Thanks Thanks:  0
LMAO LMAO:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Ignorant Ignorant:  0
Moron Moron:  0
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 233

Thread: The Great Global Warming Swindle

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Internet Cafe Nigeria
    Posts
    6,195
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    All countries have collapsed or lost their power throughout history. Those that had a strong military survived for a longer timeperiod then those that didn't. Rome eventually collasped but it lasted longer then the dozen or more cultures that it defeated.
    You have been busy as I slept away the night. Before I went to bed I researched what you said on a few threads dedicated to history, seems some heated discussion there as well. Iceland rose to the top of the list, along with Israel, China, and Rome. The last being one of the longer, but then you also must subscribe to the tenant of a military for anything other than protection and not occupation. I won't distract from your issue other than what I comment on below.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    Give me time I just got here. I'm still trying to get caught up. But so what if we all pay taxes. That doesn't refute that they aren't confiscation. You call it a buzzword but in reality it defines it more accurately.
    Actually, confiscation does NOT accurately describe it, it is a bill for services. If I eat a meal in a restaurant, when I am finished I get a bill, that is not confiscation. Now you may not like the services that are provided, but that is a different issue. At no time did I support the invasion of Iraq, but got a bill for it anyway. That is the result of living in a society as opposed to owning your own island.

    Now to my concern, which you would likely call a "distraction" I consider very relevant to people's decision making process. There is a "subsidy" from the taxpayer that big energy and consumers get in the form of military protection of oil interests. This is socialized, and estimates can be put from $5 billion to $150 billion yearly depending on what you consider. In a "free market" the companies would pay for those services directly and either lower their profits or pass the costs on to the final consumer. In either case people would make better decisions as they would bear the cost of their own use.

    And, I would say the same thing for resulting pollution caused as a byproduct of energy use. I don't know about where you live, but I pay to dispose of 100% of my waste, I don't get to throw half of it in my neighbors pond, or bury in the woods behind my house. Yet for some reason we hold energy companies to an entirely different standard. And as to my comment about sewage, this proper disposal keeps people from getting sick. The same as Asthma and breathing problems are higher in areas with large industrial activity. Quite a bit of the cost of treatment is "socialized", hence very relevant to the discussion. Again it is not a "distraction", but a key component of the cost benefit analysis.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    Priests was used because if anyone believes in something based on faith then it is clsoer to a religion and their 'leaders' are priests. If offended I could have used monks, imans, rabbi's or any other word. But it does describe exactly theri function.
    "Priests" is a silly way to win people over to your side of an argument, unless you just want to argue. It tells me right from the onset that you listen to Fox, AM Radio, read Drudge or some combination there of. I roll my eyes and think here we go again, same ole same ole. Now I don't know about other readers, but I am guessing if they watch Fox they think right on brother, if they watch any other major news network they sigh.

    For years you would have heard the same arguments about smoking as you now hear about climate change. (distraction) sorry I know. Even Ayn Rand, called the "anti smoking movement" a big liberal conspiracy and that ended well for her. After years and years of observation we can be pretty certain smoking is not good. I could probably find one or two researchers that claim it is perfectly fine, and there is possibility no matter how remote that they are right.

    But as for climate change, 90-95% of the "scientific" community falls on one side and a few on the other. As I said in one of my first posts, I am not a scientist and unless you are a peer reviewed (whatever) then all you/any of us are doing is cutting and pasting research done by others. In Edmund's case he cuts and pastes the SAME things over and over, I don't need to see a video four times that I saw four other times over at SCAM.

    Finally, I say this a bit tongue and cheek, but the medical community can not even convince me if coffee and multivitamins are good or bad. So as with that, along with pumping crap into our environment I take a common sense approach.

    Don't allow me to distract from you main points in posting, but in my world the issue does not exist in the vacuum.
    Last edited by ribshaw; 06-08-2013 at 09:33 AM.
    "It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Internet Cafe Nigeria
    Posts
    6,195
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    BTW doing this is also necessary for Ribshaw because it starts to define the actual costs and potential controallable damage values in any cost benefit analysis.1)

    Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.
    2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?
    Ribshaw likes to see his name , without trying to pick apart everything you said I tried to give you a baseline of where I am coming from as a "casual observer". And most people have no idea, sans Edmund, You, Beacon, Spector, and NoMaxim and one or two others of 1 or 2. As I said rather sarcastically, although not too far off the mark if they watch Fox it is a hoax and if they watch MSNBC it is the biggest threat to mankind.

