PDA

View Full Version : NASA’s Hansen Exploits Hot Summers to Push Carbon Fascism




John F Kennedy III
08-09-2012, 01:35 PM
NASA’s Hansen Exploits Hot Summers to Push Carbon Fascism


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 8, 2012


NASA’s doctor Hansen is at it again. He says the latest round of hot weather is your fault because you create carbon emissions.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/04/07/hansen460.jpg


“Dr. Hansen said that at least three extreme summers over the past decade, the 2003 heatwave in Europe which killed more than 50,000 people, the 2010 hot summer in Moscow and last year’s droughts in Texas and Oklahoma, were almost certainly the result of man-made climate change rather than natural events,” reports The Independent.

Hansen and his colleagues published their conclusion in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change,” Hansen said in an article published in the Washington Post. “To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.”

But wait a minute. There is another explanation, but it rarely receives press in the corporate media.

NOAA climatologists and scientists have produced reports drawing a correlation between weather and sun spot activity. Moreover, scientists at Armagh Observatory in Ireland believe the sun’s warming influence is under-estimated.


“Dr. Hansen said that at least three extreme summers over the past decade, the 2003 heatwave in Europe which killed more than 50,000 people, the 2010 hot summer in Moscow and last year’s droughts in Texas and Oklahoma, were almost certainly the result of man-made climate change rather than natural events,” reports The Independent.

Hansen and his colleagues published their conclusion in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change,” Hansen said in an article published in the Washington Post. “To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.”

But wait a minute. There is another explanation, but it rarely receives press in the corporate media.

NOAA climatologists and scientists have produced reports drawing a correlation between weather and sun spot activity. Moreover, scientists at Armagh Observatory in Ireland believe the sun’s warming influence is under-estimated.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/multiwavelength_astronomy/multiwavelength_museum/images/sun_euv19.gif

High solar activity of the sort we are now experiencing creates cosmic rays that reach earth and result in an absence of low clouds. “Low clouds cool the Earth by reflecting more solar radiation back into space, so a drop in the amount of low cloud contributes to global warming. High cloud does the opposite and tends to warm the Earth by reflecting more of the Earth’s infra-red radiation back to the ground” the Armagh researchers discovered.

In 2004, scientists in Germany and Finland reported that “the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.”

CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, has also published research pointing at the sun. “Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere, the sun determines the temperature on Earth,” Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote in 2011. Danish Space Research scientists also reached this conclusion in 1996.

Such studies are routinely ignored or dismissed by the climate change crowd who blame you and your car, your air-conditioner, your refrigerator, and the life-saving equipment at the local hospital and other attributes of modern civilization for global climate change.

Hansen and his fellows are shamelessly exploiting the unusually hot weather created by solar activity. This is to be expected from a gaggle of humanity-hating fanatics who have suggested Chinese styled authoritarianism (http://www.infowars.com/nasas-hansen-impose-chinese-totalitarianism-on-america/) in order to force their agenda on the world.


original article here:
http://www.infowars.com/nasas-hansen-exploits-hot-summers-to-push-carbon-fascism/

John F Kennedy III
08-09-2012, 07:07 PM
Bump

Nickels
08-09-2012, 07:09 PM
But wait a minute. There is another explanation, but it rarely receives press in the corporate media.

NOAA climatologists and scientists have produced reports drawing a correlation between weather and sun spot activity. Moreover, scientists at Armagh Observatory in Ireland believe the sun’s warming influence is under-estimated.


got a source for this one?

Because I'm pretty sure it's a PRATT (point refuted a thousand times).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

Natural Citizen
08-09-2012, 08:24 PM
They want to militarize space in a manner that can be uncontested before folks wake up to the idea that the sun is just about ready to calm down a bit leaving us in a global cooling scenario for a few hundred years. Global warming will become a matter of national security just like every other power grabbing gag that's been used for things like having yer fellas fondled at the airport and all of that other lovely stuff...for profit/power...while the time is right and folks are still buying the whole gag about everything being a matter of national security that the elitists want to apply to infrastructure relative only to their own definition of repatriation. Because it's big business...for them.

It's a unique situation too. A matter of national security whereas there is no enemy to aim at? Folks should think about this before they just jump on the bandwagon to privatize space flight and surrender the relevant science and technology thereof to the entity at the other end of the space program. The private interests.


Now. Here is what is happening. The solar system is changing around us. And it's got nothing to do with these Hegelian ramblings from folks with a vested interest in turning true science into a trade secret of sort for those who would seek to profit from it under said terms of national security....like that nice dual citizen Chertoff did with the xray machines. How did that one work out fer yuns?

John F Kennedy III
08-09-2012, 08:42 PM
They want to militarize space in a manner that can be uncontested. Global warming will become a matter of national security just like every other gag that's been used for things like having yer fellas fondled at the airport and all of that other lovely stuff...for profit. Because it's big business.

It's a unique situation too. A matter of national security whereas there is no enemy to aim at? Folks should think about this before they just jump on the bandwagon to privatize space flight and surrender the relevant science and technology thereof to the entity at the other end of the space program. The private interests.


Now. Here is what is happening. The solar system is changing around us. And it's got nothing to do with these Hegelian ramblings from folks with a vested interest in turning true science into a trade secret of sort for those who would seek to profit from it under said terms of national security....like that nice dual citizen Chertoff did with the xray machines. How did that one work out fer yuns?

Yes the solar system is changing. Plus there is a giant ball of fire at it's center spitting out solar flares.

mad cow
08-09-2012, 09:19 PM
Another reason to totally defund NASA.

Natural Citizen
08-09-2012, 09:38 PM
Another reason to totally defund NASA.

Why defund them? Best to get rid of the bad elements and take it back. There are some good people at NASA. Far moreso than those who have run it into the ground.

Natural Citizen
08-09-2012, 09:39 PM
Yes the solar system is changing. Plus there is a giant ball of fire at it's center spitting out solar flares.

Yep. Happens..

trey4sports
08-09-2012, 09:45 PM
Why defund them? Best to get rid of the bad elements and take it back. There are some good people at NASA. Far moreso than those who have run it into the ground.

take it back? It is funded via theft. The only way i see to "take it back" is to defund it and let the cream of the crop move to the private sector.

John F Kennedy III
08-09-2012, 09:53 PM
Yep. Happens..

Then people try to say it is man made global warming.

mad cow
08-09-2012, 09:53 PM
Why defund them? Best to get rid of the bad elements and take it back. There are some good people at NASA. Far moreso than those who have run it into the ground.

OK,another reason to totally voluntarily fund NASA.
Have at it.

Natural Citizen
08-09-2012, 09:56 PM
take it back? It is funded via theft. The only way i see to "take it back" is to defund it and let the cream of the crop move to the private sector.

Yes, an argument could be made that it may be practical to do that. But the bigger issue here is that even if folks don't already realize it much of the funding already goes to private interests. I generally prefer to just use the term "space program" for that reason alone. Defunding it removes any say so one may have regarding advancement of sciences and applications relative to society's best interest in general. Is that really what you want to do? The Growth Model and survival in practical human terms are two entirely different situations. Completely opposing phenomenon too. What did you get from the bailouts? Think about that.

Natural Citizen
08-09-2012, 10:11 PM
Then people try to say it is man made global warming.

They can try all thay want. What are they going to do when the real science community...who are becoming very politically active recently...show otherwise?

The only opposition to the spew of man made global warming is manufactured equally. Think of a false left right paradigm except in terms of scientific philosophy....then...oops. Here comes the 3rd party scientist. Gigs up...

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 12:20 AM
They can try all thay want. What are they going to do when the real science community...who are becoming very politically active recently...show otherwise?

The only opposition to the spew of man made global warming is manufactured equally. Think of a false left right paradigm except in terms of scientific philosophy....then...oops. Here comes the 3rd party scientist. Gigs up...

True. They already have shown otherwise. It just needs to get more attention.

Bman
08-10-2012, 12:43 AM
Had to hang up on a friend tonight who wanted to argue about man made global warming. Just amazes me how everyone is such an expert on the subject. Enter any question that provides a skeptical POV and plan on ridicule. No thanks, I don't have time for it. The AGW cult can fall off a cliff as far as I'm concerned. Much worse can happen to their desire for government intervention on carbon emissions.

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 01:04 AM
Had to hang up on a friend tonight who wanted to argue about man made global warming. Just amazes me how everyone is such an expert on the subject. Enter any question that provides a skeptical POV and plan on ridicule. No thanks, I don't have time for it. The AGW cult can fall off a cliff as far as I'm concerned. Much worse can happen to their desire for government intervention on carbon emissions.

I wish I could hang up on the people I encounter in person.

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 01:05 AM
I'm gonna see if I can find a graph of the temperature change of the rest of the planets in our solar system.

Bman
08-10-2012, 01:08 AM
I wish I could hang up on the people I encounter in person.

I always ask them to explain a chart like this... still waiting.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Seas/415k-year-temp-graph.jpg

Nickels
08-10-2012, 01:17 AM
I always ask them to explain a chart like this... still waiting.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Seas/415k-year-temp-graph.jpg

where did you get this chart? And what does it prove? Who lived 10,000 years ago, and how does that change what's going to happen next? You can either say global warming is inevitable, or that it's not happening, but not both. So I wanted to make sure I get what you are saying.

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 01:18 AM
I always ask them to explain a chart like this... still waiting.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Seas/415k-year-temp-graph.jpg

Great graph. I bet they ignore it.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 01:22 AM
Great graph. I bet they ignore it.

you bet? Just like you ignore my question when I asked you what's the best source for your argument that solar flares/sun spots are responsible for global warming? Let me know when you find that temperature change diagram of other planets.

Bman
08-10-2012, 01:26 AM
where did you get this chart? And what does it prove? Who lived 10,000 years ago, and how does that change what's going to happen next? You can either say global warming is inevitable, or that it's not happening, but not both. So I wanted to make sure I get what you are saying.

You can find these charts all day long. There's a multitude of ways they gather this information. For example examining ice cores and gathering data such as pollen and such to get a general picture of the climate during the period.

What I'm saying with a chart like this is that it certainly is a common feature of earth to have heating and cooling periods. Quite obviously the previous ones were not man made. If I have no explanation as to what caused these other increased heat periods how can I not know whether this current phenomena is normal or not? If science is not looking at these how can they tell if it is normal or not?

Bman
08-10-2012, 01:30 AM
you bet? Just like you ignore my question when I asked you what's the best source for your argument that solar flares/sun spots are responsible for global warming? Let me know when you find that temperature change diagram of other planets.

Actually sun spots can prevent radiation. It depends on the location. A sun spot facing the earth would actually reduce the suns impact on earth. A couple years ago there were nearly no sun spots. This would mean there was nothing preventing us from getting all of the suns rays. Even though the sun was cooler at this period, we would have gotten no benefit from sun spots blocking out the sun. It's all crazy but the more I read the less convinced I am that anyone can say for sure what causes what. At current it is a best guess. I'm fine with someone thinking it's man made, taking personal steps to reduce ones carbon foot print, but when you start asking for government you better bring more than a best guess and I'm not so sure I'm going to ever accept your ideas on government regardless.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 01:37 AM
You can find these charts all day long. There's a multitude of ways they gather this information. For example examining ice cores and gathering data such as pollen and such to get a general picture of the climate during the period.


Which scientist compiled the one you posted?



What I'm saying with a chart like this is that it certainly is a common feature of earth to have heating and cooling periods.


Nobody denies that. But if we either get warmer than the past, or warmer than we are prepared for, that can be a problem. Just ask the people who went through droughts this year. Our population today is more fragile to climate and weather changes than we were in the past, hell, we're more fragile to power outages and internet outages as it is.



