AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?


YukonJack
#61
"The birth of the Sahara desert is a matter of historical record."

Two lumberjacks are arguing over a beer who is better at cutting down trees.

One says: "When I cut down trees my saw goes so fast that I need a fire brigade behind me to make sure there is no forest fire".

When the other one anwers: "That's nothing! When I was cutting trees down in the Sahara Forest..." he is interrupted by his buddy, saying: "The Sahara is a desert, You fool!", to which he replies: "It is now!"
 
Tonington
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

The bathtub has fixed parameters the planet does not. I mentioned the incoming mass before but you didn't consider it, that variable mass is absolutely necessary for orbital stability.

Show me how. I want to see calculations for this.

Quote:

If the mass was already here what was added to the other ends of the lava tubes to push it to erupt on the surface?

Grab a tube of toothpaste and squeeze. Heat and pressure...

Quote:

And if you're going to say heat and pressure where or how did the extra watts come from?

Watts are derived from the heat. You have it backwards.

Quote:

Constant growth of GDP depends on constant growth of consumers geology is oblivious to both.

Constant growth of GDP depends on a limitless supply of inputs. It's as untenable as your idea of boundless earth systems.
 
darkbeaver
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Duh.

Show me how geologic time scales dictate decadal or even century scale processes.

The present is a geologic time. You have got old time unitarianism soo bad. I repeat catastrophic geologic change is a matter of historical record those records were made at the time of those changes. Geologic change like mountain building has been witnessed to happen in hours and days they do not require eons. An island can pop up overnight and they do. We can also have a mountain blown into the atmosphere in a billion pieces in minutes. There are lots of old stories about recent and relatively recent fast catastrophic change. Global floods are multitudinous in the past and some are remembered.
 
Avro
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Yes facts like this...

Yes, Lord Oxburgh has impeccable credentials on the subject. So much for the spirit of impartiality...

And you guys wonder why I'm so jaded and cynical?

Sure I can understand, which is why I recommend you go and speak to a climatologist on the matter.
 
AnnaG
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Of course climate change is natural, even the change that we may bring on is natural. How in the hell can we have unnatural climate change. What is the unnatural agent of the change? The planet does not have a fixed capacity for anything. The bathtub has a fixed capacity the planet does not. Our capacity is variable and that capacity has changed hugely and rapidly through all time right up to the present change of mass we're witnessing with the volcano. The planet has no permanently fixed diameter or capacity, its variable like everything else here.

? It seems to me our mass and volume are pretty constant. the amount of elements is pretty constant, ratio of water to everything else, etc.
 
darkbeaver
#66
Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Show me how. I want to see calculations for this.

Plasma arrives to this planet on a daily basis via birkland currents entering at both poles, plasma you will recall, is ionized matter. You have no problem allowing the admissions of radiant heat (WATTS) so why balk at neutrons, and negative and positive ions, for christ sake you can see extra mass streaking through the sky every second night, fifty million tons a year they say, I think, and that's random hits

Quote:

Grab a tube of toothpaste and squeeze. Heat and pressure...

Where has the hand come from?



Quote:

Watts are derived from the heat. You have it backwards.

Watts heats your coffee, you have it incomplete, it's convertable.

Quote:

Constant growth of GDP depends on a limitless supply of inputs. It's as untenable as your idea of boundless earth systems.

The universe we are immersed in is commonly thought of as infinite.
 
Tonington
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

The present is a geologic time.

This, is geologic time:


We live within geologic time, but things do not happen around us in geologic time. You can't even see the difference between bronze age and industrial age on a geologic timescale, unless the graph is long enough to go across Canada.

So talking about climate shifts in geologic time has no relevance on the changes we are seeing right now.

Quote:

I repeat catastrophic geologic change is a matter of historical record those records were made at the time of those changes. Geologic change like mountain building has been witnessed to happen in hours and days they do not require eons.

Who witnessed a mountain pop up in days? I don't believe this at all, and even if I did, we're not talking about a mountain are we? It takes thousands of years for a glacier a kilometer thick to build up on top of Massachsetts. Not 100. Not 30.
 
Tonington
#68
"Plasma arrives to this planet on a daily basis via birkland currents entering at both poles, plasma you will recall, is ionized matter. You have no problem allowing the admissions of radiant heat (WATTS) so why balk at neutrons, and negative and positive ions, for christ sake you can see extra mass streaking through the sky every second night, fifty million tons a year they say, I think, and that's random hits"

Yeah yeah, and you haven't shown how this is required for the orbit of our planet, rather than a consequence of our orbit...

"Where has the hand come from?"

The hand is the mass surounding the vent.

"Watts heats your coffee, you have it incomplete, it's convertable."

Not for a volcano it isn't.
 
Slim Chance
#69
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Well to say the climate isn't changing or never will change is absolute nonsense. Boston was once under an ice sheet 3/4 Mile thick. It was also a tropical swamp at one time.


