Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[waldo]

Please tell us.

are you working on presenting some of those "Roy Spencer facts" you alluded to in your OP? As you say, "please tell us".

and yes Walter, that was a bit of sarcasm given the 2010 date of the article mentioned (and the 2008/9 focus, which I highlighted) was already the minimum... did you bother to read the article Walter... and how about the current max activity? How does its relative 'weakness' fit for the purveyors flogging "it's the Sun, it's the Sun"?

 

[EagleSmack]

I gotta have more cowbell!

 

[Walter]

are you working on presenting some of those "Roy Spencer facts" you alluded to in your OP? As you say, "please tell us".

and yes Walter, that was a bit of sarcasm given the 2010 date of the article mentioned (and the 2008/9 focus, which I highlighted) was already the minimum... did you bother to read the article Walter... and how about the current max activity? How does its relative 'weakness' fit for the purveyors flogging "it's the Sun, it's the Sun"?

So you can't tell us how hot it's going to get?

 

[taxslave]

Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/world/climate-talks.html?_r=0

"Even with a deal to stop the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists warn, the world will become increasingly unpleasant. Without a deal, they say, the world could eventually become uninhabitable for humans"


You see folks... all we need is for European nations, Canada, and the U.S to make electronic bank transfers to the United Nations and the world will be saved.

That would be truly unpleasant.

your initial post spoke with such authority, I'm surprised you don't have a number! In any case, any direct contribution aspects, say to a "climate fund", pale in comparison to the negotiations and binding target emission agreements being targeted. Talk of a direct monetary transfer facet is more of a distraction than anything else.

Do tell, how exactly do you intend to make those agreements binding?

 

[waldo]

So you can't tell us how hot it's going to get?

you dullard! Do you ever read... or is your comprehension that poor/weak? If we're already at the max, for the purveyors of "it's the Sun, it's the Sun", it's already as hot "as it's going to get"... from the perspective of those flogging 'it's the Sun, it's the Sun".

just give me another reddie and move on! Ya, move on and provide some of those "Roy Spencer facts" your OP alluded to... but that you're sure having difficulty in presenting. :mrgreen:

There is always a set number and it is always the driving factor. Please review the latest numbers from the various climate conferences as the number is always changing. And it always comes down to that... MONEY TRANSFERS.

Binding target emission agreements! You're buying into that silliness?

again, you're attempting to distract with contributions to a 'climate fund'... those amounts are relatively insignificant to the treaty negotiations and target agreement. Considering the most recent prior agreements had nations committing to accepting binding agreements... considering the current Lima meetings are intent on realizing that end as a benchmark towards final signing in Dec 2015 Paris... why are nations engaged otherwise? You can certainly protest your U.S. government being there, being engaged... you can certainly tout that any U.S. signatory level agreement will simply be punted and refused U.S. ratification domestically. You can certainly seek solace in that... in a repeat of what the U.S. did in Kyoto. Because, if there is a binding agreement reached... and the U.S. ultimately bails on it, the U.S. own that... once again.

 

[Walter]

you dullard! Do you ever read... or is your comprehension that poor/weak? If we're already at the max, for the purveyors of "it's the Sun, it's the Sun", it's already as hot "as it's going to get"... from the perspective of those flogging 'it's the Sun, it's the Sun".

just give me another reddie and move on! Ya, move on and provide some of those "Roy Spencer facts" your OP alluded to... but that you're sure having difficulty in presenting. :mrgreen:



again, you're attempting to distract with contributions to a 'climate fund'... those amounts are relatively insignificant to the treaty negotiations and target agreement. Considering the most recent prior agreements had nations committing to accepting binding agreements... considering the current Lima meetings are intent on realizing that end as a benchmark towards final signing in Dec 2015 Paris... why are nations engaged otherwise? You can certainly protest your U.S. government being there, being engaged... you can certainly tout that any U.S. signatory level agreement will simply be punted and refused U.S. ratification domestically. You can certainly seek solace in that... in a repeat of what the U.S. did in Kyoto. Because, if there is a binding agreement reached... and the U.S. ultimately bails on it, the U.S. own that... once again.

Why don't you tell us how hot it's going to get instead of getting all ad hominem on us?