Quite obviously the previous ones were not man made.


Fair enough, whether they made the whole globe at the time suitable for living, or suitable for living in today's lifestyle, is a whole different story. And if there's a man made element to global warming, just add that on top of natural warming. See what you get.



If I have no explanation as to what caused these other increased heat periods how can I not know whether this current phenomena is normal or not?


Ok, so you don't. But we've settled one thing, it's not caused by man. This is why I am asking you what your main argument is, is global warming real or not real? If it's not real, I don't care if the "current phenomena" is normal or not. If you acknowledge it's real, then we can move on to discuss the possible causes, but don't sneak in any "we're not sure temperature is rising right now" arguments while we're at it.



If science is not looking at these how can they tell if it is normal or not?

By ruling out possible alternative explanations we know about, but yes, they have to explain the past first. Also, by knowing the temperature changes in different atmosphere layers.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy Look in the "it's not us" section.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 01:38 AM
Actually sun spots can prevent radiation. It depends on the location. A sun spot facing the earth would actually reduce the suns impact on earth. A couple years ago there were nearly no sun spots. This would mean there was nothing preventing us from getting all of the suns rays. Even though the sun was cooler at this period, we would have gotten no benefit from sun spots blocking out the sun. It's all crazy but the more I read the less convinced I am that anyone can say for sure what causes what. At current it is a best guess. I'm fine with someone thinking it's man made, taking personal steps to reduce ones carbon foot print, but when you start asking for government you better bring more than a best guess and I'm not so sure I'm going to ever accept your ideas on government regardless.

so you basically said that you don't care how much science is behind it, you'll never accept government regulation of carbon emissions? Is that any different than a person saying "I don't care how much science is behind arguments demonizing fluoride, GMO, corn syrup, nuclear energy, vaccines, compact light bulbs, ....I will never accept government regulation on them" ?

Bman
08-10-2012, 01:49 AM
Which scientist compiled the one you posted?


Which ever scientist's are responsible for the Vostok ice core samples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Vostok



Nobody denies that. But if we either get warmer than the past, or warmer than we are prepared for, that can be a problem. Just ask the people who went through droughts this year. Our population today is more fragile to climate and weather changes than we were in the past, hell, we're more fragile to power outages and internet outages as it is.

La Nina has a lot to do with the drought. I can't speak about current temps in this regard but as far as lack of rain you have to look at the source.



Fair enough, whether they made the whole globe at the time suitable for living, or suitable for living in today's lifestyle, is a whole different story. And if there's a man made element to global warming, just add that on top of natural warming. See what you get.

That's assuming man has a global effect on temperatures.




Ok, so you don't. But we've settled one thing, it's not caused by man. This is why I am asking you what your main argument is, is global warming real or not real? If it's not real, I don't care if the "current phenomena" is normal or not. If you acknowledge it's real, then we can move on to discuss the possible causes, but don't sneak in any "we're not sure temperature is rising right now" arguments while we're at it.

There's no point in arguing with a thermometer. You can argue many aspects of how the information was gathered. Where it was gathered and what not, but as that chart shows, I'm quite comfortable with the idea that at times the Earth gets cooler and warmer. I'm quite comfortable that we are in a warmer period rather than a cooler period. I'm all for discussing possible causes and I'd like to first discuss what it happened in the past. In my opinion what has happened before is more likely to be the cause rather than a brand new phenomena.




By ruling out possible alternative explanations we know about, but yes, they have to explain the past first. Also, by knowing the temperature changes in different atmosphere layers.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy Look in the "it's not us" section.

Well it looks like we agree where to start. It would be nice to see an article that explained past heat increases then went into detail as to why this current round is indeed different if that's what is being sold.

Bman
08-10-2012, 01:55 AM
OK so I looked at this. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

If they look to the past rises and attribute the rise to green house gases, obviously not man made, what happened that caused a decline in green house gases that it didn't turn into some perpetual event that made the planet become Venus II?

Nickels
08-10-2012, 02:05 AM
Which ever scientist's are responsible for the Vostok ice core samples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Vostok


Thanks



La Nina has a lot to do with the drought. I can't speak about current temps in this regard but as far as lack of rain you have to look at the source.


Definitely. And if you see warming during La Nina, you know something else is going on. The point I was making here is, it doesn't take more than 3 degrees to disrupt our current lifestyle, not to say we'll die, but it'll be uncomfortable enough. (Ask any flood or hurricane victim if taxation has ever hurt them as much as the disaster did).



That's assuming man has a global effect on temperatures.

There's no point in arguing with a thermometer. You can argue many aspects of how the information was gathered. Where it was gathered and what not, but as that chart shows, I'm quite comfortable with the idea that at times the Earth gets cooler and warmer. I'm quite comfortable that we are in a warmer period rather than a cooler period. I'm all for discussing possible causes and I'd like to first discuss what it happened in the past. In my opinion what has happened before is more likely to be the cause rather than a brand new phenomena.


Good. Sometimes people like to argue with the thermometer, or the readers, because that's the shorter way out.



Well it looks like we agree where to start. It would be nice to see an article that explained past heat increases then went into detail as to why this current round is indeed different if that's what is being sold.

mad cow
08-10-2012, 02:12 AM
Just look at that chart.25,000 years ago,an eye blink in geologic time,Chicago was underneath about a mile of ice.Those warm peaks are few,short lasting and far apart.What if the only thing stopping us from plunging into another ice age,which would kill billions more people than warming,was SUV's,heated swimming pools and coal fired power plants?

Nickels
08-10-2012, 02:13 AM
OK so I looked at this. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

If they look to the past rises and attribute the rise to green house gases, obviously not man made, what happened that caused a decline in green house gases that it didn't turn into some perpetual event that made the planet become Venus II?

Very good question!

I don't know. But if I am allowed to guess, it could be precisely that. Because it wasn't man made, and man made CO2 was not accumulating, then over time CO2 and warming was absorbed and balanced out. But IF you acknowledge that CO2 worsens warming, then at least we know continuing to produce CO2 won't help, if we assume warming is a problem. That may just be the reason why people are calling for CO2 reduction, because IF the past temperature rises can be attributed to CO2, and not man made, then we know warming will not perpetuate IF we reduce CO2 to the point where it's "manageable".

None of these points will makes sense though, if you believe
1. Globe is not warming
2. CO2 causes nothing
3. Warming isn't bad, or we don't expect destabilization of climate
4. We can't reduce it enough
5. Well, we can, but my freedom is more important
6. Well, maybe it's not, but I still like my freedom.

So I think the argument basically comes down to this.
1. Does CO2 really cause or worse global warming and climate instability?
2. If it does, should we at least prepare for it, or seek to avoid it?

Bman
08-10-2012, 02:13 AM
so you basically said that you don't care how much science is behind it, you'll never accept government regulation of carbon emissions? Is that any different than a person saying "I don't care how much science is behind arguments demonizing fluoride, GMO, corn syrup, nuclear energy, vaccines, compact light bulbs, ....I will never accept government regulation on them" ?

Look science can get behind whatever argument it wants. My household has two cars both get over 30 mpg. We've reduced our household energy consumption by about 20% over the past year. I certainly take things in and move forward with the best possible information. I don't need government to make these decisions and I'm not so high and mighty to think I need to have government force other people to make the same decisions I would.

Zippyjuan
08-10-2012, 02:13 AM
Now while there are indeed natural fluxuations in temperatures on a geological scale on Earth (that is not disputed by anyone as far as I know), it is certainly possible that actions of man may either reduce or exacerbate those natural effects. The fact that temperatures changed over the geological history of the planet does not rule out climate change (global warming is a less accurate term- some places get warmer and drier while others may get colder and wetter). One cannot rule out climate change because temperature changes have also been observed in the past before man had much influence over the environment.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 02:15 AM
Now while there are indeed natural fluxuations in temperatures on a geological scale on Earth (that is not disputed by anyone as far as I know), it is certainly possible that actions of man may either reduce or exacerbate those natural effects. The fact that temperatures changed over the geological history of the planet does not rule out climate change (global warming is a less accurate term- some places get warmer and drier while others may get colder and wetter). One cannot rule out climate change because temperature changes have also been observed in the past before man had much influence over the environment.

exactly. just because people died in the past, or got cancer in the past, does not mean people can't die of man made reasons today, or the cancer hasn't increased today.

Bman
08-10-2012, 02:23 AM
Very good question!

I don't know. But if I am allowed to guess, it could be precisely that. Because it wasn't man made, and man made CO2 was not accumulating, then over time CO2 and warming was absorbed and balanced out. But IF you acknowledge that CO2 worsens warming, then at least we know continuing to produce CO2 won't help, if we assume warming is a problem. That may just be the reason why people are calling for CO2 reduction, because IF the past temperature rises can be attributed to CO2, and not man made, then we know warming will not perpetuate IF we reduce CO2 to the point where it's "manageable".

None of these points will makes sense though, if you believe
1. Globe is not warming
2. CO2 causes nothing
3. Warming isn't bad, or we don't expect destabilization of climate
4. We can't reduce it enough
5. Well, we can, but my freedom is more important
6. Well, maybe it's not, but I still like my freedom.

So I think the argument basically comes down to this.
1. Does CO2 really cause or worse global warming and climate instability?
2. If it does, should we at least prepare for it, or seek to avoid it?

This reminds me of a George Carlin bit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Now I'm not sold that CO2 is the cause. I assume it could be something that walks hand in hand. For example, warmer temperatures = more life = more CO2. I digress, lets just go with the narative and say that it is. The Earth obviously has a reaction to warmer temperatures that would cause a decline in CO2. Volcanic activity? Better climate for super viruses? These are other things that would be good to know. At the same time we know it has been warmer than current without catastrophic events. Of course this year we have a drought. Last year we had too much water. Maybe next year will be exactly right.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 02:35 AM
This reminds me of a George Carlin bit.

I have no interest in saving the planet, or animals, or trees. I care only about protecting the lifestyle we are used to. You've likely heard of drought alerts or power flex alerts, and this is not necessarily government forcing people to do anything, it's warning people that resources are limited and without careful preparation, "tragedy of commons" will kick in. Whether it means shortage of water or power outage, neither of which are catastrophic, it's inconvenient enough that people would prefer to avoid it if they could. And you're right, you probably don't need government forcing people to do it, but it sure helps if people are informed and aware of it. (hope I didn't get too much off topic)




Now I'm not sold that CO2 is the cause. I assume it could be something that walks hand in hand. For example, warmer temperatures = more life = more CO2.


Warmer temperatures does not mean more life, at least not more human life. Because most people do not live where they are looking for more heat, they live where it's suitable.



I digress, lets just go with the narative and say that it is. The Earth obviously has a reaction to warmer temperatures that would cause a decline in CO2. Volcanic activity? Better climate for super viruses? These are other things that would be good to know. At the same time we know it has been warmer than current without catastrophic events.


Like I said earlier, catastrophic events are definitely undesireable, but they're not the only undesireables. Earthquakes are one example of things we can't prevent, and the events are short, but the damage lasts enough enough, usually the more civilized, the more fragile.



Of course this year we have a drought. Last year we had too much water. Maybe next year will be exactly right.
That's part of the problem. If you think you have problems predicting it now, imagine when it becomes even more unstable. How do you "prepare for worst" if you have 2 extremely conflicting things to prepare for?

Bman
08-10-2012, 02:52 AM
Warmer temperatures does not mean more life, at least not more human life. Because most people do not live where they are looking for more heat, they live where it's suitable.