Nonsense... Why, that "ice" you refer too so cavalierly is simply misunderstood water... Global warming dictates that this ice is, in fact, water that is in a transition-stage; which fully substantiates the opportunity that global warming existed (as was a serious issue) during those periods of glaciation.

BTW - There are a myriad of climate modeling techniques that prove (IPCC approved no less) that the words 'global warming' actually spell 'climate change'....
 
ironsides
#70
Climate change it is, and it is a perfectly normal phenomena, possible accelerated by man. Can climate change mean the Earth gets warmer, definatly. What about all these earthquakes and volcanoes going off, could that also be caused by climate change, maybe.

Erupting nowerhaps 20
Global Volcanism Program | Frequently Asked Questions | How many active volcanoes are there in the world?
 
EagleSmack
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

LOL, so environmentalists aren't the monolithic group you stated they were earlier...

Goal posts are that way smack -------------->

I'm not moving goal posts at all. The climate always changes. The environmentalist want emissions cut drastically in our industries OR they will be forced to pay fines or carbon taxes. The cabon taxes then go to so called under developed nations. It's a way for environmentalist to squeeze our industries. To distribute wealth.

I'm thankful that our President didn't buy into it.
 
darkbeaver
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

"Plasma arrives to this planet on a daily basis via birkland currents entering at both poles, plasma you will recall, is ionized matter. You have no problem allowing the admissions of radiant heat (WATTS) so why balk at neutrons, and negative and positive ions, for christ sake you can see extra mass streaking through the sky every second night, fifty million tons a year they say, I think, and that's random hits"

Yeah yeah, and you haven't shown how this is required for the orbit of our planet, rather than a consequence of our orbit...

"Where has the hand come from?"

The hand is the mass surounding the vent.

"Watts heats your coffee, you have it incomplete, it's convertable."

Not for a volcano it isn't.

Our star, the big orange ball in the sky, except Nova Scotia where it appears as a light gray stain on the perpetual gloom, is a variable (electric) phenomenon. At the present time we hear a great deal about signifigant variation in climate on earth. To maintain the orbits of the planets in relative stability takes some shifting of load and torque, this is accomplished electrically. Some noticable extra heat may result during the adjustments, resulting in smoke ash particulate and molten rock when the electrogravitational brakes are applied to stabilize the planets spin and maintain its distance with the solar system other bodies. If it didn't happen that way (+ or - 50 % ) there would be no stability and every chunk would be spun out, never to be seen again. Fifty million tons a day, not a year, is thought to be added to the earths mass. If X ammount of power measured in watts conducted into an electrical element will melt butter then x ammount of watts conducted through the earth will make y ammount of lava, fulgarites abound, miniature lave tubes caused by regular lightening, just scale it up and presto.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm
EXPANDING EARTH?

Bill Mundy
Professor of Physics
Pacific Union College, Angwin, California


Origins 15(2):53-69 (198.
Last edited by darkbeaver; Apr 18th, 2010 at 01:58 PM..
 
Tonington
#73
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

The cabon taxes then go to so called under developed nations.

So what percentage of Europe's money went to under-developed nations?

Quote:

I'm thankful that our President didn't buy into it.

He is going to put a price on carbon...

So which is it? Is climate change just a tool to move wealth? Or are you perhaps mistaken, and policies and science are not the same thing?
 
darkbeaver
#74
The sanctity of science is inviolate. The church is built on a rock. Einstien was a son-o-god.
 
EagleSmack
#75
[quote=Tonington;1259028]So what percentage of Europe's money went to under-developed nations? {/quote]

As far as I know none of it has yet.



Quote:

He is going to put a price on carbon...

He has said that but I doubt he will, particularly in this economy. I think and hope he is just trying to placate the environmentalist.

Quote:

So which is it? Is climate change just a tool to move wealth? Or are you perhaps mistaken, and policies and science are not the same thing?

I believe it is a tool to move wealth for many that have gotten on the bandwagon. Again, Copenhagen was nothing but a forum to do just that. I listened to the speeches and heard the woman from S. Africa bash Obama for not signing a wealth transfer agreement.

I agree that climate does change. You can roll your eyes all you want. Believe me, I'm no oil baron nor do I work the Texas Oil fields. I do my best for the environment. I recycle, keep the heat as low as possible, I give to the US Park Services. But this Climate Change crowd wants hard cash. They don't deny it.
 
Tonington
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

As far as I know none of it has yet.

So, that was a price on carbon.

Quote:

He has said that but I doubt he will, particularly in this economy. I think and hope he is just trying to placate the environmentalist.

It was a campaign promise of his. The bill by Graham, Lieberman, and Kerry puts an economy wide cap on emissions. That is a price on carbon.