    I would like to see a complete analysis of the subject that is "new", from your perspective.
    "It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post
    Actually, confiscation does NOT accurately describe it, it is a bill for services. If I eat a meal in a restaurant, when I am finished I get a bill, that is not confiscation. Now you may not like the services that are provided, but that is a different issue. At no time did I support the invasion of Iraq, but got a bill for it anyway. That is the result of living in a society as opposed to owning your own island.
    I willingly go into a restaurant. You had no choice about Iraq. Confiscation is the taking of money without your approval by "authority". Paying a bill for service implies that first off I actually received the service and secondly that I wanted the service. And of course I can extend this to if I received a 'good' service. Fees are a charge for a service that governments also use, but taxes are applied and usually in an arbitrary manner, not to mention that there is no free will in paying the taxes. Confiscation is also associated to authority and since governments levy taxes it fits. Not to mention that both taxes and confiscation use two common words in their defintion "demand" and "authority".

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post
    Now to my concern, which you would likely call a "distraction" I consider very relevant to people's decision making process. There is a "subsidy" from the taxpayer that big energy and consumers get in the form of military protection of oil interests. This is socialized, and estimates can be put from $5 billion to $150 billion depending on what you consider. In a "free market" the companies would pay for those services directly and either lower their profits or pass the costs on to the final consumer. In either case people would make better decisions as they would bear the cost of their own use.
    Energy is one of the most highly taxed sectors in the economy. Consumers pay a myrid of taxes on energy including fees, excise taxes, sales taxes, delivery service taxes to name a few. Oil companies pay hugh taxes to governments. So the 'subsidy' as you define it has to take into account the amount of taxes paid vs. the services provided strictly for their benefit. After all the military exists not just for protection of oil but for other reasons. This whole line should be in another thread as it will branch off very far from just oil/energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post
    And, I would say the same thing for resulting pollution caused as a byproduct of energy use. I don't know about where you live, but I pay to dispose of 100% of my waste, I don't get to throw half of it in my neighbors pond, or bury in the woods behind my house. And as to my comment about sewage, this proper disposal keeps people from getting sick. Again it is not a "distraction", but a very key component of the cost benefit analysis.
    You need to define "resulting pollution" in great detail. In fact the word pollution will need to be defined to get to a logical debate. Your comment makes a number of assumtions that may or may not be true or even apply. The biggest assumption is that any pollution created is not being taken care of since you tie this to you taking care of your waste.

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post
    "Priests" is a silly way to win people over to your side of an argument, unless you just want to argue.
    The application of the term depends on the actions of others. If their responses are based on faith then the tag fits. I will either win people over based on the logic and facts supporting my arguements or not. If someone decides to support one side because they are 'nicer' then that is just a follower and not someone who has done critical thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post
    But as for climate change, 90-95% of the scientific community falls on one side and a few on the other. As I said in one of my first posts, I am not a scientist and unless you are a peer reviewed (whatever) then all you/any of us are doing is cutting and pasting research done by others.
    This is an "Appeal to popular opinion" falacy. Polling is not science and even if 99.999999% believe something that does not make it so. History has too often shown us that dogma and the currently accpeted 'scientific' version were flat out wrong. Only the facts and logical connections of said facts through experimentation and real world observations can tell us if it is right or wrong. While not a climate scientist I have worked on climate computer models and you do not have to be a scientist to comment on or invlaidate other's work. History has also shown that many non-scientists have come up with many profound theories that the 'scientists' of their day thought were wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post
    Finally, I say this a bit tongue and cheek, but the medical community can not even convince me if coffee and multivitamins are good or bad. So as with that, along with pumping crap into our environment I take a common sense approach.