Well you do have more humans living in Florida then you do in Antarctica. Really just saying life likes higher temperatures, of course there is a too high point. Maybe that 5+ degree point is where life starts not to like the higher temps.




Like I said earlier, catastrophic events are definitely undesireable, but they're not the only undesireables. Earthquakes are one example of things we can't prevent, and the events are short, but the damage lasts enough enough, usually the more civilized, the more fragile.




That's part of the problem. If you think you have problems predicting it now, imagine when it becomes even more unstable. How do you "prepare for worst" if you have 2 extremely conflicting things to prepare for?

Yes but regardless of temperature we will have catastrophic events. Not a reason to dismiss the possibility of man made global warming, but also not a reason to assume man made global warming.

It's like you said earlier, the question is if CO2 indeed causes global warming and if the warming it causes is drastic. Since we can educate ourselves to be more responsible wardens. That's assuming at what point increased temperatures are a threat to the world as we know it.

Personally, I've always found the weather to be a bit unpredictable. It will take years of measurements to see if there is a trend or a just a severely off year.


edit*lol read this. I'm making less and less sense. time to log. gnight. enjoyed the conversation.

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 02:54 AM
Just look at that chart.25,000 years ago,an eye blink in geologic time,Chicago was underneath about a mile of ice.Those warm peaks are few,short lasting and far apart.What if the only thing stopping us from plunging into another ice age,which would kill billions more people than warming,was SUV's,heated swimming pools and coal fired power plants?

We really should be more worried about an ice age than rising temperatures.

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 03:12 AM
This reminds me of a George Carlin bit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Now I'm not sold that CO2 is the cause. I assume it could be something that walks hand in hand. For example, warmer temperatures = more life = more CO2. I digress, lets just go with the narative and say that it is. The Earth obviously has a reaction to warmer temperatures that would cause a decline in CO2. Volcanic activity? Better climate for super viruses? These are other things that would be good to know. At the same time we know it has been warmer than current without catastrophic events. Of course this year we have a drought. Last year we had too much water. Maybe next year will be exactly right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Nickels
08-10-2012, 03:23 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Are you actually ignorant of the responses? Or just hoping you can ignore them and people won't bother looking for them? Or are there responses to these responses, if so, better to start with the best and most final word, don't you think?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

awake
08-10-2012, 05:05 AM
There are scientists, then there are scientists drunk and corrupted on political power. You usually play for the team who pays you your due. I love how climate deceivers always state that this "climate denier" or that climate denier, since they disagree, is being funded by "dirty oil"... Never will they see that they themselves are funded by the greatest evil : monopoly government. But the "righteous" and true never see it: that they themselves are the very thing they rail against: a propagandist for the "dirty" and immoral fascist state. Science says nothing about what we ought to do, it says what is. Carbon taxes, cap and trade, geo-engennering etc. etc...are all wild adventures in madness from the reckless and irresponsible political class who are hell bent to sacrifice the people to save their precious state. Many planners admit that the aforementioned schemes are nothing more than crafty methods to sure up government coffers - not mitigate for climate change.

"Climate change", and all its remedies, is simply American fascism on the march. But, for most people, they don't bother to look at it closely; WE MUST ACT NOW is repeated like a battle cry, save the masses become wise to the swindle.

Scientists who advocate for more government are themselves against science. Science would not exist in a hand to mouth existence socialist world which they are pushing toward. And science in a fascist state is nothing more than another means to bolster even more self serving political looting.

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 05:10 AM
It is unfortunate that the scientific community is letting Hansen and other government paid pseudo scientists get away with their distortions of the truth. They are discrediting their own institution. It is foolish to take government stats, research, and investigations serious anymore.

Hansen’s Study: Did Global Warming Cause Recent Extreme Weather Events? (http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/08/08/hansens-study-did-global-warming-cause-recent-extreme-weather-events/)


In short, Hansen’s sweeping assertion that global warming is the principal cause of the European and Russian heat waves, and the Texas-Oklahoma drought, is not supported by event-specific analysis and is implausible in light of previous research.

...

The Breakthrough Institute develops this thesis in great detail in a collection of posts titled the “Death of Cap-and-Trade.” Because affordable energy is vital to prosperity and much of the world is energy poor, it would be economically ruinous and, thus, politically suicidal to demand that people abandon fossil fuels before cheaper alternative energies are available. But that is exactly what warmistas like Hansen urge the U.S. and other governments to do – lock up vast stores of carbonaceous fuel and penalize fossil energy use before commercially-viable alternatives exist.

As the Breakthrough folks argue, if you’re worried about climate change, then your chief policy goal should be to make alternative energy cheaper than fossil energy. Instead, the global warming movement has attempted to make fossil energy more costly than alternative energy, or to simply mandate the switch to alternative energy regardless of cost. Al Gore’s call in 2008 to “re-power America” with zero-carbon energy within 10 years is epitomizes this folly. More “moderate” variants would only do less harm, less rapidly.

Legalizing Industrial Hemp would go a long ways toward greening the planet, but it is never talked about by the global warming alarmists. Sad really. Compostable plastics, high quality paper and clothes, clean burning fuel, renewable resource ... there are so many advantages to hemp, yet the alarmists tell us we must pay the piper instead. What are we paying them for? The truly sad part is that millions of people actually believe that global warming is a problem with no viable solutions. Government keeps hemp illegal to grow. Why? What is their real agenda?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPRgrfhyPoU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPRgrfhyPoU

Natural Citizen
08-10-2012, 09:15 AM
Just look at that chart.25,000 years ago,an eye blink in geologic time,Chicago was underneath about a mile of ice.Those warm peaks are few,short lasting and far apart.What if the only thing stopping us from plunging into another ice age,which would kill billions more people than warming,was SUV's,heated swimming pools and coal fired power plants?

Some folks would look rather silly then wouldn't they.

As I recall we had a little cold spell for a few hundred years back in the 14oo's. Lasted until the 1600's. And yes. These fossil fuels would put us in a rather happy state of affairs given that scenario. It's unfortunate that this is seldom brought up. An inconvenient truth in itself.

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 11:56 AM
There are scientists, then their are scientists drunk and corrupted on political power. You usually play for the team who pays you your due. I love how climate deceivers always state that this "climate denier" or that climate denier, since they disagree, is being funded by "dirty oil"... Never will they see that they themselves are funded by the greatest evil : monopoly government. But the "righteous" and true never see it: that they themselves are the very thing they rail against: a propagandist for the "dirty" and immoral fascist state. Science says nothing about what we ought to do, it says what is. Carbon taxes, cap and trade, geo-engennering etc. etc...are all wild adventures in madness from the reckless and irresponsible political class who are hell bent to sacrifice the people to save their precious state. Many planners admit that the aforementioned schemes are nothing more than crafty methods to sure up government coffers - not mitigate for climate change.

"Climate change", and all its remedies, is simply American fascism on the march. But, for most people, they don't bother to look at it closely; WE MUST ACT NOW is repeated like a battle cry, save the masses become wise to the swindle.

Scientists who advocate for more government are themselves against science. Science would not exist in a hand to mouth existence socialist world which they are pushing toward. And science in a fascist state is nothing more than another means to bolster even more self serving political looting.

Great post.

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 12:00 PM
It is unfortunate that the scientific community is letting Hansen and other government paid pseudo scientists get away with their distortions of the truth. They are discrediting their own institution. It is foolish to take government stats, research, and investigations serious anymore.

Hansen’s Study: Did Global Warming Cause Recent Extreme Weather Events? (http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/08/08/hansens-study-did-global-warming-cause-recent-extreme-weather-events/)



Legalizing Industrial Hemp would go a long ways toward greening the planet, but it is never talked about by the global warming alarmists. Sad really. Compostable plastics, high quality paper and clothes, clean burning fuel, renewable resource ... there are so many advantages to hemp, yet the alarmists tell us we must pay the piper instead. What are we paying them for? The truly sad part is that millions of people actually believe that global warming is a problem with no viable solutions. Government keeps hemp illegal to grow. Why? What is their real agenda?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPRgrfhyPoU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPRgrfhyPoU

Thank you for posting.

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 04:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Bump so more people can learn the truth ^

RickyJ
08-10-2012, 04:46 PM
Hansen on staff at NASA is proof that NASA does not care about true science but rather lining their pockets with government grants. The case for global warming itself has been shown to rely on falsified data. There is only one reason scientists would falsify data, money! There is big money in a global warming hoax because requiring a carbon tax would give governments more of our hard earned money for them to waste partly on scientists that will publish more of their lies to gain even more control over us.

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 04:48 PM
Hansen on staff at NASA is proof that NASA does not care about true science but rather lining their pockets with government grants. The case for global warming itself has been shown to rely on falsified data. There is only one reason scientists would falsify data, money! There is big money in a global warming hoax because requiring a carbon tax would give governments more of our hard earned money for them to waste partly on scientists that will publish more of their lies to gain even more control over us.

This ^

Zippyjuan
08-10-2012, 05:23 PM
Some folks would look rather silly then wouldn't they.

As I recall we had a little cold spell for a few hundred years back in the 14oo's. Lasted until the 1600's. And yes. These fossil fuels would put us in a rather happy state of affairs given that scenario. It's unfortunate that this is seldom brought up. An inconvenient truth in itself.

You recall the 1400's? Man- you are WAY older than I thought you were!

Nickels
08-10-2012, 06:11 PM
Hansen on staff at NASA is proof that NASA does not care about true science but rather lining their pockets with government grants. The case for global warming itself has been shown to rely on falsified data. There is only one reason scientists would falsify data, money! There is big money in a global warming hoax because requiring a carbon tax would give governments more of our hard earned money for them to waste partly on scientists that will publish more of their lies to gain even more control over us.

If by true science you mean Alex Jones, Natural News, Zero Hedge and Rense, then yeah, they don't care. Global warming is not a hoax and it does not rely on falsified data (you're thinking climategate, which even if the alleged disputed data were completely discarded, has no affect on global warming facts), while scientists are not perfect and can be biased, or even mistaken, to say they lie for government because there's money to be made by carbon taxation is ridiculous without evidence. It's funny that if I asked you who are the scientists on "your side" you are more like to find your scientists paid off by big oil or politically driven. Nobody likes carbon tax (other than the collectors), or government regulation (except the government), but just because you don't want it doesn't mean you have to deny the science of global warming.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 06:11 PM
Bump so more people can learn the truth ^

ignoring responses to it is not learning truth. Or is that what you mean by truth, if so, I'll make sure we add this definition every time you use that word.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 06:16 PM
Some folks would look rather silly then wouldn't they.

As I recall we had a little cold spell for a few hundred years back in the 14oo's. Lasted until the 1600's. And yes. These fossil fuels would put us in a rather happy state of affairs given that scenario. It's unfortunate that this is seldom brought up. An inconvenient truth in itself.

nobody claimed 1400-1600 was suitable or not for modern lifestyle, nobody claims global warming will "destroy the planet" or "make humans extinct". But I know it doesn't take that for people to angry, afraid or do something. People today are selfish enough that they'll get up if you pull the plug on their TV, not exact the same causes people fought for 200 years ago.

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 06:16 PM
ignoring responses to it is not learning truth. Or is that what you mean by truth, if so, I'll make sure we add this definition every time you use that word.
Did you watch the video he posted? These guys are climate experts. Why would you dismiss their testimony?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE&feature=player_embedded

And where is their discussion on industrial hemp?

Nickels
08-10-2012, 06:20 PM
Did you watch the video he posted? These guys are climate experts. Why would you dismiss their testimony?

And where is their discussion on industrial hemp?

yes, years ago, and I even read responses to it since. it's YOU who needs to read up on the other side. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

I don't know enough about industrial hemp, but I probably don't disagree with you. I'm not against legalizing it so far.

