How the GW myth is perpetuated

[taxslave]

you'll need to first define what "it" is... it seems most of those objecting to "something", rarely, if ever, actually state definitively, absolutely, precisely..... just what it is they're so objecting to!

from that thread discussing the BC carbon tax, I recall a few critical statements about the initiative; however, as I recall, it seems no one offering those negative critical statements/summations actually bothered to provide accompanying supporting substantiation.

Since you are just like a born again there is no point wasting time looking up facts that you will just ignore because they don't agree with your brand of religion. Go look for your self if you wish to expand your knowledge. Otherwise you will forever remain an ignorant truther.

You really are a bag of hammers who can't read....

It is not that he can't read. Just a bad case of Denial. That and being paid by the post to shill for his religion.

 

[waldo]

Since you are just like a born again there is no point wasting time looking up facts that you will just ignore because they don't agree with your brand of religion. Go look for your self if you wish to expand your knowledge. Otherwise you will forever remain an ignorant truther.

another case in point! I simply ask for a clarification on what "it" constitutes... and no, I certainly won't/wouldn't ignore anything forthcoming. If warranted, in my view, I would certainly test the veracity of your statement/claim... if you ever actually state something specific! Reverting to labeling something you don't agree with "a religion" and labeling advocates as "ignorant truthers" means absolutely nothing if you don't have the courage of your own conviction... where you actually go beyond your overt generalizations and broad-based labeling to actually speak of something definitive... something that can be referenced, checked, analyzed and reviewed upon.

 

[taxslave]

another case in point! I simply ask for a clarification on what "it" constitutes... and no, I certainly won't/wouldn't ignore anything forthcoming. If warranted, in my view, I would certainly test the veracity of your statement/claim... if you ever actually state something specific! Reverting to labeling something you don't agree with "a religion" and labeling advocates as "ignorant truthers" means absolutely nothing if you don't have the courage of your own conviction... where you actually go beyond your overt generalizations and broad-based labeling to actually speak of something definitive... something that can be referenced, checked, analyzed and reviewed upon.

I rest my case.

 

[waldo]

I rest my case.

when your case is predicated on your outright refusal to be specific in anything... yes, you should rest "your case" of non-specificity!

 

[Locutus]

JunkScience.com ‏@JunkScience

Desperate warmists produce hip-hop album* under banner "People's Climate Music."

http://goo.gl/9kXLq3 #Lame

*wildo on cowbell :lol:

 

[Zipperfish]

and just "who/what" are legitimate examples of persons/groups putting forward such "proposals"... and what actual credence, if any, do they have in this regard? Of course, legitimate proposals recognize fossil-fuels will be a part of the mix, but propose a diminishing reliance on fossil-fuels within that mix... perhaps you're speaking more to respective proposal's "aggressiveness" in reducing that reliance???

An example? Buddy that drives to the pipeline protest, for example. Organizations that support artifically pricing oil to limit emissions without due regard for the real human cost such a policy would have on those globally living on the subsistence bubble.

There's probably two billion people alive on this planet because of cheap energy--aka fossil fuels. Without the oil, the earth couldn't sustain them.

Other organizations recognize that monetizing emissions will disproportionally affect the poor, so they support global governance models where first world counrtries would basically cover the cost of the poor's emissions. In effect: wealth distribution.

I myself, being a sharing soul, am not all the opposed to wealth distribution, in theory. In practice, such distribution would be handled by the most venal and corrupt people in the world--politicians, the UN, etc. They typically handle wealth distribution as "one for you, ten for me."

I say pick the low-hanging fruit (the big emitters like coal generators), invest in alternative energy and face the fact that things are going to warm up and there's bugger all we can do about it.

There is a large part of the reason to deny AGW. The people pushing the scam have other interests than lowering the temperature. If they had stuck with a simple message of pick up your sh it instead of lying about the extent of the problem and insisting on complete destruction of our economy things would be very different.

It isn't rational to reject the evidence of AGW because you don't like the proposed policy remedies.

 

[waldo]

An example? Buddy that drives to the pipeline protest, for example. Organizations that support artifically pricing oil to limit emissions without due regard for the real human cost such a policy would have on those globally living on the subsistence bubble.

There's probably two billion people alive on this planet because of cheap energy--aka fossil fuels. Without the oil, the earth couldn't sustain them.

I spoke of legitimate organizations... those that recognize fossil-fuels will always be a part of the mix... but yes, organizations that advocate for a process that works to, over time, reduce the current dependency on fossil-fuels. This has nothing to do with the frivolous talking points deniers pull out that presume to speak to a "carbon-footprint" life-style contradiction... that, in the overall, is simply "mice-nuts" in terms of the emissions being targeted.