    Don't allow me to distract from you main points in posting, but in my world the issue does not exist in the vacuum as it does on the radio, Fox or the web.
    It is always great to take a common sense approach. Common sense lends skepticism to question dogma. Don't take something someone says as gospel if your common sense raises a question about it. In fact I think applying common sense will go a very long way to showing you how AGW as defined and proposed by the IPCC is wrong and inaccurate. I plan to layout a nice long logical step by step trip through the issues and weeds and we'll all see where we end up at.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Internet Cafe Nigeria
    Posts
    6,195
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    I plan to layout a nice long logical step by step trip through the issues and weeds and we'll all see where we end up at.
    Excellent I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
    "It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    301
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    I willingly go into a restaurant. You had no choice about Iraq. Confiscation is the taking of money without your approval by "authority". Paying a bill for service implies that first off I actually received the service and secondly that I wanted the service. And of course I can extend this to if I received a 'good' service. Fees are a charge for a service that governments also use, but taxes are applied and usually in an arbitrary manner, not to mention that there is no free will in paying the taxes. Confiscation is also associated to authority and since governments levy taxes it fits. Not to mention that both taxes and confiscation use two common words in their defintion "demand" and "authority".
    Excuse me for interrupting, but I want to point out that nobody is forcing you to live in the U.S. and pay all of these taxes.

    If you want to live here and pay taxes, that's your choice.

    Anyway, you're better off just talking about the science of global warming. Your opinions about taxes aren't going to help you in this thread.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Wolf View Post
    Excuse me for interrupting, but I want to point out that nobody is forcing you to live in the U.S. and pay all of these taxes.

    If you want to live here and pay taxes, that's your choice.

    Anyway, you're better off just talking about the science of global warming. Your opinions about taxes aren't going to help you in this thread.
    I was born in the US, not in a restraunt. Also, many of the taxes a a very recent concoction in the US. I only mention them because later on one solution is cap and trade, which is a tax. But you are right that taxes belong to their own thread. And for the record I'm not completely against taxes. Government needs funds and there are certain things that only the government should handle.

    Blue Wolf, woul like to provide an answer to my two "questions"?

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    Ok then instead of trying to rehash what Ed posted let me do this in a logical step by step process. But before we get to the big parts we need to see if there is any agreement on the start. I would like for those that support and believe in AGW to answer two questions.

    1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.
    2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

    These are two very important baseline questions. I think we will all agree that if for example there was only going to be .1 degree C in additional warming then we would all yawn and say so what. And the second question is important because if man didn't contribute it or can't control it then the who debate is also moot. Now I could have easily answered these questions by going to the last IPCC assessment but I want to see if those I disagree with reven agree with themselves. So kindly bear with me and let me know what answers you believe in.

    BTW doing this is also necessary for Ribshaw because it starts to define the actual costs and potential controallable damage values in any cost benefit analysis.
    +
    1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.

    a)A fair question.
    Let me preface this a touch. The there is a large amount of misunderstanding on this topic.
    The media likes to sensationalize and hype things searching for the largest and number.
    Some less than honest political think tanks also like to make there own projections based on short term information.
    Also as I've said before this is a constantly changing world. People taking action agasint the problem has already reduced the amount from earlier projections.

    It would also be foolish to believe that there is only one answer to this. You cannot predict the future. You can only make projections based on various scenarios based on the appearance of world events like eruptions, the increase or decrease of Co2 from various countries and projections based on our action or inaction.



    2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

    a) This is a hard question to answer. The simple answer would be most of it. However, in reality this is more complex question and could mean any number of things. There are feed backs, and other forcing both natural and man made that can take over.

    For instance melting of the ice caps releases trapped Co2. Is this considered natural? or is this Man made because our origenal temp increase is what caused it to melt in the first place.

    Is global reductions of forest AGW? or would you consider it something else. Removing the natural carbon scrubbers can and does have an effect.

    The answer is all in the definition and how many dominoes you consider being pushed down by the original cause.

    tot that end i'll provide you a graph of relitive forcing. You can of course argue with the specifics but not the overall trends. This also several other factors into account.

    forcings.jpg

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    301
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    I was born in the US, not in a restraunt.
    I never thought you were born in a restaurant.

    But thank you for letting me know. Lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    Also, many of the taxes a a very recent concoction in the US. I only mention them because later on one solution is cap and trade, which is a tax. But you are right that taxes belong to their own thread. And for the record I'm not completely against taxes. Government needs funds and there are certain things that only the government should handle.
    You don't get to pick and choose what taxes you want to pay for. You pay them all. Recent or not. And if you voluntarily choose to live here, then you are giving the government the power to tax you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    Blue Wolf, woul like to provide an answer to my two "questions"?
    Well, I wasn't going to, but since you asked:

    1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.