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 06:25 PM
yes, years ago, and I even read responses to it since. it's YOU who needs to read up on the other side. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

I don't know enough about industrial hemp, but I probably don't disagree with you. I'm not against legalizing it so far.
Years Ago? Well, in recent years the global warming alarmists have been completely discredited. It is a hoax in order to TAX people for breathing.

Just take a few minutes to read the report I posted earlier today. The global warming/climate change propagandists are simply taking research money to promote an agenda. The Earth is actually in cooling phase.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 06:31 PM
Years Ago? Well, in recent years the global warming alarmists have been completely discredited. It is a hoax in order to TAX people for breathing.

Yes, the movie has been debunked right when it came out. "Well in recent years...." what are the new arguments? Climategate? Give me the latest arguments and we'll see if they've been responded to. (I can see you don't know them, which is why you cling to old refuted arguments and hope I'd just swallow it like you, but ignorance is not a crime, go find them if you want to have a discussion)

Global warming is not a hoax, but there are many forms of alarmism, go pick the strawman you like, I won't play that game. Just because I don't want carbon tax doesn't mean global warming is a hoax. If you actually know the arguments, quote them, or point them to me. Simply saying something is hoax, and has been discredited doesn't cut it (I can say the same thing). I can see you didn't bother reading the responses, because you believe what you want to believe.

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 06:32 PM
Yes, the movie has been debunked right when it came out.

"Well in recent years...." what are the new arguments? Climategate? Give me the latest arguments and we'll see if they've been responded to.

Global warming is not a hoax, but there are many forms of alarmism, go pick the strawman you like, I won't play that game. Just because I don't want carbon tax doesn't mean global warming is a hoax. If you actually know the arguments, quote them, or point them to me. Simply saying something is hoax, and has been discredited doesn't cut it (I can say the same thing). I can see you didn't bother reading the responses, because you believe what you want to believe.

The argument is very straight forward and simple. The science proves that CO2 levels follow the climate changes and are not the cause of it.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 06:34 PM
The argument is very straight forward and simple. The science proves that CO2 levels follow the climate changes and are not the cause of it.

Is that the best you got? And you think it's a new one made after the Swindle movie?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Zippyjuan
08-10-2012, 06:37 PM
Hemp can be a useful plant but it will not solve our problems. Food prices? If you grow lots of hemp on an industrial level, you will need lots of land- that would displace cropland. Clean burning? Burning is still dirty. Cleaner than some coals- yes. Definately. It does require more energy to burn since it burns at a higher temperature. It has a limited shelf life so it would need either refrigerated storage (more space and energy being used for the refrigeration) or to be used relatively quickly. Solve our energy needs? I once ran numbers for energy yields from hemp and came up that we would have to plant twice the entire landmass of the US with hemp to replace all of our annual oil comsumption. Nearly every machine which uses petroleum would have to be re-modified or re-designed to use hemp oil (because of its different viscosity and burning temperature issues mentioned earlier) which would cost money to transistion. Useful- yes. Definately. The answer to everything? No. No single product is.

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 06:39 PM
Did you watch the video he posted? These guys are climate experts. Why would you dismiss their testimony?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE&feature=player_embedded

And where is their discussion on industrial hemp?

I doubt he watched the video. He keeps linking to rationalwiki, which must be the new haven for mainstream lovers that like to live in fantasy land. I read a few pages over there the other week, independent of his links and found myself constantly laughing at how ridiculous they are with their attempt to cater to people who are afraid of reality.

And Nickels, I have you on ignore. I can't see your posts.

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 06:40 PM
Years Ago? Well, in recent years the global warming alarmists have been completely discredited. It is a hoax in order to TAX people for breathing.

Just take a few minutes to read the report I posted earlier today. The global warming/climate change propagandists are simply taking research money to promote an agenda. The Earth is actually in cooling phase.

This ^

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 06:44 PM
Is that the best you got? And you think it's a new one made after the Swindle movie?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

The Best I've Got??

It completely discredits the lies told by global warming alarmists who claim that CO2 levels cause Global Warming. CO2 levels always follow climate change... forever... throughout history. Science actually works when studied.

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 06:46 PM
Hemp can be a useful plant but it will not solve our problems. Food prices? If you grow lots of hemp on an industrial level, you will need lots of land- that would displace cropland. Clean burning? Burning is still dirty. Cleaner than some coals- yes. Definately. It does require more energy to burn since it burns at a higher temperature. It has a limited shelf life so it would need either refrigerated storage (more space and energy being used for the refrigeration) or to be used relatively quickly. Solve our energy needs? I once ran numbers for energy yields from hemp and came up that we would have to plant twice the entire landmass of the US with hemp to replace all of our annual oil comsumption. Nearly every machine which uses petroleum would have to be re-modified or re-designed to use hemp oil (because of its different viscosity and burning temperature issues mentioned earlier) which would cost money to transistion. Useful- yes. Definately. The answer to everything? No. No single product is.

Zippy, why is industrial hemp illegal to grow and use?

KingRobbStark
08-10-2012, 06:48 PM
When people living in the desert start moving out of their homes because of the "extra" heat is the moment I start to seriously consider global warming

Zippyjuan
08-10-2012, 06:50 PM
Zippy, why is industrial hemp illegal to grow and use?

I could not say though there does seem to be some unjustified concern that it is too similar to canabis. Hemp products are legally available in this country.

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 06:53 PM
When people living in the desert start moving out of their homes because of the "extra" heat is the moment I start to seriously consider global warming

I think that may be a good rule of thumb.

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 06:55 PM
I could not say though there does seem to be some unjustified concern that it is too similar to canabis. Hemp products are legally available in this country.

Yes, but the authorities will throw hemp growers in jail today in the United States and it is the most green plant known to man. Is it the savior of the Earth? I don't know, but the Department of Agriculture thought it so valuable as to win a World War. That's pretty valuable.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xHCkOnn-A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xHCkOnn-A

Nickels
08-10-2012, 07:02 PM
The Best I've Got??

It completely discredits the lies told by global warming alarmists who claim that CO2 levels cause Global Warming. CO2 levels always follow climate change... forever... throughout history. Science actually works when studied.

It WOULD completely discredit the theory of greenhouse gas IF it were true, but it's not. Whether or not CO2 causes global warming does not change whether global warming is true either (if you don't dispute that good).

awake
08-10-2012, 07:09 PM
"An "environmentalist" is a totalitarian socialist whose real objective is to revive socialism and economic central planning under the subterfuge of "saving the planet" from capitalism. He is "green" on the outside, but red on the inside, and is hence appropriately labeled a "watermelon." - T.DiLorenzo

This is the best summary I have read on environmentalists. Capitalism can solve environmental pollution and resource problems, but watermelons, like the closet power whores they they truly are, are not interested in solving the problem, only getting a seat in the lucrative bureaucracy and planning their endless loot-athon.

Zippyjuan
08-10-2012, 07:11 PM
Like capitalism (their version of it) is solving the pollution problems in China?

Nobody owns the air or the water so there is no cost to a company for polluting it. Unless you implement laws and fines and such.

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 07:14 PM
It WOULD completely discredit the theory of greenhouse gas IF it were true, but it's not. Whether or not CO2 causes global warming does not change whether global warming is true either (if you don't dispute that good).

Look at the graph. The Earth is IN a cooling phase.
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/European-Heat-Wave.jpg

Nickels
08-10-2012, 07:14 PM
This is the best summary I have read on environmentalists.


And I agree, environmentalists and hippies are scum. I don't care about the planet, or animals, at least not more than it'll affect my own well being.



Capitalism can solve environmental pollution and resource problems


Can, but should it?



, but watermelons, like the closet power whores they they truly are, are not interested in solving the problem, only getting a seat in the lucrative bureaucracy and planning their endless loot-athon.

I agree, I don't listen to environmentalists. Call them whatever name you want, just don't call them scientists.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 07:20 PM
Like capitalism (their version of it) is solving the pollution problems in China?

Nobody owns the air or the water so there is no cost to a company for polluting it. Unless you implement laws and fines and such.

exactly, THEIR version of it. "TRUE" capitalism would solve it.

Elwar
08-10-2012, 07:21 PM
Not sure if this is the same report but I heard on the radio the other day that a report was saying that every state in the US had a record hot summer this year, the only exception being Washington.

I was expecting the exception to be Florida. We have had a few of our usual hot days here recently but it has been a very mild summer. Maybe it is all the rain we are getting but my A/C bill has been quite low this summer and we have hardly hit 90 here.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 07:24 PM
Look at the graph. The Earth is IN a cooling phase.
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/European-Heat-Wave.jpg

what is this graph telling us? is this a 2003 record? Did you know Global Warming Swindle was made in 2007, and you claim "recent years alarmists have been completely discredited"? Which argument are you going to jump to next? I'm not sure what's worse, jumping one after another, or clinging on what's been debunked.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 07:26 PM
Not sure if this is the same report but I heard on the radio the other day that a report was saying that every state in the US had a record hot summer this year, the only exception being Washington.


That's what this thread was started for, that this record temperature is being exploited for carbon tax.



I was expecting the exception to be Florida. We have had a few of our usual hot days here recently but it has been a very mild summer. Maybe it is all the rain we are getting but my A/C bill has been quite low this summer and we have hardly hit 90 here.

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 07:30 PM
what is this graph telling us? is this a 2003 record? Did you know Global Warming Swindle was made in 2007, and you claim "recent years alarmists have been completely discredited"? Which argument are you going to jump to next? I'm not sure what's worse, jumping one after another, or clinging on what's been debunked.

What the Scientists are saying is that CO2 levels follow climate change. Global warming propagandists claim that CO2 is causing warming. History proves them wrong. What has been debunked is the government global warming alarmist researchers who profit from the propaganda as pseudo scientists. They want the free money. Global warming is hoax to tax the people. Climate Change is a well known fact since the beginning of time.

Zippyjuan
08-10-2012, 07:34 PM
exactly, THEIR version of it. "TRUE" capitalism would solve it.
Can you explain how? Thanks.

As I mentioned, nobody owns water or air so there is no incentive (cost to the producer) not to pollute it. It is the cheapest method for a profit seeking enterprise to get rid of waste. Where does the economic incentive to polute less come in in a totally free capitalist market?

The market does not always take care of everything.

(I don't agree with "carbon taxes" but do feel that we did need some forms of laws to reduce pollution).

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 07:37 PM
What the Scientists are saying is that CO2 levels follow climate change. Global warming propagandists claim that CO2 is causing warming. History proves them wrong. What has been debunked is the government global warming alarmist researchers who profit from the propaganda as pseudo scientists. They want the free money. Global warming is hoax to tax the people. Climate Change is a well known fact since the beginning of time.

CO2 is one of the building blocks of life. They picked it so they can tax EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES. Sad to see so many people falling for it.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 07:39 PM
What the Scientists are saying is that CO2 levels follow climate change.


And they're wrong, at least wrong enough to misleading. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

You seem to think "CO2 can't ever cause warming, it only causes cooling or has no effect whatsoever". Not so, facts and research tell us "CO2 isn't the sole cause of warming, but always amplifies it".



Global warming propagandists claim that CO2 is causing warming.


That is more true than saying it has no effect or causes cooling.



History proves them wrong.


No, it doesn't.



What has been debunked is the government global warming alarmist researchers who profit from the propaganda as pseudo scientists.


They're pseudo scientists because you decided they're wrong to start?



They want the free money. Global warming is hoax to tax the people.


Everybody wants free money. Global warming is not a hoax, it's a fact, the tax may be unnecessary or unfair, but that doesn't make global warming a hoax.