Quote:

I believe it is a tool to move wealth for many that have gotten on the bandwagon. Again, Copenhagen was nothing but a forum to do just that.

So you say...yet major international partners didn't give in to demands from those countries. I roll my eyes because you are contradictory in what you say.

Quote:

I agree that climate does change. You can roll your eyes all you want. Believe me, I'm no oil baron nor do I work the Texas Oil fields. I do my best for the environment. I recycle, keep the heat as low as possible, I give to the US Park Services. But this Climate Change crowd wants hard cash. They don't deny it.

So, what is this Climate Change crowd? Am I part of it? Do you think that's what I'm after? Are you making broad assertions like SJP does about conservatives?
 
EagleSmack
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

So, that was a price on carbon.

You ask how much money went to underdeveloped nations. I said I didn't know.


Quote:

It was a campaign promise of his. The bill by Graham, Lieberman, and Kerry puts an economy wide cap on emissions. That is a price on carbon.

Has this bill been passed? Obama made quite a few promises, all candidates do.


Quote:

So you say...yet major international partners didn't give in to demands from those countries. I roll my eyes because you are contradictory in what you say.

I didn't say it. They are the ones that said it. I heard the S. African cabinet member's tantrum that they did not get a signed treaty forcing developed nations to pay so called underdeveloped nations.



Quote:

So, what is this Climate Change crowd? Am I part of it? Do you think that's what I'm after? Are you making broad assertions like SJP does about conservatives?

I'm not sure if you are a part. If you believe developed countries she be forced to pay underdeveloped countries money according to their emissions cap you are.

I am not really sure what you are after. I believe their are two sides of those who believe that climate change is man made. Those that simply feel that something should be done, and the very vocal group that says industry should pay a carbon fee and transfer wealth. Polute all you want but pay. The more you pollute the more money you have to pay to undeveloped nations, like China. It's ridiculous.
 
ironsides
#78
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

So what percentage of Europe's money went to under-developed nations?



He is going to put a price on carbon...

So which is it? Is climate change just a tool to move wealth? Or are you perhaps mistaken, and policies and science are not the same thing?

I am also thankful he did not buy into it, and yes I do think that they are using the fear of the term "global warming/climate change" as a tool to move wealth. They are using every other thing one can think of to do it, so why not?
 
ironsides
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

So what percentage of Europe's money went to under-developed nations?

I would venture a guess and say not even close to what the U.S. has invested into so called under developed countries just in the past 20 years.
 
Tonington
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

You ask how much money went to underdeveloped nations. I said I didn't know.

Yet, you say that's where the money goes...but you can't even show this to be true...

Quote:

Has this bill been passed? Obama made quite a few promises, all candidates do.

Not yet. It's upcoming.

Quote:

I didn't say it.

You started with "I believe..."

Quote:

They are the ones that said it. I heard the S. African cabinet member's tantrum that they did not get a signed treaty forcing developed nations to pay so called underdeveloped nations.

Did S. Africa convene the conference? There were other participants there as I'm sure you're aware. You're making these kinds of statements about the principal reason for a conference, which is at odds with reality. The principal goal of the conference is an international agreement which results in reduced emissions. That can happen in many different ways.

Quote:

I'm not sure if you are a part.

Well, let's start with your definition of climate change crowd. What is it?

Quote:

If you believe developed countries she be forced to pay underdeveloped countries money according to their emissions cap you are.

Is this how you define climate change crowd? Because this has nothing to do with climate change. It's a policy, and not a very good one.

Quote:

I am not really sure what you are after. I believe their are two sides of those who believe that climate change is man made. Those that simply feel that something should be done, and the very vocal group that says industry should pay a carbon fee and transfer wealth. Polute all you want but pay. The more you pollute the more money you have to pay to undeveloped nations, like China. It's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is your pigeon-holing. According to you we have one ambivalent group, and one group that just wants to give money away to underdeveloped nations. That is absurd.
 
AnnaG
#81
Um, smoke occurs naturally in the atmosphere:
 
AnnaG
#82
Water runs downhill naturally, too.
.
.
until we mess with it.
 
EagleSmack
#83
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Yet, you say that's where the money goes...but you can't even show this to be true...

No no no. I never said that's where the money goes. I know there are environmentalist that want it to go there. You asked how much does Europe give to underdeveloped nations and I said I didn't know.


Quote:

Not yet. It's upcoming.

Hopefully it will fail.


Quote:

You started with "I believe..."

Getting a kick out of trying to twist words? I am surprised. For one with such knowledge on this subject I am surprised you find the need to go there.

I said I believe that it is a tool for environmentalist to transfer wealth. I alluded to the woman from the S. African Government who was throwing a tantrum when President Obama refused to simply sign a bill mandating the US to comply with THEIR emissions standards or pay. President Obama doesn't even have that power to agree to such a document. She went off on him and how he came in to discuss Climate Change and she said the discussion was done and he just need to sign the agreement. She further went off on his problems with China qualifying for funds in this agreement.