Other organizations recognize that monetizing emissions will disproportionally affect the poor, so they support global governance models where first world counrtries would basically cover the cost of the poor's emissions. In effect: wealth distribution.

I myself, being a sharing soul, am not all the opposed to wealth distribution, in theory. In practice, such distribution would be handled by the most venal and corrupt people in the world--politicians, the UN, etc. They typically handle wealth distribution as "one for you, ten for me."

I'm not necessarily challenging you on this until I can realize the practical extension/application of one of your suggested organizations advocating in this regard... the mechanics of what you're describing?

I say pick the low-hanging fruit (the big emitters like coal generators), invest in alternative energy and face the fact that things are going to warm up and there's bugger all we can do about it.

BigCoal is a BigLobby... when Obama went after them, they simply started exporting. To deal with a world-wide "Coal fruit pick", you obviously need international agreements... like COP treaties attempting to bring forward binding emission reduction commitments. Or do you have an alternate approach/suggestion to go after that 'low hanging fruit'?

 

[Zipperfish]

I spoke of legitimate organizations... those that recognize fossil-fuels will always be a part of the mix... but yes, organizations that advocate for a process that works to, over time, reduce the current dependency on fossil-fuels. This has nothing to do with the frivolous talking points deniers pull out that presume to speak to a "carbon-footprint" life-style contradiction... that, in the overall, is simply "mice-nuts" in terms of the emissions being targeted.

I'm not necessarily challenging you on this until I can realize the practical extension/application of one of your suggested organizations advocating in this regard... the mechanics of what you're describing?

BigCoal is a BigLobby... when Obama went after them, they simply started exporting. To deal with a world-wide "Coal fruit pick", you obviously need international agreements... like COP treaties attempting to bring forward binding emission reduction commitments. Or do you have an alternate approach/suggestion to go after that 'low hanging fruit'?

Treaties are fine. Or domestic economic policies that punish bad actors. These things will come to pass, but probably not to get to global warming gradutaes from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The first indication of this is when the deniers start backtracking. Believe me, even the most fervent denier today will--if asked 25 years from now--completely deny they were ever denier. Human nature. Look at the Iraq debacle. Try finding someone who will own up to supporting that mess. Yet just about everyone did in 2003. Go figger. Anyways, you're already seeing this among some of the skeptics. Anthony Watts over at Watt's Up with that no longer denies AGW. Now it's "C"AGW where C is catastrophic. The smart ones are hedging their bets early.

Besides, we're no more capable of altering our future than yeast cells.

Think about it. You're a yeast cell in a beer vat. Temperature's around, say, 40°C and you're surrounded by your favourite food—sugar—and life is good. Eat. Drink. Fu Procreate. Yeast cells piss alcohol and fart carbon dioxide. Fast forward a couple of weeks. It's way more crowded now from all the breeding, there's not nearly so much sugar about as their used to be, and the rising concentration of alcohol and carbonic acid is making life a tad uncomfortable. Yeast cells, as you know, are not renowned for their sparkling intellect, and so, not surprisingly, don’t really change their behavior. They continue to expand as fast as they possibly can, until the entire population essentially drowns in its own filth. It's an ugly way to go, but on the plus side, it does result in beer.

 

[captain morgan]

you're already seeing this among some of the skeptics. Anthony Watts over at Watt's Up with that no longer denies AGW. Now it's "C"AGW where C is catastrophic. The smart ones are hedging their bets early.

Watts hasn't changed his tune other than evolve with the 180 degree turn about of the truther squad.

You guys have changed your message each and every time that the models fail and predictions do not come to pass... Face it, the AGW/CC crowd are run by a team of marketing pros and have few if any traction from actual science

Besides, we're no more capable of altering our future than yeast cells.

Think about it. You're a yeast cell in a beer vat. Temperature's around, say, 40°C and you're surrounded by your favourite food—sugar—and life is good. Eat. Drink. Fu Procreate. Yeast cells piss alcohol and fart carbon dioxide. Fast forward a couple of weeks. It's way more crowded now from all the breeding, there's not nearly so much sugar about as their used to be, and the rising concentration of alcohol and carbonic acid is making life a tad uncomfortable. Yeast cells, as you know, are not renowned for their sparkling intellect, and so, not surprisingly, don’t really change their behavior. They continue to expand as fast as they possibly can, until the entire population essentially drowns in its own filth. It's an ugly way to go, but on the plus side, it does result in beer.

Really poor example considering that the above system is fully closed and has no presence of offsetting variables like we have on ole Gaia (namely, plant life that observes CO2 as an essential component to live)

 

[waldo]

... ole Gaia

whaaa! Nothing about an ice-free Arctic???