Wait, WOW, DID I JUST MISS THAT? You abandoned your argument again? This is gonna be fun.



Climate Change is a well known fact since the beginning of time.

When people say climate change they mean artificial climate change. If you are going to say global warming is real, but unfixable, fine, but don't say it's not happening in the next breath.

Decide already, which argument are you going with?

1. Global warming isn't happening
2. It's not bad, it's actually a good thing
3. It's not avoidable
(You can only have one, any 2 will be contradictory)

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 07:40 PM
CO2 is one of the building blocks of life. They picked it so they can tax EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES. Sad to see so many people falling for it.

It truly is. A lot of the people falling for it are college educated indoctrinated with Master's and Doctorate degrees. It is a travesty.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 07:48 PM
Can you explain how? Thanks.


Of course. It's my pleasure. According mises.org and Lewrockwell.com, true capitalism solves every problem. In the case of why capitalism will solve the environment, well you see, if somebody DID own the air and water, people would care. So the solution is to let people own the planet, every bit of it. Or, even if they don't own, real humans have something called compassion, and they will magically care for the environment even if it doesn't benefit them. You don't seriously think capitalists only care about money, do you? Nah, that's bankers.



As I mentioned, nobody owns water or air so there is no incentive (cost to the producer) not to pollute it. It is the cheapest method for a profit seeking enterprise to get rid of waste. Where does the economic incentive to polute less come in in a totally free capitalist market?

The market does not always take care of everything.


Market takes care of everything, because socialism takes care of everything wrong. So the only alternative is the market.

The incentive is, that good people will buy from good companies because competition forces them to not pollute, consumers don't like pollution because they have to live with it, so they won't pay people to hurt themselves.


(I don't agree with "carbon taxes" but do feel that we did need some forms of laws to reduce pollution).

CO2 is not a pollution though :P

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 07:50 PM
And they're wrong, at least wrong enough to misleading. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Boy, read. The science is proven.


You seem to think "CO2 can't ever cause warming, it only causes cooling or has no effect whatsoever". Not so, facts and research tell us "CO2 isn't the sole cause of warming, but always amplifies it".
CO2 causes neither warming or cooling. CO2 levels follow climate change. Study some science.




That is more true than saying it has no effect or causes cooling.

You really don't have to believe whatever Oprah says. She is an entertainer.




No, it doesn't.




They're pseudo scientists because you decided they're wrong to start?
No. They believe that CO2 levels cause global warming when history proves that CO2 levels follow climate change. It is not that hard to understand. CO2 levels rise with global warming and shrink with global cooling. That has been proven throughout time.




Everybody wants free money. Global warming is not a hoax, it's a fact, the tax may be unnecessary or unfair, but that doesn't make global warming a hoax.

Then why is the Earth currently in a cooling stage? Why was it in a cooling stage from 1940 to 1970?


Wait, WOW, DID I JUST MISS THAT? You abandoned your argument again? This is gonna be fun.
Why do you want to believe their lies?




When people say climate change they mean artificial climate change. If you are going to say global warming is real, but unfixable, fine, but don't say it's not happening in the next breath.
Global warming was real from 1970 until around 2000. It is now cooling which is why the liars call it climate change these days instead of global warming. Do your own research. Oprah is selling entertainment.


Decide already, which argument are you going with?

1. Global warming isn't happening
2. It's not bad, it's actually a good thing
3. It's not avoidable
(You can only have one, any 2 will be contradictory)
Climate Change is a Fact Of Life. It is a constant.

Zippyjuan
08-10-2012, 07:53 PM
Climate Change is a Fact Of Life. It is a constant.

Which does not rule out the possiblity that man can contribute to changes as well.

It is interesting to see that a couple of years ago when we had a cold winter people shouted that this was proof that global warming was a sham. Now some of the same people are saying that the hottest summer on record is not proof (in truth, neither were proofs or disproofs of climate change- change needs to be observed over a long period of time- there is too much variation in weather over a few year to be able to say much).

If climate warming is true and we try to reduce pollution, it may or may not help. But at least we can have cleaner air to breathe and water to drink.

awake
08-10-2012, 07:54 PM
Can you explain how? Thanks.

As I mentioned, nobody owns water or air so there is no incentive (cost to the producer) not to pollute it. It is the cheapest method for a profit seeking enterprise to get rid of waste. Where does the economic incentive to polute less come in in a totally free capitalist market?

The market does not always take care of everything.

(I don't agree with "carbon taxes" but do feel that we did need some forms of laws to reduce pollution).

Water can be owned like land...Rivers, lakes and sections of oceans notwithstanding. The government currently abolishes any property right here for its own selfish exploitations. Once water becomes a private ownable resource, it will become managed and protected like any other...private owners on guard for trespassers and destruction in its value.

Air pollution must be proved in a measurable way...not some collective assertion that the pollution is out there somewhere and hurting us in unclear ways...Prove CO2 is killing any individual and take it to the courts.

The courts need to become private as well...monopoly courts are notorious for injustice in these matters. If there is soot on your cloths coming from a factory by all means haul them in to court...But the real problem is the quality of justice we receive from monopoly privilege is poor at best..They have set the precedent in the past to side with the factory because it is a valuable economic GDP contributor - to hell with the property rights of the complainant...It's kind of like emanate domain laws, which is legalized theft, but allowed because the company using these laws are going to create jobs.

Our justice system sucks, it needs to be open to competition and the market.

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 07:56 PM
Which does not rule out the possiblity that man can contribute to changes as well.

Very minute changes. A South American butterfly can change the wind in the Arctic, but that change is not measurable or noticeable.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 07:57 PM
[QUOTE=Nickels;4575748]And they're wrong, at least wrong enough to misleading. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Boy, read. The science is proven.


Just because you say so?



CO2 causes neither warming or cooling. CO2 levels follow climate change. Study some science.


That's where you are wrong. CO2 amplifies warming. Where do you study your science from and with?



You really don't have to believe whatever Oprah says. She is an entertainer.


Don't watch Oprah, don't listen to Al Gore either.



No. They believe that CO2 levels cause global warming when history proves that CO2 levels follow climate change.


History doesn't prove that.



It is not that hard to understand.


No, it's not, it's hard for you to accept you're wrong, apparently



CO2 levels rise with global warming and shrink with global cooling. That has been proven throughout time.


That would be true if CO2 never amplified warming, you keep ignoring this.



Then why is the Earth currently in a cooling stage?


It isn't. That's not what temperature records say.



Why was it in a cooling stage from 1940 to 1970?


Was it really?



Why do you want to believe their lies?


I don't want to believe anybody's lies



Global warming was real from 1970 until around 2000. It is now cooling which is why the liars call it climate change these days instead of global warming. Do your own research. Oprah is selling entertainment.


I'm not the idiot who thinks GW was renamed CC because we went from warming to cooling. IPCC stands for what? It was founded in 1988. That's right, 30 years ago we've been using the term CC.




Climate Change is a Fact Of Life. It is a constant.
Do you mean global warming is unavoidable? Or have you zero predictions of the future climate? Is next year just as likely to be global snowfall as it is global drought?

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 07:59 PM
[QUOTE=Travlyr;4575768]

Just because you say so?



That's where you are wrong. CO2 amplifies warming. Where do you study your science from and with?



Don't watch Oprah, don't listen to Al Gore either.



History doesn't prove that.



No, it's not, it's hard for you to accept you're wrong, apparently



That would be true if CO2 never amplified warming, you keep ignoring this.



It isn't. That's not what temperature records say.



Was it really?



I don't want to believe anybody's lies



I'm not the idiot who thinks GW was renamed CC because we went from warming to cooling. IPCC stands for what? It was founded in 1988. That's right, 30 years ago we've been using the term CC.



Do you mean global warming is unavoidable? Or have you zero predictions of the future climate? Is next year just as likely to be global snowfall as it is global drought?

You obviously have not done any research on global warming or climate change. Do some research.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 07:59 PM
The courts need to become private as well...monopoly courts are notorious for injustice in these matters.

so I go out and form my own private court, where does my authority to govern you come from? Explicit consent? That doesn't help me when somebody violates me and doesn't recognize my court, its rules and maybe even the rights we supposedly expect to agree on.

Dr.3D
08-10-2012, 08:00 PM
I found it interesting to note from this web site, the history of this March temperature rise and the March 9th solar flare we had.
http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KIADESMO9&graphspan=custom&month=3&day=1&year=2011&monthend=4&dayend=31&yearend=2012

You will notice from the data, the temperature rise following that flare in March of this year. You can also check previous years to see if the data correlates with a March rise in temperature and see a difference.

I'm still under the impression it's all about solar activity.

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 08:03 PM
I found it interesting to note from this web site, the history of this March temperature rise and the March 9th solar flare we had.
http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KIADESMO9&graphspan=custom&month=3&day=1&year=2011&monthend=4&dayend=31&yearend=2012

You will notice from the data, the temperature rise following that flare in March of this year. You can also check previous years to see if the data correlates with a March rise in temperature and see a difference.

I'm still under the impression it's all about solar activity.

It truly is. And the global alarmists deny that the Sun has any bearing on Climate Change. It is really silly.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 08:03 PM
You obviously have not done any research on global warming or climate change. Do some research.

No. I have. Let's just list the things I know more than you, which you ignored and abandoned your arguments for.

Global warming Swindle movie is debunked.
CC is a 30 year old term.
CO2 amplifies and worses warming, it doesn't simply lag and have no effect.
You can't explain the graph you posted, you can't justify the claim we are in cooling phase, so you drop your argument.
I don't listen to what Oprah or Al Gore says, contrary to your ignorance.
I'm actually more familiar with skeptic arguments than you are, which is why I can respond to everything you say, while you don't even know your arguments are outdated and answered.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 08:05 PM
It truly is. And the global alarmists deny that the Sun has any bearing on Climate Change. It is really silly.

If you were talking about the sun giving us a cooling phase, you are correct, for 35 years, but the globe is still warming, so it's not attributable to the sun. At least not fully and primarily.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Zippyjuan
08-10-2012, 08:07 PM
Water can be owned like land...Rivers, lakes and sections of oceans notwithstanding. The government currently abolishes any property right here for its own selfish exploitations. Once water becomes a private ownable resource, it will become managed and protected like any other...private owners on guard for trespassers and destruction in its value.

Air pollution must be proved in a measurable way...not some collective assertion that the pollution is out there somewhere and hurting us in unclear ways...Prove CO2 is killing any individual and take it to the courts.

The courts need to become private as well...monopoly courts are notorious for injustice in these matters. If there is soot on your cloths coming from a factory by all means haul them in to court...But the real problem is the quality of justice we receive from monopoly privilege is poor at best..They have set the precedent in the past to side with factory because it is a valuable economic GDP contributor - to hell with the property rights of the complainant...It's kind of like emanate domain laws, which is legalized theft, but allowed because the company using these laws are going to create jobs.

Our justice system sucks, it needs to be open to competition and the market.

Rivers, lakes, and oceans would be most of the water on the planet. And as you point out, there would be a very high burden of proof required by an individual against a bigger and wealthier company to prove first that you were harmed and secondly that this particular company was the source of the pollution which harmed you. If many companies are dumping waste into water or air, how do you decide which is to blame for what problem? The chances of an individual prevailing would be difficult at best.

The other problem with "ownership" of water or air is that it cannot be contained- it moves around. I can build a fence around my land to keep people from either coming onto it or if they cause damages it is easy to determine if it occured on my land but the same cannot be said of air or water. I can't control or even define or protect what is "my" water or air- it is a shared resource. Things mix and mingle. You cannot contain polluted air on your own property but you can attempt to stop creating the pollution in the first place- and in a free market, that adds costs your competitors don't have to face if they don't want to so your being "clean" could price you out against your competitors. Thus you have no economic incentive to stop polluting. The market is saying you should continue to dump waste into air and water.

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 08:08 PM
No. I have. Let's just list the things I know more than you, which you ignored and abandoned your arguments for.

Global warming Swindle movie is debunked.
Baloney.


CC is a 30 year old term.
Or 30,000 year old term.


CO2 amplifies and worses warming, it doesn't simply lag and have no effect.
Total bullshit. CO2 levels lag the climate by nearly 800 years. That is a well known proven fact.


You can't explain the graph you posted, you can't justify the claim we are in cooling phase, so you drop your argument.
I don't listen to what Oprah or Al Gore says, contrary to your ignorance.
I'm actually more familiar with skeptic arguments than you are, which is why I can respond to everything you say, while you don't even know your arguments are outdated and answered.
We were in a cooling phase when I was in grade school and the "fear was freezing" my children grew up in a time of "fear of warming" and the fact is that climate change is constant. We are now in a global cooling phase and the Sun is the primary factor. Science dude. Study science.

Zippyjuan
08-10-2012, 08:13 PM
I found it interesting to note from this web site, the history of this March temperature rise and the March 9th solar flare we had.
http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KIADESMO9&graphspan=custom&month=3&day=1&year=2011&monthend=4&dayend=31&yearend=2012

You will notice from the data, the temperature rise following that flare in March of this year. You can also check previous years to see if the data correlates with a March rise in temperature and see a difference.

I'm still under the impression it's all about solar activity.

Solar flares happen all of the time.

awake
08-10-2012, 08:14 PM
so I go out and form my own private court, where does my authority to government you come from? Explicit consent? That doesn't help me when somebody violates me and doesn't recognize my court, its rules and maybe even the rights we supposedly expect to agree on.

You probably wouldn't...Free market insurance companies could and would run policing and justice services... Competition for customers would lower the costs and improve the quality of security and justice...If the other guy did not want to respect your insurance company justice, than a 3rd party independent justice from another insurance security/ justice firm could be brought in...The decision could be binding through the insurance company "repo-men". Professional, currently labeled, thieves would have gainful above under the law employment. If they abuse their collections role they too could be subject to the law and collections.

Justice would come affordable and quality would improve drastically...bad justice firms would be washed out of the market to make way for the fairest and best justice providers...You could look upon an ex IRS agent with pride that his task now is to not take from everyone, just those who have collections levied by law against them through the market courts - he would go from tax collector to law collections officer or agent - also subject to the very system he works for if he abuses his role..

Nickels
08-10-2012, 08:16 PM
Total bullshit. CO2 levels lag the climate by nearly 800 years. That is a well known proven fact.


The part where you say "has not effect" is not a proven fact.



We were in a cooling phase when I was in grade school and the "fear was freezing"


http://flamesnation.ca/uploads/Image/nelson-haha.gif

There you go again changing the subject when I correct you. So now it's about what you heard when we were in grade school. Not today?



my children grew up in a time of "fear of warming" and the fact is that climate change is constant.


We still do.



We are now in a global cooling phase and the Sun is the primary factor. Science dude. Study science.

You are correct that the sun activity is not increasing and continuing to cause warming, but, warming is continuing here on Earth. What science? You're not even looking at the data. What data are you looking at that tells you we're in a cooling phase? Show me please.

Dr.3D
08-10-2012, 08:16 PM
Solar flares happen all of the time.
Yes, and some are bigger than others. Some are not directed in the direction of Earth either. Those that are cause a rise in temperature. We had a rather large one or actually a number of large ones in March, starting around the 9th that were directed at Earth and the temperature rise followed that just like a little puppy follows a person around.

We have had a larger number of flares directed toward Earth this year than in the past few years and the higher temperatures are the result.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 08:20 PM
You probably wouldn't...Free market insurance companies could and would run policing and justice services.


Only to people who recognize them?



.. Competition for customers would lower the costs and improve the quality of security and justice...If the other guy did not want to respect your insurance company justice, than a 3rd party independent justice from another insurance security/ justice firm could be brought in.


And what if I don't accept that 3rd party's justice? And what if he wants to use his own?



..The decision could be binding through the insurance company "repo-men".


Wait, that's after we agree, what if we don't agree?



Professional, currently labeled, thieves would have gainful above under the law employment. If they abuse their collections role they too could be subject to the law and collections.


And what if they too never agreed to a justice system?



Justice would come affordable and quality would improve drastically...bad justice firms would be washed out of the market to make way for the fairest and best justice providers...

You seem to assume that there's at least one justice system everybody will happily accept. What if 99% of the people accepted system A, and 1% denies whatever the 99% wants? What do you do to the 1%? Are you going to force them to accept your system or let them violate you and get away with it?

Travlyr
08-10-2012, 08:22 PM
The part where you say "has not effect" is not a proven fact.

And this kind of proves that you are full of it. Resorting to childish pictures to advance your debate.




http://flamesnation.ca/uploads/Image/nelson-haha.gif

There you go again changing the subject when I correct you. So now it's about what you heard when we were in grade school. Not today?
You did not correct me in any way.



We still do.



You are correct that the sun activity is not increasing and continuing to cause warming, but, warming is continuing here on Earth. What science? You're not even looking at the data. What data are you looking at that tells you we're in a cooling phase? Show me please.
But not in the Troposphere. That is the problem with your propaganda. It is bullshit.

Just read (http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/08/08/hansens-study-did-global-warming-cause-recent-extreme-weather-events/).

awake
08-10-2012, 08:46 PM
Rivers, lakes, and oceans would be most of the water on the planet. And as you point out, there would be a very high burden of proof required by an individual against a bigger and wealthier company to prove first that you were harmed and secondly that this particular company was the source of the pollution which harmed you. If many companies are dumping waste into water or air, how do you decide which is to blame for what problem? The chances of an individual prevailing would be difficult at best.

The other problem with "ownership" of water or air is that it cannot be contained- it moves around. I can build a fence around my land to keep people from either coming onto it or if they cause damages it is easy to determine if it occured on my land but the same cannot be said of air or water. I can't control or even define or protect what is "my" water or air- it is a shared resource. Things mix and mingle. You cannot contain polluted air on your own property but you can attempt to stop creating the pollution in the first place- and in a free market, that adds costs your competitors don't have to face if they don't want to so your being "clean" could price you out against your competitors. Thus you have no economic incentive to stop polluting. The market is saying you should continue to dump waste into air and water.


2 criticisms:

1. You are assuming that the mickey mouse justice system we have, which is over bloated and priced out of the common man's ability to withstand a multi-billion dollar corporation, is still in place to decide these matters. Monopoly justice provision needs to be addressed before you can repair, restore and build up proper property rights.

1b. If I own a river that is being illegally dumped in I have the incentive to stop the destruction of my property value. Currently the government is asleep at the wheel with collective ownership of public lands and waterways. Soviet Russia was famous under socialism for its levels of environmental destruction.

2.Water co-ops and free associations of large bodies of water would be formed as joint guardianship...You might never be able to stop trespassing and dumping but you have a much better chance of policing it if the resource is owned. Otherwise, you have the government pretending they have eyes on every square inch of public lands and water - which is an absurd and impossible notion.

2b Private water means private water products and services...Drinking water would be the concern of entrepreneurs, Swimming recreation, aquaculture...etc. Pollution would not be in the owners best interest.

Define polluted air? Science can forensically detect it..environmental forensics would flourish under a free market justice system.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 08:52 PM
And this kind of proves that you are full of it. Resorting to childish pictures to advance your debate.


There's nothing childish about being specific.



You did not correct me in any way.


Actually I did. I back up what I say too.



But not in the Troposphere. That is the problem with your propaganda. It is bullshit.

Just read (http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/08/08/hansens-study-did-global-warming-cause-recent-extreme-weather-events/).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

awake
08-10-2012, 09:10 PM
Only to people who recognize them?



And what if I don't accept that 3rd party's justice? And what if he wants to use his own?



Wait, that's after we agree, what if we don't agree?



And what if they too never agreed to a justice system?



You seem to assume that there's at least one justice system everybody will happily accept. What if 99% of the people accepted system A, and 1% denies whatever the 99% wants? What do you do to the 1%? Are you going to force them to accept your system or let them violate you and get away with it?

If you thought that this system more unjust than the current system, you could not participate and a decision would be rendered without you...the collections man would serve justice if needed.

I do not assume 1 justice system...Many insurance justice providers would see to it that higher level conversions between different laws systems take place...There would be many insurances companies offering different recognizable law sytems; different law systems would begin to harmonize over time. You could pick which law system you wished to be insured under (variety).

The insurance companies would recognize each others laws systems and conversions and build on them as conflict is wasted profits...and troublemakers like yourself would be paying high premiums or not covered at all.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 09:25 PM
If you thought that this system more unjust than the current system, you could not participate and a decision would be rendered without you...the collections man would serve justice if needed.


Basically you'd force your justice on me.



I do not assume 1 justice system...Many insurance justice providers would see to it that higher level conversions between different laws systems take place...There would be many insurances companies offering different recognizable law sytems; different law systems would begin to harmonize over time. You could pick which law system you wished to be insured under (variety).


And if I choose none, i'm free from justice enforecement, right?



The insurance companies would recognize each others laws systems and conversions and build on them as conflict is wasted profits...and troublemakers like yourself would be paying high premiums or not covered at all.

what forces insurance companies to recognize each other's systems? why do you assume being uncovered is necessarily bad? it is no different than a person fleeing justice and evading taxes today, sure he might not have the protection citizens enjoy, but he might be happy to be free from 'justice'.

awake
08-10-2012, 09:35 PM
Basically you'd force your justice on me.



And if I choose none, i'm free from justice enforecement, right?



what forces insurance companies to recognize each other's systems? why do you assume being uncovered is necessarily bad? it is no different than a person fleeing justice and evading taxes today, sure he might not have the protection citizens enjoy, but he might be happy to be free from 'justice'.

Justice is forced on you now...where is your bravado about this ?

Conflict between two insurance companies result in lost profits and higher premiums and lost customers to the non fighting insurance companies who are enjoying the new found profits. As for you and your great 'look at me I'm Jesse James' act, ever watch Dog the Bounty Hunter? Collections and restitution under a libertarian society means 2 eyes for an eye.

You assume that you could just run away...well It would be as hard as it is now, if not harder under a for profit justice system...You would have a dollar sign hovering over your head for any one who could get you - citizens arrest would take on a whole new aspect. .

Nickels
08-10-2012, 09:38 PM
Conflict between to insurance companies result in lost profits and higher premiums and lost customers to the non fighting insurance companies who are enjoying the new found profits. As for you and your great 'look at me I'm Jesse James' act, ever watch Dog the Bounty Hunter? Collections and restitution under a libertarian society means 2 eyes for an eye.


As long as you admit you're using force against a person against his will, that's all I needed to know.



You assume that you could just run away...well It would be as hard as it is now, if not harder under a for profit justice system...You would have a dollar sign hovering over your head for any one who could get you - citizens arrest would take on a whole new aspect. .

what's to stop rich people from putting fake bounties on their competitors or killing poor people for fun? You admitted the system allows people to use force against another's will, now you add in the profit motive. So isn't it basically whoever has most money, perpetuates his system and exploits it?

awake
08-10-2012, 09:51 PM
As long as you admit you're using force against a person against his will, that's all I needed to know.



what's to stop rich people from putting fake bounties on their competitors or killing poor people for fun? You admitted the system allows people to use force against another's will, now you add in the profit motive. So isn't it basically whoever has most money, perpetuates his system and exploits it?

