics and climate science, the great John Howard, Australia’s former prime minister, gave a speech in London the other day, and touched on Mann’s favorite insult:

 

Increasingly offensive language is used. The most egregious example has been the term “denier”. We are all aware of the particular meaning that word has acquired in contemporary parlance. It has been employed in this debate with some malice aforethought.

 

An overriding feature of the debate is the constant attempt to intimidate policy makers, in some cases successfully, with the mantras of “follow the science” and “the science is truly settled”. The purpose is to create the impression that there is really no room for argument; this is not really a public policy issue; it is one on which the experts have spoken, and we would all be quite daft to do other than follow the prescriptions

, it is asserted, which flow automatically from the scientific findings.

 

Writing recently in

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

,

Dr Richard S. Lindzen

, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said of those with political agendas who found it useful to employ science, “This immediately involves a distortion of science at a very basic level: namely

science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry

. The real utility of science stems from the latter; the political utility stems from the former.”

 

 

.

[B-Man]

Why Does the Global Warming Hoax Persist?

 

FTA:

Why? Because there is a great deal of money at stake. The Science and Environmental Policy Project has the numbers:

 

Number of the Week

:

$22,195,000,000 US

. As required by law, the White House delivered to Congress a report stating in Fiscal Year 2013, which ended on September 30, the US government spent $22,195,000,000 on climate change matters. The main categories are: US Global Change Research Program $2.463 Billion; Clean Energy Technologies $5.783 Billion, International Assistance $797 Million; Natural Resources Adaption $95 Million; Energy Tax Provisions That May Reduce Greenhouse Gases $4.999 Billion; Energy Payments in Lieu of Tax Provisions $8.080 Billion. The $8.080 Billion buys a lot of lobbying power for the wind and solar industries.

 

These expenditures further support SEPP’s earlier estimates that

since 1993, the US has spent over $150 Billion on climate change. The updated figure is over $165 Billion.

 

Note that not a single one of those dollars, ostensibly spent to combat “climate change,” had an iota of impact on the climate. Nearly $2.5 billion went to fund the alarmist campaign; no wonder alarmist scientists don’t want the gravy train to end. The symbiosis is obvious: the government pays alarmists billions to spread myths about the climate, and the point of the mythology is to persuade voters to confer more power on government. And the $165 billion that the U.S. government has spent since 1993 is only a fraction of total global spending to grease the “green” machine. Lots of money to allies of big government; that is what global warming alarmism is all about.

 

 

 

 

To use the "pro government argument...............Think what we could have done with that $165 Billion, that would have been a direct help to average Americans

[OCinBuffalo]

Tag Team, back again

Check it to wreck it, let's begin

Party on, party people, let me hear some noise

DC's in the house

 

(at least I think he's off suspension too, right?)

 

, jump, jump, rejoice

Says there's a party over here, a party over there

Wave your hands in the air, shake your derierre

These three words mean you're gettin' busy:

Whoomp, there it is! Hit me!

 

Well, for my first post since Simon banned me, I will debunk the bunk cluttering this thread:

I am not about to go into this over and over again, but it is true that this issue has become, unfortunately, a political issue rather than one of pure science. I have no doubt OC that the article you quoted (mocked) was written by someone with a political agenda, and I have no desire nor the energy to read it. I'd rather talk to my colleagues in this field who are doing the actual research, and my own former research on this topic. That being said, here is the real bottom line (stated by me for at least the 7th or 8th time):

 

There is no way to prove, no empirical evidence that supports, anthropogenic inputs to Earths atmosphere in the form of so called Greenhouse gases and other pollutants have any effect on global mean temperatures.

 

Now, that being said, the corollary is also true. There is no evidence that proves anthropogenic does NOT have an effect on global temperatures.

 

Before either side brands me a heretic, let me explain. We simply have not been studying this long enough to tell. We just haven't, we don't have the data either way to prove one way or the other which is true. However, it is incontrovertible that reducing anthropogenic inputs are in our long term best interest, provided we do so in an Economically feasible way.

