Nanker Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Hot Stuff, Cold Logic by Richard Tol FTA: Just as there is no logical or scientific basis for thinking that climate change is new, there is no self-evident reason to assume that the climate of the past is “better” than the climate of the future. With just as little logic, we might assume that women’s rights, health care, or education were necessarily better in the past. Any such judgment also contradicts Hume’s Law and, perhaps worse, is grounded in a fallacious appeal to nature understood in a very slanted way. There is no prima facie reason to assume that any given past climate was better than the prospective one. The climate of the 21st century may well be unprecedented in the history of human civilization; the number of people living in countries with free and fair elections is unprecedented, too. So what? “Unprecedented” is not a synonym for “bad.” Others argue that the impacts of climate change are largely unknown but may be catastrophic. The precautionary principle thus enjoins that we should work hard, if not do our utmost, to avoid even the slim possibility of catastrophe. This logic works fine for one-sided risks: We ban carcinogenic material in toys because we do not want our kids to get cancer. Safe materials are only slightly more expensive, and there is no likely or even imaginable “upside” to children having cancer. Climate policy, on the other hand, is about balancing risks, and there are risks to climate policies as well as risks caused by climate change. Sharp increases in energy prices have caused devastating economic recessions in the past, for example. Cheap energy fueled the industrial revolution, and lack of access to reliable energy is one factor holding back economic growth in most developing countries. In the short run, we rely on fossil fuels to keep us warm and keep the lights on, to grow our food, and to purify our drinking water. So there is a cost to human well-being in constraining fossil fuel use. What this means is that, instead of assuming the worst, we should study the impacts of climate change and seek to balance them against the negative effects of climate policy. This is what climatologists and economists actually have done for years, but their efforts have been overshadowed by the hysteria of the Greens and the Left, and the more subtle lobbying of companies yearning for renewables subsidies and other government hand-outs. More at the link: http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/12/10/hot-stuff-cold-logic/ . Edited January 3, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Re above: I thought GW was a hoax so what is this author talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) Re above: I thought GW was a hoax so what is this author talking about? The OP stated that the 'hoax' was that climate change/global warming was caused by humanity, not that it exists. From the OP: Whatever they are calling this boogieman these days,as we were shoveling today during the record national cold wave my neighbor had a good point.When I was in high school (1980) my ultra lib environmental science teacher assured the students in my class that there was an impending ice age. A few years after I graduated from HS I heard a few teenagers talking about global warming in a book store.I did some research and I quickly realized the same thing my neighbor said today.Well before the industrial period in the world had started the worlds ice that covered most of the continent had melted during a warming period.Obviously that warming was not caused by man because the industrial era was not existent at that point so it was a natural cycle. Man caused global warming/climate change is nothing more than a boogieman created by the left in this country and now the world to control policy.Furthermore whenever a scientist pushes this agenda one only has to Google their name and you'll soon discover that that scientist is financed by some government entity.I also discovered a couple of years ago that many scientists have been caught skewing data because the numbers didn't match their hysterical agenda. Edited January 4, 2015 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) The OP stated that the 'hoax' was that climate change/global warming was caused by humanity, not that it exists. From the OP: Whatever they are calling this boogieman these days,as we were shoveling today during the record national cold wave my neighbor had a good point.When I was in high school (1980) my ultra lib environmental science teacher assured the students in my class that there was an impending ice age. A few years after I graduated from HS I heard a few teenagers talking about global warming in a book store.I did some research and I quickly realized the same thing my neighbor said today.Well before the industrial period in the world had started the worlds ice that covered most of the continent had melted during a warming period.Obviously that warming was not caused by man because the industrial era was not existent at that point so it was a natural cycle. Man caused global warming/climate change is nothing more than a boogieman created by the left in this country and now the world to control policy.Furthermore whenever a scientist pushes this agenda one only has to Google their name and you'll soon discover that that scientist is financed by some government entity.I also discovered a couple of years ago that many scientists have been caught skewing data because the numbers didn't match their hysterical agenda. Its like that with lots of things. The last 6 years I have seen it first hand in what they are doing with the Asian carp and the eDNA testing... Not the Corps, but the other side. 6 years ago, right before Notre Dame's funding from Michigan was to run out, they ramped it all up and got the Federal gov't to bite (pun intended)... Now everybody is in on this eDNA testing that just doesn't translate to the "real world." You know me, I am as lib as it can get, but it is a crock of sh*t what some in the name of science are trying to pass off to keep their pockets lined. I am not saying that the science or tech is bad, they are just tweaking it in their pocketbook's favor. Places like Notre Dame are making bank! You can laugh @ me all you want, the gov't boondoggles are amazing. I am sitting watching the real world and it is incredible the sh*t they pass off. Sorry to go off on some of these scientists like biologists, etc... It's really freaking incredible what's being twisted around out there! Edited January 4, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Its like that with lots of things. The last 6 years I have seen it first hand in what they are doing with the Asian carp and the eDNA testing... Not the Corps, but the other side. 6 years ago, right before Notre Dame's funding from Michigan was to run out, they ramped it all up and got the Federal gov't to bite (pun intended)... Now everybody is in on this eDNA testing that just doesn't translate to the "real world." You know me, I am as lib as it can get, but it is a crock of sh*t what some in the name of science are trying to pass off to keep their pockets lined. I am not saying that the science or tech is bad, they are just tweaking it in their pocketbook's favor. Places like Notre Dame are making bank! You can laugh @ me all you want, the gov't boondoggles are amazing. I am sitting watching the real world and it is incredible the sh*t they pass off. Sorry to go off on some of these scientists like biologists, etc... It's really freaking incredible what's being twisted around out there! I don't know anything about Asian Carp and Notre Dame, but I agree with you on the rest, at least in principle. That's why I consider myself a man-made global warning skeptic, rather than a denier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) It's so hoaxy that 2014 was the warmest in our lifetimes and That Co2 has - what doubled- directly attributable to humans. Edited January 4, 2015 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 It's so hoaxy that 2014 was the warmest in our lifetimes and That Co2 has - what doubled- directly attributable to humans. Your source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Your source? Really? It's kinda a big deal and has been noted in several places.