If you have not harmed my person or property in any way then I can't force my justice on you...

So thieves and murders can claim that violence and coercion not be used against them? They could claim the non aggression axiom? They forfeited this in their actions.. Either you haven't the slightest concept of justice, or you are just reaching for responses. Personally, I think you lost the debate a few posts back....but this is flimsy.

Putting fake bounties on people is an act of aggression and would be prosecuted accordingly.

Nickels
08-10-2012, 10:23 PM
If you have not harmed my person or property in any way then I can't force my justice on you...


What's stopping you? Just because you're nice? Or is there somebody else forcing you? Whoever is forcing you to abide by non-aggression, what's stopping them from abusing their power?



So thieves and murders can claim that violence and coercion not be used against them?


That is correct, never heard of people who don't play fair?



They could claim the non aggression axiom?


No, they don't. But people who claim it probably want to keep their promises.



They forfeited this in their actions.. Either you haven't the slightest concept of justice, or you are just reaching for responses. Personally, I think you lost the debate a few posts back....but this is flimsy.


They forfeited just because they didn't play by your rules? Says who?



Putting fake bounties on people is an act of aggression and would be prosecuted accordingly.

And who would prosecute them? People with more money and better insurance companies?

John F Kennedy III
08-10-2012, 11:56 PM
It truly is. And the global alarmists deny that the Sun has any bearing on Climate Change. It is really silly.


Scientists Trace Heat Wave To Massive Star At Center Of Solar System

According to scientists, the large star could be described as a tremendous ball of energy.

PASADENA, CA—Groundbreaking new findings announced Monday suggest the record-setting heat wave plaguing much of the United States may be due to radiation emitted from an enormous star located in the center of the solar system.

Scientists believe the star, which they have named G2V65, may in fact be the same bright yellow orb seen arcing over the sky day after day, and given its extreme heat and proximity to Earth, it is likely not only to have caused the heat wave, but to be responsible for every warm day in human history.

"Our measurements indicate the massive amount of energy this thing gives off is able to travel 93 million miles and reach our planet is as little as eight and a half minutes," said Professor Mitch Kivens, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. "While we can't see them, we're fairly certain these infrared rays strike Earth's surface, become trapped by the atmosphere, and just heat everything up like a great big oven."

"We

originally thought that if this star was producing temperatures of 100-plus in the South and Midwest, it must be at least 100 degrees itself," Kivens added. "But it turns out it's far, far hotter than that, with a surface temperature of nearly 10,900 degrees Fahrenheit."

Kivens and his CalTech colleagues said this intense radiation, which results from constant nuclear reactions converting hydrogen to helium in the star's core, could also account for why the orb in the sky is extremely bright and difficult to stare at directly.

While scientists initially assumed the heat and luminescence of the star must make it the largest in the universe—a theory lent credence by the star appearing much bigger than other objects in the sky—they said the data actually appear to refute such a notion.

"Apparently it's gigantic simply because it's closer to us than any other star," Kivens said. "Which would also account for why we feel this particular star's heat during the day but are not warmed by the tiny blinking stars we see at night."

"It's interesting stuff," he added.

According to Kivens, the discovery has prompted researchers to explore the possibility that a variety of phenomena accompanying the heat wave could also be linked to the star, including taller grass, hot car seats, red skin burns, and sweating "even when one has just been standing there and hasn't been running around or anything."

An additional study is reportedly being conducted to determine if the unexplained shrinking of puddles until they disappear may be caused by star-hotness soaking up all the loose water. Moreover, scientists reportedly believe the heat emitted from the glowing orb could potentially be the reason why it is uncomfortable to walk on asphalt barefoot.

When asked if anything could be done to prevent or counteract the star's heat production, Kivens expressed skepticism.

"No, for the foreseeable future, I think we're locked into orbit with this thing," he said. "Although the star seems to disappear every night, 24-hour reports from around the world seem to indicate the star never leaves Earth entirely."

Residents of heat- and drought-stricken regions welcomed the findings, thankful to finally have an explanation for the high temperatures, if no relief from them.

"That makes sense, because it's usually hotter when that [star] is up in the air," said Stillwater, OK resident Asher Arps, 31, speaking to reporters as temperature rose to 110 degrees over the weekend. "I knew it lit things up, of course, but I didn't realize it could make things hot."

"The big star heats the earth, and the moon cools it—I get it," he added.

As to potential applications of the new discovery, experts acknowledge the possibilities could be limitless.

"This is a watershed moment," renewable energy specialist Dr. Martin Flint said. "Who knows where this could lead? Perhaps we could develop a method of harnessing these big star rays and transforming them into some sort of ecologically friendly power source."

"Wait, what am I saying?" he said, laughing. "I'm getting ahead of myself. We still don't understand how it's possible for that thing to be up in the sky in January when it's freezing outside."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-trace-heat-wave-to-massive-star-at-cent,21088/

RonRules
08-11-2012, 09:24 AM
Spend some time to listen to this playlist:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&feature=plcp

A bit of science won't hurt you.

RonRules
08-11-2012, 09:33 AM
All the denier's arguments, 173 of them with answers:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Go ahead argue!

Travlyr
08-11-2012, 09:34 AM
Spend some time to listen to this playlist:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&feature=plcp

A bit of science won't hurt you.
That's junk science... Hegelian Dialect

Who actually believes #2? ... That the science says that the Sun is not the cause of climate change? If you believe that, then you are so gullible that you will believe anything. That completely discredits that site by itself.

RonRules
08-11-2012, 09:54 AM
This is a heck of a good site. For each 173 arguments, there is a "basic", "intermediate" and "advanced" level explanation:

For example, for the question: "is the sun causing global warming?"

They have a Twitter answer: "In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions" for those that need a quick retort.

Then they have three level of answers:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

You won't see this kind of detailed, fact based explanations form the other side. It's good work.

RonRules
08-11-2012, 09:55 AM
Who actually believes #2? ... That the science says that the Sun is not the cause of climate change?

You're they type of guy that needs the Twitter response: "In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions"

Travlyr
08-11-2012, 09:57 AM
This is a heck of a good site. For each 173 arguments, there is a "basic", "intermediate" and "advanced" level explanation:

For example, for the question: "is the sun causing global warming?"

They have a Twitter answer: "In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions" for those that need a quick retort.

Then they have three level of answers:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

You won't see this kind of detailed, fact based explanations form the other side. It's good work.

LOL. It is BS, but you get to believe whatever you want to believe and they will tax you for it.

RonRules
08-11-2012, 10:03 AM
LOL. It is BS, but you get to believe whatever you want to believe and they will tax you for it.

I also don't believe the state is the solution. If we paid the correct price for energy, there would be a lot less human made global warming.

The above site and the 173 answers have nothing to do with the state and taxation. It simply makes the case as to whether or not the planet is warming up. It's clear that it is, and I believe that in part humans are the cause.

Now about what needs to be done? Oil subsidies for one need to go. The middle east wars need to stop. We need to open up trading with arab countries and make friends with them.

The price of non-renewable energy will go up, naturally. Renewable energy will go down in price, naturally, and we will reduce CO2 production.

Travlyr
08-11-2012, 10:18 AM
I do not buy the argument that CO2 causes climate change. CO2 levels rise and fall due to warming and cooling of the Earth caused by solar activity. When the Earth warms up, CO2 levels rise. When the Earth cools, CO2 levels fall. That's what the real science says.

Dr.3D
08-11-2012, 10:33 AM
I do not buy the argument that CO2 causes climate change. CO2 levels rise and fall due to warming and cooling of the Earth caused by solar activity. When the Earth warms up, CO2 levels rise. When the Earth cools, CO2 levels fall. That's what the real science says.
I believe the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is greater when they are cooler as cool water will hold more CO2. This means, when the oceans warm, they release some of their dissolved CO2 and thus the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. Not to worry though, as the carbon cycle then goes into overdrive and the CO2 dissolved in the rainwater, dissolves the lime stone, making calcium carbonate. This calcium carbonate then runs into the oceans sequestering that very same carbon dioxide that was released. Of course this all takes time and thus there is a slight imbalance at times. This of course in time, all balances out.

Travlyr
08-11-2012, 10:39 AM
I believe the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is greater when they are cooler as cool water will hold more CO2. This means, when the oceans warm, they release some of their dissolved CO2 and thus the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. Not to worry though, as the carbon cycle then goes into overdrive and the CO2 dissolved in the rainwater, dissolves the lime stone, making calcium carbonate. This calcium carbonate then runs into the oceans sequestering that very same carbon dioxide that was released. Of course this all takes time and thus there is a slight imbalance at times. This of course in time, all balances out.

I could not say it that eloquently, but exactly that ^.

John F Kennedy III
08-11-2012, 01:49 PM
You're they type of guy that needs the Twitter response: "In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions"

Oh. I thought you were being satirical.


Scientists Trace Heat Wave To Massive Star At Center Of Solar System

According to scientists, the large star could be described as a tremendous ball of energy.

PASADENA, CA—Groundbreaking new findings announced Monday suggest the record-setting heat wave plaguing much of the United States may be due to radiation emitted from an enormous star located in the center of the solar system.

Scientists believe the star, which they have named G2V65, may in fact be the same bright yellow orb seen arcing over the sky day after day, and given its extreme heat and proximity to Earth, it is likely not only to have caused the heat wave, but to be responsible for every warm day in human history.

"Our measurements indicate the massive amount of energy this thing gives off is able to travel 93 million miles and reach our planet is as little as eight and a half minutes," said Professor Mitch Kivens, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. "While we can't see them, we're fairly certain these infrared rays strike Earth's surface, become trapped by the atmosphere, and just heat everything up like a great big oven."

"We

originally thought that if this star was producing temperatures of 100-plus in the South and Midwest, it must be at least 100 degrees itself," Kivens added. "But it turns out it's far, far hotter than that, with a surface temperature of nearly 10,900 degrees Fahrenheit."

Kivens and his CalTech colleagues said this intense radiation, which results from constant nuclear reactions converting hydrogen to helium in the star's core, could also account for why the orb in the sky is extremely bright and difficult to stare at directly.

While scientists initially assumed the heat and luminescence of the star must make it the largest in the universe—a theory lent credence by the star appearing much bigger than other objects in the sky—they said the data actually appear to refute such a notion.

"Apparently it's gigantic simply because it's closer to us than any other star," Kivens said. "Which would also account for why we feel this particular star's heat during the day but are not warmed by the tiny blinking stars we see at night."

"It's interesting stuff," he added.

According to Kivens, the discovery has prompted researchers to explore the possibility that a variety of phenomena accompanying the heat wave could also be linked to the star, including taller grass, hot car seats, red skin burns, and sweating "even when one has just been standing there and hasn't been running around or anything."

An additional study is reportedly being conducted to determine if the unexplained shrinking of puddles until they disappear may be caused by star-hotness soaking up all the loose water. Moreover, scientists reportedly believe the heat emitted from the glowing orb could potentially be the reason why it is uncomfortable to walk on asphalt barefoot.

When asked if anything could be done to prevent or counteract the star's heat production, Kivens expressed skepticism.

"No, for the foreseeable future, I think we're locked into orbit with this thing," he said. "Although the star seems to disappear every night, 24-hour reports from around the world seem to indicate the star never leaves Earth entirely."

Residents of heat- and drought-stricken regions welcomed the findings, thankful to finally have an explanation for the high temperatures, if no relief from them.

"That makes sense, because it's usually hotter when that [star] is up in the air," said Stillwater, OK resident Asher Arps, 31, speaking to reporters as temperature rose to 110 degrees over the weekend. "I knew it lit things up, of course, but I didn't realize it could make things hot."