 

OC, I did not read the article, so I can only guess at the claims based on your points. Here is what I can tell you, in actual scientific truth, and I allow you and everyone else to come to your own conclusions.

 

1. CO2, Methane, water vapor, etc (so called greenhouse gases) will absorb in the infrared spectrum, which is another way of saying they heat up. Putting more into the atmosphere Would cause heating of the atmosphere if we didn't have elimination mechanisms like

 

2. Carbonate system - the ocean is in fact, thought to be a sink or repository for excess atmospheric CO2. What we don't know is how much it can handle and what the final environmental fate of the bound carbon is. I don't have the energy to explain the carbonate system, anyone who is interested can find this in any atmospheric chemistry or general chem book. Look up carbonate system, pH, environmental fate, thermohaline circulation etc.

 

3. Pollutant substances are classified as such based on WHERE they are located. For example, one would not normally consider water vapor to be a "pollutant", but when it is in the atmosphere, it can be characterized as such, since it causes an environmental impact (see item 1) above. Another example is ozone,which is beneficial in the upper atmosphere but classified as a pollutant at near the Earths surface.

 

Pollutants like NOx, sulfer, and other ejecta from a volcanic eruption, not to mention water vapor and dust particles, do cause

Temporary cooling of the atmosphere, as they block out, once again, infrared radiation from the sun. Put another way, sunlight is blocked from reaching the planet. This is why you will hear that clouds also cause cooling, they reflect sunlight. Now there are natural elimination mechanisms the Earth has for getting rid of this type of pollutants, namely wind and rainwater. Again, overtaxing this elimination mechanism is not in our best interest.

 

In short, we know much about how our planet functions, but we are adding a new variable into the equation that is nearly unknown: us. We just don't know yet how much, if any, we are truly affecting earths chemistry. What we do know is that we should responsibly manage our inputs and influences.

 

That's it, I am officially done with this subject. Let the politics continue on, I have no input on that issue...

First of all, I am not the one claiming that massive, sweeping political change needs to be immediately made.

 

The person making that claim, is by definition the person who needs to back it up. The rest of us are on solid intellectual ground when we poke holes in their explanation, and doubly so when they never plug them, they just release another report.

 

I study: behavior. That's what I have my "Ph.D" in(I've been told I could get 3 different ones, in different disciplines, actually, for my research used to start my company). The behavior is the most telling. Given the extent of bad behavior we are seeing from these clowns, the hard science seems to barely matter anymore.

 

While that is an awful state for things to be in, you tell me: should I ignore what I know?

 

Also, all of the science stuff doesn't scare me a lick. I am a smart guy, and I undertstand English, so write what you have to write, scientific or not. Rest assured, I will understand it.

 

The truth is: we don't know. The other truth is: Global Warming is needed by the left in order to avoid dealing with the impending collapse of SSI/Medicare/Medicaid, and now? Obamacare. The liberal state WILL have to be reformed without some external stimulus, like Global Warming. This is based not on the science of climate, but of: business. 2-300-level finance and economics classes, with a little financial acconting thrown in.

 

If you are familiar with that material, then you KNOW why they need Global Warming. They need a political offset(in the form of a carbon offset) to counter the very real financial and economic realities staring them in the face starting in just a few short years.

against my better judgement, I turned on MSNBC on XM while I was in the car last night, and low and behold, there was some personality who is an activist for an environmental group, who invited a "climate science expert" who just so happens to also be apart of the personalities little enviro group, and a Democratic congresscritter from NY. They should have read my post above, it was SO blatently politicized and dead wrong. So many generalizations and over reaching statements without scientific merit. For example, this clown stated it was a concrete FACT that major storms would get more prevalent with warmer temperatures! He was arguing for Cap and Trade to fix it! See what I wrote about solutions that will not cripple us economically? I give up!

 

ah what's the use? this subject is a retard rollercoaster, as much as I hate to use that description. Not sure how else to describe it...

This is the only science I'm aware of, and perhaps I'm being naive with this, where we start with the solution and then proceed to seek evidence of the problem.

 

I mean, hell, this crap happens all the time in my business, but we don't call what we do science.

 

Over half the projects I've worked on involve some sort of shenanigans = VP of something hiring his buddy's firm to do something that their software can't do, that happened prior to my arrival, and invariably part of that job is to clean up the mess, one way or the other. Sometimes that has meant cleaning the VP and the firm he hired: completely. The VP knows he is in trouble, so, he lies, cheats, steals(one time I walked in and found all of the test reports: gone), distorts and generally does whatever he can to avoid his/her inevitable doom.

 

That is the political environment I normally operate in. So, when I see the same behavior from the environtologists, are you expecting me not to recognize it?

The other problem for them is that I can equally destroy the other sides inaccuracies as well, as I did to the points in the original posting of this thread. I'm truly the man in the middle, not only am i right, but I have the knowledge to back it up.

 

God damn, I sound just like you. I've been hanging out here far too long...

You need a grip if you believe you've destroyed anything, never mind anything inaccurate, in this thread. Go back and read the article(which you have yet to do), and then re-read my response.

 

Yeah. I'm not the one saying we need "fear" to make this science "work".

 

I'm not the one saying that things can "temporarily disappear". I believe the Conservation of Matter is a scientific principle, no?

 

I'm not the one saying that the entire thing...now hangs on 1 of 2 speculations: hiding at the bottom of the ocean, or that pollution is hiding the effects, of pollution. (And here I thought the bottom of the ocean one was the most abusrd).

 

Consider that for a second: here we have a supposedly long "settled" bit of science...which can now ONLY be true, if one of these 2 pure speculations is prove correct. Consider that again.

 

And finally, explain the picture I posted. Oh, you did. You said: "that's a piece of data".

 

You might be interested to know that this tiny "piece of data" has been used consistently to PROVE the Global Warming theory, and worst of all: convince EU pols to ruin their entire economy/power grid.

 

Ignoring the magnitude of this "piece of data", in favor of its singularity? Come on.

Just a CYA to show his left wing supporters that he's "listening and doing something" about thier concerns. They'll get together, waste a **** ton of money in meetings, ordering food, and publish a report a year later with their recomendations. The report will go in a drawer somewhere. No biggie...

No the report won't go in the drawer.

 

That is the problem.

 

The report will go on the internet, as a fund raising tool, which propagates this idiocy.

 

Yeah, it is a political tool created for political purposes.

 

It's far past time to wise up, Professor.

[TheMadCap]

Tag Team, back again

Check it to wreck it, let's begin

Party on, party people, let me hear some noise

DC's in the house

 

(at least I think he's off suspension too, right?)

 

, jump, jump, rejoice

Says there's a party over here, a party over there

Wave your hands in the air, shake your derierre

These three words mean you're gettin' busy:

Whoomp, there it is! Hit me!

 

Well, for my first post since Simon banned me, I will debunk the bunk cluttering this thread:

 

First of all, I am not the one claiming that massive, sweeping political change needs to be immediately made.

 

The person making that claim, is by definition the person who needs to back it up. The rest of us are on solid intellectual ground when we poke holes in their explanation, and doubly so when they never plug them, they just release another report.

 

I study: behavior. That's what I have my "Ph.D" in(I've been told I could get 3 different ones, in different disciplines, actually, for my research used to start my company). The behavior is the most telling. Given the extent of bad behavior we are seeing from these clowns, the hard science seems to barely matter anymore.

 

While that is an awful state for things to be in, you tell me: should I ignore what I know?

 

Also, all of the science stuff doesn't scare me a lick. I am a smart guy, and I undertstand English, so write what you have to write, scientific or not. Rest assured, I will understand it.

 

The truth is: we don't know. The other truth is: Global Warming is needed by the left in order to avoid dealing with the impending collapse of SSI/Medicare/Medicaid, and now? Obamacare. The liberal state WILL have to be reformed without some external stimulus, like Global Warming. This is based not on the science of climate, but of: business. 2-300-level finance and economics classes, with a little financial acconting thrown in.