 

[captain morgan]

Ok...
Al Gore Embarrassed by Mother Nature – Polar Ice Caps Grow by 43%

Maybe this is more your speed

 

[waldo]

Watts hasn't changed his tune other than evolve with the 180 degree turn about of the truther squad.

as a dues paying member of tvWeathermen Local 231, Tony Willard, does/says whatever his latest boss calls for. Member Locutus' favourite go-to, 'Stephen Goddard', used to be Tony's puppetmaster... until even Tony had to cut him loose cause Goddard was so out there! Lately, Tony is seeking favour once again from the SkyDragons and is actually, on occasion, giving the keys to "Professor" Tim Ball - oh my! Of course, Lawdy Monckton, can make Tony dance... but it seems the once loyal "Willis" has gone rogue and actually stated Watts is clueless about the blog articles he posts. Oh my... is this an inner-revolt at WTFIUWT? :mrgreen:

 

[Zipperfish]

Watts hasn't changed his tune other than evolve with the 180 degree turn about of the truther squad.

He has, and will continue to change his tune. My predcition is that in five years he will deny every having been a denier. Which is exactly what one would expect from a denier of course. :lol:

You guys have changed your message each and every time that the models fail and
predictions do not come to pass... Face it, the AGW/CC crowd are run by a team
of marketing pros and have few if any traction from actual science

I don't see why I would face that. CO2 is accumulating and it is getting warmer--as predicted.

Really poor example considering that the above system is fully closed and has no presence of offsetting variables like we have on ole Gaia (namely, plant life that observes CO2 as an essential component to live)

"Fully closed system"? So where do you think, in our "open system" that all this CO2 we are emitting is going to go, then?

Ok...
Al Gore Embarrassed by Mother Nature – Polar Ice Caps Grow by 43%

The polar ice caps aren't growing over the long term. I expect that Anthony Watts wuill be throwing the towel in on this one pretty soon also.

 

[captain morgan]

My goodness, you type so many empty words and end up saying nothing over and over and over again

as a dues paying member of tvWeathermen Local 231, Tony Willard, does/says whatever his latest boss calls for.

Link?

o, 'Stephen Goddard', used to be Tony's puppetmaster...

Link?

Lately, Tony is seeking favour once again from the SkyDragons and is actually, on occasion, giving the keys to "Professor" Tim Ball -

Link?

... but it seems the once loyal "Willis" has gone rogue and actually stated Watts is clueless about the blog articles he posts.

Link?

He has, and will continue to change his tune. My predcition is that in five years he will deny every having been a denier. Which is exactly what one would expect from a denier of course.

Like I said, he evolves with the ever changing position of the greentards, which is what one would expect from someone with an ounce of objectivity

I don't see why I would face that. CO2 is accumulating and it is getting warmer--as predicted.

hahaha.... whew, thanks for the laugh on that.

"Fully closed system"? So where do you think, in our "open system" that all this CO2 we are emitting is going to go, then?

The same place the CO2 goes in the distillation process... Back into the general environment to keep the cycle going.

AGain, a very poor analogy.... Doesn't the greentard brain-trust give you guys anything of tangible use for things like analogies?

The polar ice caps aren't growing over the long term. I expect that Anthony Watts wuill be throwing the towel in on this one pretty soon also.

You expect, do you?

So... When are you predicting an ice free North Pole... 2016?... 2020?... C'mon, let us in on the secret

 

[Zipperfish]

Like I said, he evolves with the ever changing position of the greentards, which is what one would expect from someone with an ounce of objectivity

I just note that the whole "catastrophic" AGW thing is a recent development. Before there was no global warming with the deniers. And then they kind of had to admit that it was warming, but it had nothing to do with human emissions. Then it was like "OK maybe we had a bit to do with it, but not much." And now it's "OK, sure we having an impact but don't worry, it won't be a catastrophe!"

The same place the CO2 goes in the distillation process... Back into the general
environment to keep the cycle going.

The cycle indeed is going.. But what we've done is--in a geological instant--released a vast quauntity of carbon previously loicked out of the carbon cycle as subsurface hydrocarbons and oxidized that carbon to CO2. It will continue to cycle, but the environment will adapt to the equilibrium, which will include higher average global temperatures and, maybe, more plant growth. probably a bunch of other unpredictable things as well, like those big craters in Siberia.

AGain, a very poor analogy.... Doesn't the greentard brain-trust give you guys anything of tangible use for things like analogies?

That was a Kurt Vonnegut one actually.

You expect, do you?