"The big star heats the earth, and the moon cools it—I get it," he added.

As to potential applications of the new discovery, experts acknowledge the possibilities could be limitless.

"This is a watershed moment," renewable energy specialist Dr. Martin Flint said. "Who knows where this could lead? Perhaps we could develop a method of harnessing these big star rays and transforming them into some sort of ecologically friendly power source."

"Wait, what am I saying?" he said, laughing. "I'm getting ahead of myself. We still don't understand how it's possible for that thing to be up in the sky in January when it's freezing outside."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-trace-heat-wave-to-massive-star-at-cent,21088/

John F Kennedy III
08-11-2012, 01:53 PM
This is a heck of a good site. For each 173 arguments, there is a "basic", "intermediate" and "advanced" level explanation:

For example, for the question: "is the sun causing global warming?"

They have a Twitter answer: "In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions" for those that need a quick retort.

Then they have three level of answers:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

You won't see this kind of detailed, fact based explanations form the other side. It's good work.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE&feature=player_embedded

Travlyr
08-11-2012, 05:50 PM
The rhetoric of the global warming crowd is offensive. Their main goal is not environmental friendliness, or truth, as proved by their propaganda. Their goal is to promote a State solution ... a tax for exhaling carbon dioxide.

The 'deniers' are not denying that humans contribute to climate change. Most of us understand that just like a butterfly flying in South America contributes to the wind currents in the Arctic ... human activity contributes to the environment. Nobody, that I know, is denying that, but we are called 'deniers' anyway in order to promote a disinformation campaign.

What I believe is that human contribution is negligible compared to the animals, and even more negligible than the plants, the oceans, and solar activity. I also believe that climate change is a highly desired constant change since the beginning of the Earth and that life could not exist without constant climate change.

Can humans do better with the environment? Certainly. Does burning fuel contribute? I'm confident that it does contribute just like forest fires and volcanic activity. Yet, one volcano erupting in 1816 did more instant destruction to the climate than 6 billion humans, all the plants & animals of the world, the oceans, and all the solar activity of today ... combined. "The Year Without A Summer." (http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/year_wo_summer.html)

As I've said before, legalizing industrial hemp would be one huge step forward. Where are the global warming alarmists on legalizing industrial hemp? Why are they silent on that? Industrial Hemp is the most green plant known to humankind.

Compostable plastics made from industrial hemp would allow the people to recycle almost all containers in an environmentally friendly manner... in the compost bin. Waste Management Systems ™ (landfill operations) don't want any part of that. Panels made from industrial hemp are lighter and stronger than steel. AISI: American Iron and Steel Institute ™ doesn't want any part of that. Hemp paper would put an end to wood pulp paper and the cutting of forests for paper. High quality hemp clothing would compete with cotton, etc. And on and on. Mercantilists keep industrial hemp illegal to grow in order to limit their competition. In the modern world of the 21st century, if one grows an environmentally friendly and green plant, then the authorities will throw them in cages. Why?

That is how I know it is all a bunch of bunk ... that they are not serious. That is why they demonize people who do not buy into their 'global warming religion' and label them as 'deniers.' Global warming alarmists are disingenuous. They have one goal in mind and that is to keep the government research money coming. It pays big bucks. If they were serious, then they would allow the industrial hemp industry to thrive.

The premise that CO2 causes climate change is something that the global alarmists are trying to get us all to believe, yet I do not buy that. CO2 levels trail temperature changes. History is on my side, on that. I also believe that increased CO2 levels will promote plant growth. CO2 is food for plants.

Global warming alarmists, as far as I am concerned, are indoctrinated with lies, or they are interested in keeping government research money filling their coffers. They are an offensive group ... a very influential and dishonest group of people.

PaulConventionWV
08-11-2012, 09:04 PM
so I go out and form my own private court, where does my authority to government you come from? Explicit consent? That doesn't help me when somebody violates me and doesn't recognize my court, its rules and maybe even the rights we supposedly expect to agree on.

I see that you are banned, but WOW, did you really just use "government" as a verb?

John F Kennedy III
08-11-2012, 09:27 PM
I see that you are banned, but WOW, did you really just use "government" as a verb?

I'm hoping it's a permaban. The dude was incredibly childish.

PaulConventionWV
08-11-2012, 09:53 PM
I also don't believe the state is the solution. If we paid the correct price for energy, there would be a lot less human made global warming.

The above site and the 173 answers have nothing to do with the state and taxation. It simply makes the case as to whether or not the planet is warming up. It's clear that it is, and I believe that in part humans are the cause.

Now about what needs to be done? Oil subsidies for one need to go. The middle east wars need to stop. We need to open up trading with arab countries and make friends with them.

The price of non-renewable energy will go up, naturally. Renewable energy will go down in price, naturally, and we will reduce CO2 production.

I really don't care who is right on climate change. I personally think it is a lot of bunk and those who believe it are very gullible. They will take anything they agree with as good science.

However, when it comes down to it, as long as you oppose all of the state "solutions", it doesn't matter to me if you believe global warming. Want to know why?

Because, in 50-70 years or so, I will be around, and many of you still will as well. Then we will see just how fake this global climate change bullshit is when they are still pushing this propaganda 50 years from now and nothing has changed. It's like a carrot on a stick. As time goes by, the deadline for imminent disaster caused by global warming will also move back. Eventually, people will see what fools they were for believing this hoax which was carried out ONLY for propaganda purposes.

Global climate change is not something that the state hijacked. It was created by the state for the state. You believers go ahead and believe and be fools. You will see.

PaulConventionWV
08-11-2012, 09:54 PM
I also don't believe the state is the solution. If we paid the correct price for energy, there would be a lot less human made global warming.

The above site and the 173 answers have nothing to do with the state and taxation. It simply makes the case as to whether or not the planet is warming up. It's clear that it is, and I believe that in part humans are the cause.

Now about what needs to be done? Oil subsidies for one need to go. The middle east wars need to stop. We need to open up trading with arab countries and make friends with them.

The price of non-renewable energy will go up, naturally. Renewable energy will go down in price, naturally, and we will reduce CO2 production.

173 answers to 173 straw men.

I reject on principle any source that offers to package the supposedly generic arguments of the entire opposition without consulting even one of them and respond to them so that you don't have to.

The fact that you DON'T reject this really drains your credibility and brings your ability to think critically into question.

Natural Citizen
08-11-2012, 10:09 PM
I really don't care who is right on climate change. I personally think it is a lot of bunk and those who believe it are very gullible. They will take anything they agree with as good science.

However, when it comes down to it, as long as you oppose all of the state "solutions", it doesn't matter to me if you believe global warming. Want to know why?

Because, in 50-70 years or so, I will be around, and many of you still will as well. Then we will see just how fake this global climate change bullshit is when they are still pushing this propaganda 50 years from now and nothing has changed. It's like a carrot on a stick. As time goes by, the deadline for imminent disaster caused by global warming will also move back. Eventually, people will see what fools they were for believing this hoax which was carried out ONLY for propaganda purposes.

Global climate change is not something that the state hijacked. It was created by the state for the state. You believers go ahead and believe and be fools. You will see.

Humans have hung out on this rock for a very short amount of time during the planet's existence. When Earth is tired of them it will shake them off like a bad case of the fleas and will continue to exist in a universe where change is and always has been constant.

Do folks not understand that all of the planets are heating up? Jiminy crickets.

John F Kennedy III
08-11-2012, 10:41 PM
Humans have hung out on this rock for a very short amount of time during the planet's existence. When Earth is tired of them it will shake them off like a bad case of the fleas and will continue to exist in a universe where change is and always has been constant.

Do folks not understand that all of the planets are heating up? Jiminy crickets.

No they don't because the tv doesn't tell them.

Natural Citizen
08-15-2012, 10:39 PM
Mars Surface Made of Shifting Plates Like Earth, Study Suggests

http://www.space.com/17087-mars-surface-marsquakes-plate-tectonics.html

John F Kennedy III
08-15-2012, 11:49 PM
Mars Surface Made of Shifting Plates Like Earth, Study Suggests

http://www.space.com/17087-mars-surface-marsquakes-plate-tectonics.html

Very interesting. Seems to strengthen the theory that Mars once supported life.

Natural Citizen
08-18-2012, 04:29 AM
Don't know what to think about this. But the man wants to militarize NASA. Whoda thunkit? Say's them terists are starting forest fires.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFHM0rd9cX8&feature=share&fb_source=message

Natural Citizen
08-18-2012, 04:31 AM
Very interesting. Seems to strengthen the theory that Mars once supported life.

Maybe. I never really found that aspect of Mars exploration to be as interesting as other aspects. Not to negate it though. Just my own...meme. I guess that's the word.

Nickels
08-18-2012, 04:43 AM
173 answers to 173 straw men.



No, not 173 straw men. At least not for here. I posted several links to that site ONLY when the same tired arguments were made here by people who are not aware of the responses. Otherwise I'd never recommend the site.

Nickels
08-18-2012, 04:44 AM
I see that you are banned, but WOW, did you really just use "government" as a verb?

Yes, I did. I meant govern. I'll go back and correct it. Thanks and sorry.

Nickels
08-18-2012, 04:47 AM
Oh. I thought you were being satirical.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-trace-heat-wave-to-massive-star-at-cent,21088/

You're the one being satirical, probably unknowingly. And childish, for posting the same video and ignoring my responses to it. FYI, if you don't like the arguments in response, at least acknowledge you've read it and just don't agree. Or admit you've not read them. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

Nickels
08-18-2012, 04:19 PM
LOL. It is BS, but you get to believe whatever you want to believe and they will tax you for it.

Just because we believe humans cause global warming via CO2, or at least the greenhouse effect, does not mean we favor taxing. You seem to believe that IF it was true that CO2 causes global warming, we MUST tax and it WILL solve the problem (in which case, you agree more with the alarmists, Al Gore and policy makers than scientists do).

John F Kennedy III
08-19-2012, 02:27 AM
Maybe. I never really found that aspect of Mars exploration to be as interesting as other aspects. Not to negate it though. Just my own...meme. I guess that's the word.

What aspects do you find interesting?

Travlyr
08-19-2012, 08:48 AM
Just because we believe humans cause global warming via CO2, or at least the greenhouse effect, does not mean we favor taxing. You seem to believe that IF it was true that CO2 causes global warming, we MUST tax and it WILL solve the problem (in which case, you agree more with the alarmists, Al Gore and policy makers than scientists do).

You get to believe whatever fairy tale they tell you. I do not believe that CO2 causes warming. I believe that solar activity, and other natural occurrences, are the greatest contributers, by far, and I am not in favor of taxing people for their carbon footprints.

You do realize that the year without a summer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer) was caused by volcanic activity, right? That volcano did more to cool the planet all at once than all the people, and industry, on the Earth combined in the last 100 years.

Natural Citizen
08-20-2012, 12:24 PM
What aspects do you find interesting?

Well...right this second I'm just interested in the similarities of the planets.

Is a hoot...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u29rOx7dufA&feature=g-all-u

John F Kennedy III
08-20-2012, 12:39 PM
Well...right this second I'm just interested in the similarities of the planets.

Is a hoot...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u29rOx7dufA&feature=g-all-u

It seems to be showing that it's on Earth in New Mexico :confused:

Natural Citizen
08-20-2012, 12:58 PM
That's what it shows. And can certainly be reproduced. I told you it was a hoot. :rolleyes:

Edit -- supposed to be a problem in that the guy who made the panarama needed an actual address on Earth.

Anyhoo...was fun for a minute.