 

[taxslave]

you dullard! Do you ever read... or is your comprehension that poor/weak? If we're already at the max, for the purveyors of "it's the Sun, it's the Sun", it's already as hot "as it's going to get"... from the perspective of those flogging 'it's the Sun, it's the Sun".

just give me another reddie and move on! Ya, move on and provide some of those "Roy Spencer facts" your OP alluded to... but that you're sure having difficulty in presenting. :mrgreen:



again, you're attempting to distract with contributions to a 'climate fund'... those amounts are relatively insignificant to the treaty negotiations and target agreement. Considering the most recent prior agreements had nations committing to accepting binding agreements... considering the current Lima meetings are intent on realizing that end as a benchmark towards final signing in Dec 2015 Paris... why are nations engaged otherwise? You can certainly protest your U.S. government being there, being engaged... you can certainly tout that any U.S. signatory level agreement will simply be punted and refused U.S. ratification domestically. You can certainly seek solace in that... in a repeat of what the U.S. did in Kyoto. Because, if there is a binding agreement reached... and the U.S. ultimately bails on it, the U.S. own that... once again.

SO no way of enforcing agreements. Makes them not worth the cost of the meetings.

 

[waldo]

Do tell, how exactly do you intend to make those agreements binding?

SO no way of enforcing agreements. Makes them not worth the cost of the meetings.

do I intend? Are you that naive as to how agreements are stuck... legally binding struck? You know, that's the reason why Harper formally bailed on Kyoto... I mean, he ignored it for all those years, but eventually the piper had to be paid for failing to reach Canada's emissions reduction commitment target. So... of course, to avoid paying that "$14 to $19 billion dollar" penalty (there are variations on what the actual figure would have been ($14 billion minimum)), Harper simply said, "Canada quits... you can't penalize Canada!".

Why don't you tell us how hot it's going to get instead of getting all ad hominem on us?

read... try it, for a change!

 

[captain morgan]

Why don't you tell us how hot it's going to get instead of getting all ad hominem on us?

He can't tell you, every time the greentards make a prediction, it goes to hell.

All he has is an after-the-fact analysis, much like the armchair coaches that preach their wisdom once the final score is posted... If things warm up, then is AGW... When they get colder, its climate change... When they can't explain it, the call is that it's weather and not climate.

 

[taxslave]

do I intend? Are you that naive as to how agreements are stuck... legally binding struck? You know, that's the reason why Harper formally bailed on Kyoto... I mean, he ignored it for all those years, but eventually the piper had to be paid for failing to reach Canada's emissions reduction commitment target. So... of course, to avoid paying that "$14 to $19 billion dollar" penalty (there are variations on what the actual figure would have been ($14 billion minimum)), Harper simply said, "Canada quits... you can't penalize Canada!".



read... try it, for a change!

Meaning the agreements are not worth the cost of meetings. In my business contracts(agreements) are generally backed with bonding. Now if china was to put up say a 50billion dollar non revocable bond that they will cut emissions in 2030 to agreed levels we might have some faith in the talks.

 

[waldo]

He can't tell you, every time the greentards make a prediction, it goes to hell.

All he has is an after-the-fact analysis, much like the armchair coaches that preach their wisdom once the final score is posted... If things warm up, then is AGW... When they get colder, its climate change... When they can't explain it, the call is that it's weather and not climate.

no... ya see, that wasn't a prediction! It was a sarcastic slam that Walter (and now you) didn't/doesn't get. From the point of the article's reference to the 2008/2009 event focused on... we've already gone past the next cycle max (which relatively speaking, was not very max at all). So, now listen/read hard here, it got as hot as it's going to get... again, FROM the perspective (of that solar cycle) and of those trying to flog that warming is due entirely to the Sun!

 

[Walter]

no... ya see, that wasn't a prediction! It was a sarcastic slam that Walter (and now you) didn't/doesn't get. From the point of the article's reference to the 2008/2009 event focused on... we've already gone past the next cycle max (which relatively speaking, was not very max at all). So, now listen/read hard here, it got as hot as it's going to get... again, FROM the perspective (of that solar cycle) and of those trying to flog that warming is due entirely to the Sun!

It'd be pretty cold without the Sun.