Quote:

Did S. Africa convene the conference? There were other participants there as I'm sure you're aware. You're making these kinds of statements about the principal reason for a conference, which is at odds with reality. The principal goal of the conference is an international agreement which results in reduced emissions. That can happen in many different ways.

No but they were on the committee that drew up the agreement. Her tirade stands out because I heard her interview on NPR. There were quite a few who drew up the accord I am sure.


Quote:

Well, let's start with your definition of climate change crowd. What is it?

Didn't I already explain what I thought it was?


Quote:

Is this how you define climate change crowd? Because this has nothing to do with climate change. It's a policy, and not a very good one.



What's ridiculous is your pigeon-holing. According to you we have one ambivalent group, and one group that just wants to give money away to underdeveloped nations. That is absurd.

I never said the one group that believes something should be done is ambivalent. I believe they do care. I do believe there is a group, and they dominate the movement that does want to turn this into a shakedown. You're kidding yourself if you don't think they are out there.
 
Tonington
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

No no no. I never said that's where the money goes.

Really? So what was this all about :

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

The cabon taxes then go to so called under developed nations. It's a way for environmentalist to squeeze our industries. To distribute wealth.

To which I asked how much so far has.

You're like a sheet twisting in the wind...
 
EagleSmack
#85
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

I'm not moving goal posts at all. The climate always changes. The environmentalist want emissions cut drastically in our industries OR they will be forced to pay fines or carbon taxes. The cabon taxes then go to so called under developed nations. It's a way for environmentalist to squeeze our industries. To distribute wealth.

I'm thankful that our President didn't buy into it.

Nothing like quoting me out of context Tonnington.
 
EagleSmack
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Really? So what was this all about :



To which I asked how much so far has.

You're like a sheet twisting in the wind...

Nah...your just twisting words to suit you.
 
Tonington
#87
And the one place where there is a legislated price on carbon is the EU. Environmentalist Europeans, and they aren't sending their money away as a goal.

It's not a way to send money to under-developed countries. Which is what you've been basically saying.

Is it not what you've been saying?
 
EagleSmack
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

And the one place where there is a legislated price on carbon is the EU. Environmentalist Europeans, and they aren't sending their money away as a goal.

It's not a way to send money to under-developed countries. Which is what you've been basically saying.

Is it not what you've been saying?

What I am saying is that a powerful political force in this movement has been all about hitting developed nations up for big money, mandating they pay carbon emissions taxes AND transfer the wealth to so called underdeveloped nations.

That pretty much summed up what was attempted in Copenhagen. Do you actually deny that?
 
Tonington
#89
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

What I am saying is that a powerful political force in this movement has been all about hitting developed nations up for big money, mandating they pay carbon emissions taxes AND transfer the wealth to so called underdeveloped nations.

That pretty much summed up what was attempted in Copenhagen. Do you actually deny that?

Yes I do, because you use phrases like "all about". That is not what it is all about. For some people you need to wave a carrot in front of them before they agree.

The powerful political forces you talk about advocate aid to countries that have no money to mitigate effects that will be felt and are being felt there first. It stands to reason that those who helped contribute to the problem should pay their share of it.

If you include context like that, then I would be more agreeable. But you don't, you ignore that kind of context, or read sources that don't include it. One or the other.
 
EagleSmack
#90
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Yes I do, because you use phrases like "all about". That is not what it is all about. For some people you need to wave a carrot in front of them before they agree.

The powerful political forces you talk about advocate aid to countries that have no money to mitigate effects that will be felt and are being felt there first. It stands to reason that those who helped contribute to the problem should pay their share of it.

If you include context like that, then I would be more agreeable. But you don't, you ignore that kind of context, or read sources that don't include it. One or the other.

I listened to them on the radio and leading up to Copenhagen and during Copenhagen it was all about getting hands on developed nations money. Before the deal fell apart, underdeveloped nations were arguing about who should get the most money. I wasn't listening to conservative radio it was NPR which is, if anything left of center. It was all about mandating developed nations pay.

And again, the thought of allowing coutries like China and India (and others) go on about their business, growth unchecked while western nations bear the burden was ridiculous. It's cowardly, but I know why they give China a pass. China would tell them to shove it...end of story. Obama had a big problem with the thought of China getting money to help their economy when the are in the best shape economically as anyone. That is when the Chinese delegate called Obama "very stupid". Obama was right.

The idea of simply giving nations who are really underdeveloped billions of dollars without any monitoring of what they do with it is ridiculous. It will be simply spent on whatever they want to spend it on.
 

Similar Threads

60
Global Capitalism; Greatest Scam in History
by darkbeaver | Oct 19th, 2018
2910
19
The biggest scam in history
by Stretch | Dec 2nd, 2008