 

If you are familiar with that material, then you KNOW why they need Global Warming. They need a political offset(in the form of a carbon offset) to counter the very real financial and economic realities staring them in the face starting in just a few short years.

 

This is the only science I'm aware of, and perhaps I'm being naive with this, where we start with the solution and then proceed to seek evidence of the problem.

 

I mean, hell, this crap happens all the time in my business, but we don't call what we do science.

 

Over half the projects I've worked on involve some sort of shenanigans = VP of something hiring his buddy's firm to do something that their software can't do, that happened prior to my arrival, and invariably part of that job is to clean up the mess, one way or the other. Sometimes that has meant cleaning the VP and the firm he hired: completely. The VP knows he is in trouble, so, he lies, cheats, steals(one time I walked in and found all of the test reports: gone), distorts and generally does whatever he can to avoid his/her inevitable doom.

 

That is the political environment I normally operate in. So, when I see the same behavior from the environtologists, are you expecting me not to recognize it?

 

You need a grip if you believe you've destroyed anything, never mind anything inaccurate, in this thread. Go back and read the article(which you have yet to do), and then re-read my response.

 

Yeah. I'm not the one saying we need "fear" to make this science "work".

 

I'm not the one saying that things can "temporarily disappear". I believe the Conservation of Matter is a scientific principle, no?

 

I'm not the one saying that the entire thing...now hangs on 1 of 2 speculations: hiding at the bottom of the ocean, or that pollution is hiding the effects, of pollution. (And here I thought the bottom of the ocean one was the most abusrd).

 

Consider that for a second: here we have a supposedly long "settled" bit of science...which can now ONLY be true, if one of these 2 pure speculations is prove correct. Consider that again.

 

And finally, explain the picture I posted. Oh, you did. You said: "that's a piece of data".

 

You might be interested to know that this tiny "piece of data" has been used consistently to PROVE the Global Warming theory, and worst of all: convince EU pols to ruin their entire economy/power grid.

 

Ignoring the magnitude of this "piece of data", in favor of its singularity? Come on.

 

No the report won't go in the drawer.

 

That is the problem.

 

The report will go on the internet, as a fund raising tool, which propagates this idiocy.

 

Yeah, it is a political tool created for political purposes.

 

It's far past time to wise up, Professor.

 

You are right, this subject is way to political. I agree with your basis that the left needs this argument for thier political purposes.

 

As far as the science aspects, I can't tell if you are serious or not. "Hiding at the bottom of the ocean" is an overly simplistic and dramatic. The carbonate system is quite complex in natural waters, CO2 from the atmopshere is thought to dissolve in cold ocean waters and precipitate into CaCO3.

 

I suspect you did not really read what I wrote. "pollution" can be just about anything based on WHERE it is located. Again, ozone is not generally considered a pollutant gas in the atmosphere, as it has a necessary and important purpose there. But when it is formed close to the ground it is absolutely a pollutant. The same is true of ejecta from a volcano.

 

These are scientific principals that have much data behind them. It is unfortunate that political hacks try and twist the information to further their agendas. The information is out there.

 

I'm not reading a political puff piece written by some hack with a politcal agenda to push. I work closely with actual scientist who do this for a living...

[B-Man]

Enviros Suffering Nuclear Meltdown

 

I’ve written before here about the documentary film Pandora’s Promise, in which prominent environmentalists have changed their mind about nuclear power. Then a couple weeks ago several prominent climate alarmists, headed by the egregious James Hansen, put out an article advocating a return to nuclear power. Naturally this has upset the retrograde/reactionary environmentalists who are stuck in 1979 and can’t get over Three Mile Island.

 

 

 

.

 

 

[OCinBuffalo]

You are right, this subject is way to political. I agree with your basis that the left needs this argument for thier political purposes.

 

As far as the science aspects, I can't tell if you are serious or not. "Hiding at the bottom of the ocean" is an overly simplistic and dramatic. The carbonate system is quite complex in natural waters, CO2 from the atmopshere is thought to dissolve in cold ocean waters and precipitate into CaCO3.