So... When are you predicting an ice free North Pole... 2016?... 2020?... C'mon, let us in on the secret

Around 2060 would be my guess, based on current emission rates.

 

[captain morgan]

I just note that the whole "catastrophic" AGW thing is a recent development. Before there was no global warming with the deniers. And then they kind of had to admit that it was warming, but it had nothing to do with human emissions. Then it was like "OK maybe we had a bit to do with it, but not much." And now it's "OK, sure we having an impact but don't worry, it won't be a catastrophe!"

No... Everyone recognizes that the climate is a dynamic thing that includes warming and cooling... The global historical record demonstrates this clearly.

The entire truther movement is founded on some form of twisted logic that assumes there is an element of stasis or range within the Earth must remain... Again, the record shows different

As far as the 'catastrophic' comment is concerned, this simply recognizes that the objective view looks to add definition to the scope of the argument, especially in a manner that seeks to elicit definitive terms from the general greentard brain-trust.

As we both know, those definitions and terms will never be forthcoming from the greenie view as they not only understand that it would completely undermine their position in addition to the reality that they don't have a clue what this is anyways

The cycle indeed is going.. But what we've done is--in a geological instant--released a vast quauntity of carbon previously loicked out of the carbon cycle as subsurface hydrocarbons and oxidized that carbon to CO2. It will continue to cycle, but the environment will adapt to the equilibrium, which will include higher average global temperatures and, maybe, more plant growth. probably a bunch of other unpredictable things as well, like those big craters in Siberia.

Volcanoes, forest fires and other natural causes have been emitting massive volumes of CO2 (among other things) for millenia... I'm not really buying that argument

That was a Kurt Vonnegut one actually.

Fair enough... Still doesn't provide a lot of strength considering the many, previous expectations

 

[Zipperfish]

No... Everyone recognizes that the climate is a dynamic thing that includes warming and cooling... The global historical record demonstrates this clearly.

The entire truther movement is founded on some form of twisted logic that assumes there is an element of stasis or range within the Earth must remain... Again, the record shows different

As far as the 'catastrophic' comment is concerned, this simply recognizes that the objective view looks to add definition to the scope of the argument, especially in a manner that seeks to elicit definitive terms from the general greentard brain-trust.

As we both know, those definitions and terms will never be forthcoming from the greenie view as they not only understand that it would completely undermine their position in addition to the reality that they don't have a clue what this is anyways.

I agree the Earth does not really care what the temperature is. People, however, do. Adaptation costs. the more we have to adapt, the higher those costs will be. The unadnswered question is: is it worth paying the adpatation costs?

Volcanoes, forest fires and other natural causes have been emitting massive
volumes of CO2 (among other things) for millenia... I'm not really buying that
argument

Well, if you do the math, you can see that the amount of CO2 emitted in volcanic eruptions is dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions by a factor of about a hundred. Forest fires really don't count--kind of a zero sum game.

Fair enough... Still doesn't provide a lot of strength considering the many, previous expectations

Are you under the impression the ice will come back then?

 

[taxslave]

I just note that the whole "catastrophic" AGW thing is a recent development. Before there was no global warming with the deniers. And then they kind of had to admit that it was warming, but it had nothing to do with human emissions. Then it was like "OK maybe we had a bit to do with it, but not much." And now it's "OK, sure we having an impact but don't worry, it won't be a catastrophe!"




The cycle indeed is going.. But what we've done is--in a geological instant--released a vast quauntity of carbon previously loicked out of the carbon cycle as subsurface hydrocarbons and oxidized that carbon to CO2. It will continue to cycle, but the environment will adapt to the equilibrium, which will include higher average global temperatures and, maybe, more plant growth. probably a bunch of other unpredictable things as well, like those big craters in Siberia.





That was a Kurt Vonnegut one actually.



Around 2060 would be my guess, based on current emission rates.

SO no big panic on buying waterfront property in the MCKenzie Delta then?
And here we were promised an ice free arctic last year.

 

[Zipperfish]

SO no big panic on buying waterfront property in the MCKenzie Delta then?
And here we were promised an ice free arctic last year.

Yes, another broken promise I'm afraid.

 

[taxslave]

I agree the Earth does not really care what the temperature is. People, however, do. Adaptation costs. the more we have to adapt, the higher those costs will be. The unadnswered question is: is it worth paying the adpatation costs?



Well, if you do the math, you can see that the amount of CO2 emitted in volcanic eruptions is dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions by a factor of about a hundred. Forest fires really don't count--kind of a zero sum game.




Are you under the impression the ice will come back then?

Adaptation to any potential slight increase in temperature will still be cheaper than the church of Globull Warming demand for wealth redistribution.

DO tell when did the ice leave?