 

[waldo]

Meaning the agreements are not worth the cost of meetings. In my business contracts(agreements) are generally backed with bonding. Now if china was to put up say a 50billion dollar non revocable bond that they will cut emissions in 2030 to agreed levels we might have some faith in the talks.

you already showed you had no understanding of the penalty mechanism in place... now you're highlighting you aren't aware of non-compliance sanctions that were a part of the Kyoto agreement - see Marrakesh Accords. Yours is the height of pomposity to simply drop in (with no foundation), show you have no actual understanding, and cast summary judgement on the negotiation facets that involved the world's nation governments.

It'd be pretty cold without the Sun.

ya think? Would it be, as you say, "pretty cold" without the greenhouse effect you deny... or are you just denying the enhanced part of it? :lol:

 

[Walter]

you already showed you had no understanding of the penalty mechanism in place... now you're highlighting you aren't aware of non-compliance sanctions that were a part of the Kyoto agreement - see Marrakesh Accords. Yours is the height of pomposity to simply drop in (with no foundation), show you have no actual understanding, and cast summary judgement on the negotiation facets that involved the world's nation governments.



ya think? Would it be, as you say, "pretty cold" without the greenhouse effect you deny... or are you just denying the enhanced part of it? :lol:

waldo=ad hominem boy When ya ain't got no answers attack yer opponent's character.

 

[taxslave]

you already showed you had no understanding of the penalty mechanism in place... now you're highlighting you aren't aware of non-compliance sanctions that were a part of the Kyoto agreement - see Marrakesh Accords. Yours is the height of pomposity to simply drop in (with no foundation), show you have no actual understanding, and cast summary judgement on the negotiation facets that involved the world's nation governments.



ya think? Would it be, as you say, "pretty cold" without the greenhouse effect you deny... or are you just denying the enhanced part of it? :lol:

No answer again . Figures.

 

[waldo]

waldo=ad hominem boy When ya ain't got no answers attack yer opponent's character.

I'd give a a buttHurtin' pic... but that ain't my style! The only answer you kept bleating on about was the one that showcased you didn't even read the article... that you probably haven't a clue about sun cycles and their respective max/min levels.

do you have any character Walter? I'm still waiting on your unwillingness to put up some of those OP facts of yours. I keep asking... you keep ignoring/avoiding. Is that indicative of your character Walter?

No answer again . Figures.

are you looking for the same answer Walter is? Cause, like I already gave it!

 

[taxslave]

I'd give a a buttHurtin' pic... but that ain't my style! The only answer you kept bleating on about was the one that showcased you didn't even read the article... that you probably haven't a clue about sun cycles and their respective max/min levels.

do you have any character Walter? I'm still waiting on your unwillingness to put up some of those OP facts of yours. I keep asking... you keep ignoring/avoiding. Is that indicative of your character Walter?



are you looking for the same answer Walter is? Cause, like I already gave it!

As usual you never answered the question.
How EXACTLY are you going to hold any country to the agreement?

 

[captain morgan]

no... ya see, that wasn't a prediction!

Yeah, sure... Just like every other greenie doomsday scenario.

How that ice free North pole working out?

 

[Zipperfish]

Shake off CO2 as a sole source of warming and doors open.

CO2 is also a coolant in our atmosphere. Neat huh?

I've never said CO2 was the sole warmer of the atmosphere. It's not enough just to say "Oh look, the weird stuff going on with the magnetosphere." You need a physical model. You need a scientifically internally consistent explanation that fits observation. The cosmic ray cloud seeding hypothesis, for example. Respectfully, you can't seem to make up your mind whether, on a climatic scale, we are warming or cooling. In one post, you'll refer to the natural Holocene warming period, in the next you'll post about how cold it is in Peoria.

From what I can gather the observational evidence indicates that there has been more warming since the instrumental record began (circa 1860 or so) than can be explained by the radiative properties of CO2 alone. This could be a postive feedback mechanism, or maybe related to this cloud seeding by cosmic rays or something else.

 

[Walter]

It's OK Waldo, you're right about everything. I agree with everything you say. You've converted me. Man is the worst thing that has ever happened on Earth and everything that happens here is caused by man because we are so big and strong and evil.