 

I suspect you did not really read what I wrote. "pollution" can be just about anything based on WHERE it is located. Again, ozone is not generally considered a pollutant gas in the atmosphere, as it has a necessary and important purpose there. But when it is formed close to the ground it is absolutely a pollutant. The same is true of ejecta from a volcano.

 

These are scientific principals that have much data behind them. It is unfortunate that political hacks try and twist the information to further their agendas. The information is out there.

 

I'm not reading a political puff piece written by some hack with a politcal agenda to push. I work closely with actual scientist who do this for a living...

No, no my friend this is 100% science, done on a political stage. I'll show you. (It's even admirable, if you are into observing how movies get made/the creative process).

 

Consider: I have a problem with my movie being believeable. Specifically my plot falls apart if I can't find a place where something big and bad is hiding on earth.

 

Well, scientifically, what part of the earth do we, even scientists, know the least about? (In staying with the analogy, why, in Wag the Dog did we go to war with Alabania? Answer: "nobody knows from Alabania") That's right, the bottom of the ocean. Where is real research the most difficult and expensive to conduct? Well, top 5 on that list has to be the bottom of the ocean.

 

So, isn't it convenient? They, not me, have said that the heat, not carbon, is being stored at the bottom of the ocean. How it got there? Carbonation, masturbation, cavitation = all irrelevant, and here's why:

 

If I say it isn't there, then I have to go down there and prove that it isn't, don't I? How convenient. Meanwhile, they can say "oh it's there alright", and use all sorts of babble to claim that it is there...circumstantially, and, when I demand that they prove it?

 

They whine and say "we don't have the funding to go down there and show it to you"....which...is what this whole thing has always been partially about = $

 

Convenient. If you wanted to run an insurance scam on your car, where is the very best place to make sure it is never, ever, found? Yes, the bottom of the ocean.

 

*******************

 

On the pollution thing. No. It's quite literal: they are saying that increased pollution from China is so large, that it is masking the effect of Global Warming(caused by the very same pollutants) by cooling the earth, and not letting sunlight IN, never mind keeping it in once it's arrived, via "the Greenhouse".

 

That's right, the other "the only way this can be true" speculation says "pollution is blocking sunlight, but also causing Global Warming", at the same time.

 

Dude.

 

So, to try to use what you are saying: extra carbon in the air is only a pollutant when it causes global warming, but, not a pollutant when it blocks sunlight from coming in, in the first place, so....what, exactly? Carbon isn't a pollutant when it suits the environtologist's purpose? Otherwise, it is a useful thing that is saving us from Global Warming?

 

This doesn't pass basic logic, never mind science. Isn't it true that any theory has to do that, before we even bother start running experiments on it?

Edited November 12, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[TheMadCap]

Damn it OC, you made me have to read that piece of **** article!

 

I have no idea what the hell these clowns are talking about when they infer that "the Oceans are taking up increased amounts of heat". Maybe the actual report will make more sense, or the person writing the article got it wrong. Without the actual report, I can't support or refute thier claims, but it sounds like their models don't work because they don't have enough data yet to understand the real situation. It sounds like they have assumed they understand all the variables, which should clue anyone WITH a clue in that they don't.

 

And about the pollution, I did not say carbon (CO2), my example was ozone. But what I can tell you is that small amounts of CO2 are needed by plants, massive amounts of it in the atmosphere is generally not a good thing, because we don't understand the Earth's mechanisms of elimination very well. Anything we can do to reduce it is a good thing, if it's done responsibly.

 

So in closing, I'll have to give this article the DC Tom treatment, call them all idiots and call it a day. That article is a shitsmear of a disaster and makes absolutely no sense. No wonder people are confused by it.

 

I will say this though: don't lump all climate scientist in with this political agenda BS these Germans are apparently trying to pull. The people I know and work with are honest people trying to understand how Earth works, not make some political statement. It wouldn't be fair to the real scientists to have these clowns drag them all down...

Edited November 12, 2013 by TheMadCap