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Really? It's kinda a big deal and has been noted in several places.... Then it should be easy enough to provide the source of your information. I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic. Convince me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Then it should be easy enough to provide the source of your information. I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic. Convince me. Google Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Google lol. just as many sources out there talking about 18-year pause in warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Then it should be easy enough to provide the source of your information. I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic. Convince me. That's not how Leftist political thinking operates. Their talking points are indisputable facts that only a mouth breathing knuckle dragging teabagger racist would have the nerve to even question. Everybody is supposed to just accept it when they say the Global Warming Climate Change Disruption Chaos debate is settled. Or that there is an epidemic of white cops shooting unarmed young black men. Or that a 3% increase instead of 5% increase is a draconian budget cut. It's up to the skeptic to prove the Leftist correct. But when the skeptic cites evidence to the contrary, well that's not what their accepted authoritarian tells them. Or you are citing a biased source like ExxonMobil (because their own sources are always without reproach). Or because BushCheneyPalinMissionAccomplishedlalalalalIcan'thear you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Google Just as I suspected. Edited January 5, 2015 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Just as I suspected. He has proven himself to be a really weak poster. Lacks substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Or I was driving and using my phone. Listen - if you are gonna be an OP challenging a subject such as GW surely you Google "2014 Warmest" and see the 50 or so articles referencing that subject and choose which source you are either going to believe or disbelieve. That action would probably take less time and effort than responding to a post. Weak posting is firing up an opinion merely for the purpose of picking a fight with your already cemented opinion. GW: Temps have raised in correlation with CO2 rises. Take two aquariums - one with 220 PPM CO2 and one with 400 PPM - put in sun and monitor temps. Add up all the fossil fuels we have burned and see how it has raised the C02 content in the atmosphere. You say you are a skeptic - not sure what in the above equation warrants skepticism - perhaps you can separate the math from the politics and show me the cracks in the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Or I was driving and using my phone. Listen - if you are gonna be an OP challenging a subject such as GW surely you Google "2014 Warmest" and see the 50 or so articles referencing that subject and choose which source you are either going to believe or disbelieve. That action would probably take less time and effort than responding to a post. Weak posting is firing up an opinion merely for the purpose of picking a fight with your already cemented opinion. GW: Temps have raised in correlation with CO2 rises. Take two aquariums - one with 220 PPM CO2 and one with 400 PPM - put in sun and monitor temps. Add up all the fossil fuels we have burned and see how it has raised the C02 content in the atmosphere. You say you are a skeptic - not sure what in the above equation warrants skepticism - perhaps you can separate the math from the politics and show me the cracks in the science. Driving while using a cell phone is as dangerous as driving legally drunk. http://www.unews.utah.edu/old/p/062206-1.html "June 29, 2006 -- Three years after the preliminary results first were presented at a scientific meeting and drew wide attention, University of Utah psychologists have published a study showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers. "We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit” of 0.08 percent, which is the minimum level that defines illegal drunken driving in most U.S. states, says study co-author Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology. “If legislators really want to address driver distraction, then they should consider outlawing cell phone use while driving.” Psychology Professor David Strayer, the study's lead author, adds: “Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cell phone and drive. The level of impairment is very similar.” “Clearly the safest course of action is to not use a cell phone while driving,” concludes the study by Strayer, Drews and Dennis Crouch, a research associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology. The study was set for publication June 29 in the summer 2006 issue of Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society." Did you notice that I didn't make a claim and then tell you to "Google" any back-up links? Also, if you are going to argue with your own cemented opinions you will most likely lose. With that in mind, I don't know whether to call you Carrie or Sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Or I was driving and using my phone. Listen - if you are gonna be an OP challenging a subject such as GW surely you Google "2014 Warmest" and see the 50 or so articles referencing that subject and choose which source you are either going to believe or disbelieve. That action would probably take less time and effort than responding to a post. Weak posting is firing up an opinion merely for the purpose of picking a fight with your already cemented opinion. GW: Temps have raised in correlation with CO2 rises. Take two aquariums - one with 220 PPM CO2 and one with 400 PPM - put in sun and monitor temps. Add up all the fossil fuels we have burned and see how it has raised the C02 content in the atmosphere. You say you are a skeptic - not sure what in the above equation warrants skepticism - perhaps you can separate the math from the politics and show me the cracks in the science. There are easily just as many written pieces that support a cessation in the previous warming trend. Don't believe it? Google it. You're also ignoring the fact that I'm talking about MAN-MADE global warming, not GW in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 What part of the equation that I laid out are you skeptical of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 What part of the equation that I laid out are you skeptical of? The entire thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts