Global Warming Happy Fun-Time

[pixelsmith]

Ok lets consider that the king pins of this climate debacle the IPCC and which ever political faction you follow is correct, and humans are the cause of global warming. Then what? By the way this is not a political issue, it is a humankind issue. It is neither red nor blue, only the simplistic mind will see it as such. Lets hypothetically accept that human kind is the cause of this alleged CO2 increase, lets also assume that CO2 is the big bad wolf of environmental gasses. Then what? What is the winning faction going to do about it? I will tell you what they will do, they will charge everything and everyone money. Those little pieces of paper in your wallets being paid to the World Bank. What is the World Bank going to do? They going to go around and stop emissions, no, they will just charge the offenders MORE money for violating their arbitrary rules. Is the world bank going to reinvest all those trillions of dollars into alternative clean energy, of course not, Big oil and Big Energy companies would not allow that. Keep in mind they are just talking about CO2, not the myriad of other Hydroflourocarbons that are the real culprits and much more efficient heat insulators. They are not concerned with the water pollution, now radiation pollution. The poisoned water and food we eat is not there concern. They show such blatant uncaring for us as a species why do you think they care about CO2... I'll give you one guess...money. This is not conspiracy, the official stance is what is a conspiracy. I hear people in this debate that just refer to nebulous consensuses. They have no clue on who or what is involved in their so called consensus. They are truly just parroting talking points they have heard. If anybody actually took the time to research for themselves and actually think and question the sources of their so called consensuses they would realize they have been lied to, over and over again. I have actually read the Climategate emails that were exposed, I do not listen to anyone who is just a party line repeater. When you get past the childish arguments of who is responsible for what, what are you left with? You are left with a huge cash grab on a global scale. This is not one of those arguments where it matters who is correct, the end result is the same, nothing will change.

Bingo. Well stated. It is a transfer of wealth. Period.

 

[mike]

I agree with this, down here they are about to abolish the carbon tax, all that money spent, for nothing

But regardless of all this, its still in our best interests to adopt best practise when it comes to our activitys on this planet.

Clean is always prefereable to dirty whether we are talking underpants or industry

 

[pixelsmith]

I agree with this, down here they are about to abolish the carbon tax, all that money spent, for nothing

But regardless of all this, its still in our best interests to adopt best practise when it comes to our activitys on this planet.

Clean is always prefereable to dirty whether we are talking underpants or industry

I agree... btw.. there is no pressure...

 

[pixelsmith]

I agree with this, down here they are about to abolish the carbon tax, all that money spent, for nothing

But regardless of all this, its still in our best interests to adopt best practise when it comes to our activitys on this planet.

Clean is always prefereable to dirty whether we are talking underpants or industry

Yup.. they got smart.
The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog: CONTROLLING THE SCIENTISTS

 

[Burnt State]

This is probably due to going over this many times LONG before you were here. I have even been banned because of a global warming dispute.
It should be rather simple for you to provide this "consensus" because the "science is settled" and I assume you can direct me to where it is empirically proven that human generated CO2 is causing catastrophic or even somewhat alarming global warming.

Actually, the repeated dance we did on 911 where you refused to address real science regarding the conspiracy piece is where my attitude is born, but as you insist let's look more closely at the notion that CO2 is somehow a blessing in disguise as opposed to a mythology promoted by those who believe humans have nothing to do with GW and that we should all get some CO2 emitters in the backyard, not to attract mosquitoes but to feed the garden.

Oh well:

An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.

However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.

You can read the rest of the scientific dismissal of the celebration of CO2 here at this site not sponsored by the Koch "deregulate the planet CO2 is good for you" Brothers here:
CO2 is plant food

I encourage you to read through this content and recognize that not all media spins the truth as most media has been bought and corporately paid for. There are multiple issues raised here including a decrease in nutrition and photosynthesis in some plants as well as increased desertification, reduced growing latitudes and less plants overall, but you can read it for yourself.

If your science comes from the Plants Need CO2 website know that

Plants Need CO2 was a climate complacency front group 501(c)(3) that (with ad-buying sibling 501(c)(4) CO2 Is Green) popped up in 2009, with a mission "to educate the public on the positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2..."[1]. One of its directors, Corbin Robertson of Quintana Minerals, "is said to own more coal through his various ventures than anyone outside of the U.S. government"[2] - and was a Koch strategy group attendee.

You have seen The Lorax right? Those were important childhood lessons about nature and greed. You are actually giving voice to the Onceler in case you did not recognize it.

 

[Jimi H.]

And you have yet to produce ...

OK, I see you chose denial.

 

[Jimi H.]

Pixelsmith is right. The IPCC has been thouroughly debunked as it were. Anybody remember Climategate?

New thread, same method, huh? Dude, like I explained previously, 'Climategate' is irrelevant to the science, the guy involved stepped down, it was a (stupid) personal case/grudge about an old article.

Disregarding the politics, did you look into the facts and try to understand the science? Or are you still just pushing the conspiwacy-angle to avoid revealing your ignorance about the core problem?

 

[pixelsmith]

New thread, same method, huh? Dude, like I explained previously, 'Climategate' is irrelevant to the science, the guy involved stepped down, it was a (stupid) personal case/grudge about an old article.

Disregarding the politics, did you look into the facts and try to understand the science? Or are you still just pushing the conspiwacy-angle to avoid revealing your ignorance about the core problem?

"the guy involved stepped down"?!? you have no clue what climategate is do you? i have looked into the science since it changed from the global cooling scam into the global warming scam. you have got several years of research to catch up son.

 

[pixelsmith]

OK, I see you chose denial.

no denial. just no time to waste on complete ignorance. go away for 10 years and come back with a bit more knowledge on the subject.

 

[pixelsmith]

CO2 is not bad. If you guys are really concerned about it why are you still here anyway? You are carbon based, CO2 emitting, planet destroying useless eaters... right? You are a threat to the existence of all life on the planet. Step up to the plate guys and do the right thing. .... or simply get the back story on the whole scam before you open your CO2 holes again.

 

[pixelsmith]

Some people have convinced themselves that the best way to conduct science is by watching YouTube videos some guy did (from the trailer he lives in with his mom) and then to stupidly repeat the "findings" long after they have been completely discredited.

Unfortunately these people contribute to the continued dumbing down of this country and the world. Whenever you hear someone actively rail against science you are really hearing the same people who burned "witches", bled the sick and stifled human advancement through centuries,

Not much anyone can do about this kind of abject stupidity except occasionally call it out.

Got anything other than a heard mentality to bring to the table? No one here has yet to discuss or bring forward ANY empirical evidence showing that human generated CO2 is causing any significant warming of the planet. That IS the basis of the whole scam you all realize... right?

lance you should have this information right at your fingertips right?

 

[pixelsmith]

"Got anything other than a heard mentality to bring to the table"

Heard mentality, huh?

As I said there's not much anyone can do.

It's hilarious when these poseurs pretend that they could recognize and evaluate "empirical data" from scientific fields that are far outside of their area of expertise, since they aren't scientists at all (except in their YouTube minds).

Lance

I typed too fast. s/b herd.

so... still nothing to back up this herd mentality? are you just going to blather on and on? the burden of proof lies in your "camp". prove that human generated CO2 is causing any significant warming of the planet or go back to your video games in moms basement.

 

[pixelsmith]

really?!?! not one "global warming alarmist" here can defend their position? Someone show me the evidence that human generated CO2 is causing any significant warming of the planet... Your scientists tried desperately to fudge the climate data and and STILL failed.
ok.. lance you are up. prove something other than your ignorance.

 

[Burnt State]

no denial. just no time to waste on complete ignorance. go away for 10 years and come back with a bit more knowledge on the subject.

Once again, denial and the two step shuffle.

Why keep asking for challenges, for science, for proof etc. if you are not going to respond to legitimate challenges to your beliefs? You did the same thing over 911. All you have is rhetoric.

It's moved beyond perplexing and gone into that sad land where the Onceler lives in his lurkum above his closed store.

 

[pixelsmith]

Once again, denial and the two step shuffle.

Why keep asking for challenges, for science, for proof etc. if you are not going to respond to legitimate challenges to your beliefs? You did the same thing over 911. All you have is rhetoric.

It's moved beyond perplexing and gone into that sad land where the Onceler lives in his lurkum above his closed store.

I have no clue what you are talking about in reference to 9/11 thread. You were probably being ignorant and showing a lack of knowledge on basic facts to bother with much like here on this thread. Lets start here then go back to 9/11 ok?
YOU have the burden of proof to show the evidence supporting the very foundation of the global warming movement that says that human caused CO2 is significantly warming the planet enough to impose global policies and taxes.

 

[pixelsmith]

Actually, I think "heard" mentality is a good way to describe the way conspiracists (9/11 truthers, birthers, climate change deniers) think: "I heard it from a GUY on YouTube so that trumps the consensus opinion of scientists in the field."

Here is some "proof" that should be a good start for a layperson. Unlike the conspiracy nuts, I won't pretend expertise in a field that I am not trained in for political or delusional reasons.

Are you serious? You must be joking.. American Medical Association? NASA?!? The IPCC?!? really?
Better google up how they arrived at the 97% CONsensus figure... total bullshit. While a consensus may arise surrounding a specific hypothesis or theory, the consensus itself is NOT evidence. There is NO 97% consensus.

So... none of you "alarmists" can provide the empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis even tho the science it settled... interesting.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Global Warming so make sure you put Solar Panels on your roof how much radiation do they give off?

 

[Terjarv]

Are you serious? You must be joking.. American Medical Association? NASA?!? The IPCC?!? really?
Better google up how they arrived at the 97% CONsensus figure... total bullshit. While a consensus may arise surrounding a specific hypothesis or theory, the consensus itself is NOT evidence. There is NO 97% consensus.

So... none of you "alarmists" can provide the empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis even tho the science it settled... interesting.

Pixelsmith, your argument against a consensus is tiresome and irrational.

The 97% consensus metaanalysis studies have not been redacted or significantly edited. So how have they been debunked? You do realize this always happens in the scientific literature?

Oh wait, I forgot you obtain your data from blogs and youtube.

 

[Terjarv]

Ok lets consider that the king pins of this climate debacle the IPCC and which ever political faction you follow is correct, and humans are the cause of global warming. Then what? By the way this is not a political issue, it is a humankind issue. It is neither red nor blue, only the simplistic mind will see it as such. Lets hypothetically accept that human kind is the cause of this alleged CO2 increase, lets also assume that CO2 is the big bad wolf of environmental gasses. Then what? What is the winning faction going to do about it? I will tell you what they will do, they will charge everything and everyone money. Those little pieces of paper in your wallets being paid to the World Bank. What is the World Bank going to do? They going to go around and stop emissions, no, they will just charge the offenders MORE money for violating their arbitrary rules. Is the world bank going to reinvest all those trillions of dollars into alternative clean energy, of course not, Big oil and Big Energy companies would not allow that. Keep in mind they are just talking about CO2, not the myriad of other Hydroflourocarbons that are the real culprits and much more efficient heat insulators. They are not concerned with the water pollution, now radiation pollution. The poisoned water and food we eat is not there concern. They show such blatant uncaring for us as a species why do you think they care about CO2... I'll give you one guess...money. This is not conspiracy, the official stance is what is a conspiracy. I hear people in this debate that just refer to nebulous consensuses. They have no clue on who or what is involved in their so called consensus. They are truly just parroting talking points they have heard. If anybody actually took the time to research for themselves and actually think and question the sources of their so called consensuses they would realize they have been lied to, over and over again. I have actually read the Climategate emails that were exposed, I do not listen to anyone who is just a party line repeater. When you get past the childish arguments of who is responsible for what, what are you left with? You are left with a huge cash grab on a global scale. This is not one of those arguments where it matters who is correct, the end result is the same, nothing will change.

1. The consensus is not nebulous, it's based off of peer reviewed publications. Peer reviewed publications are papers published mainly by labs at academic, governmental, and corporateinstitutions. You should try reading some. They hold a bit more sway over blogs and youtube videos.

2. Yes, the e-mails. You read some emails which has bestowed upon you a masterful understanding of the issue. Needless to say, the "climate-gate" emails discredit all the thousands of researchers studying climate change. By inferring these points, you have completely discredited yourself.

 

[pixelsmith]

1. The consensus is not nebulous, it's based off of peer reviewed publications. Peer reviewed publications are papers published mainly by labs at academic, governmental, and corporateinstitutions. You should try reading some. They hold a bit more sway over blogs and youtube videos.

2. Yes, the e-mails. You read some emails which has bestowed upon you a masterful understanding of the issue. Needless to say, the "climate-gate" emails discredit all the thousands of researchers studying climate change. By inferring these points, you have completely discredited yourself.

1. It has been shown AND bragged about in the emails that the peer review (pal-review) process was corrupted.
2. The emails themselves do plenty of incriminating, the DATA files included in the release of emails showed how they manipulated the data to achieve a desired output which in the end failed. Almost NONE of the climate models predictions were close to being accurate. You should try reading more.