    It's impossible to know, since I don't know what the change in CO2 emissions will be over the next 100 years.

    2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

    I didn't give an exact amount. But since the increase in CO2 is due almost entirely to fossil-fuel burning, I would say that it is mostly controllable. I can't give you a percentage, though.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    +
    1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.

    a)A fair question.
    Let me preface this a touch. The there is a large amount of misunderstanding on this topic.
    The media likes to sensationalize and hype things searching for the largest and number.
    Some less than honest political think tanks also like to make there own projections based on short term information.
    Also as I've said before this is a constantly changing world. People taking action agasint the problem has already reduced the amount from earlier projections.

    It would also be foolish to believe that there is only one answer to this. You cannot predict the future. You can only make projections based on various scenarios based on the appearance of world events like eruptions, the increase or decrease of Co2 from various countries and projections based on our action or inaction.
    I appreciate your honest with this question. I also know that it changes over time. Would you say that based on the graph you provided additional warming of 3 degrees C can be expected by 2100? I'm really not looking to lock you into a number here. My goal is really to just get an idea of what you think the science is reporting and then have others give me their thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    +
    2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

    a) This is a hard question to answer. The simple answer would be most of it. However, in reality this is more complex question and could mean any number of things. There are feed backs, and other forcing both natural and man made that can take over.

    For instance melting of the ice caps releases trapped Co2. Is this considered natural? or is this Man made because our origenal temp increase is what caused it to melt in the first place.

    Is global reductions of forest AGW? or would you consider it something else. Removing the natural carbon scrubbers can and does have an effect.

    The answer is all in the definition and how many dominoes you consider being pushed down by the original cause.

    tot that end i'll provide you a graph of relitive forcing. You can of course argue with the specifics but not the overall trends. This also several other factors into account.

    forcings.jpg
    First off I can't see the graph you posted. But to answer your question I would define AGW pretty broadly. In other words is chopping down a forest decreases CO2 reduction then this is AGW as mankind did the cutting. And while forcing and feedbacks will be dealt with in great detail I say if the IPCC classifies the forcing as being dependent upon man's action then count it.

    Again I'm not trying to play tricks or lock you into a number here. I'm honestly asking what you think is a correct number.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    In 1486 the Pope blamed witches for Global Cooling which lead to the mass genocide of 10's of thousands of witches for centuries. Man Made Global Warming is even more stupid and more destructive, at least in a warmer world agriculture thrives, while during periods of cooling agriculture fails leading to mass starvation. So people in positions of power blame a sector of the population to pretend they can control climate, when they can't.

    Obama's Science Czar is advocating mass genocide and government mandated abortions to control population to protect us against the mass fraudulent threat of Man Made Global Warming. Just watch this video to see the proof. These facts have already been reported on every news channel, only Fox News Journalists have complained about it, and Glenn Beck is pissed off about it.




    Global Warming propogandists believe that a bad economy gives us a better carbon footprint.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Wolf View Post
    You don't get to pick and choose what taxes you want to pay for. You pay them all. Recent or not. And if you voluntarily choose to live here, then you are giving the government the power to tax you.
    So are you saying that citizens have no power to detemine the taxes they are saddled with? We just have to shut up and take it? Accept whatever our lords and masters decide for us? You do know that this country was basically founded on issues of taxes and not wanting to pay them because they felt they weren't fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Wolf View Post
    Well, I wasn't going to, but since you asked:

    1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.

    It's impossible to know, since I don't know what the change in CO2 emissions will be over the next 100 years.

    2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

    I didn't give an exact amount. But since the increase in CO2 is due almost entirely to fossil-fuel burning, I would say that it is mostly controllable. I can't give you a percentage, though.
    BTW I was asking not for your scientific knowledge but from what you heard or know. After all if there is going to be NO warming then there is no problem right? There is a claim that we MUST take action right now or there will be a serious problem in the future because someone expects some kind of warming to happen. I'm asking if you know how much they say will happen. At least you sort of answered question #2. Whatever the amount of #1 you feel "is due almost entirely" tohuman causes. I'll put you in the group that thinks 90% or more is AGW.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Wolf View Post
    I never thought you were born in a restaurant.

    But thank you for letting me know. Lol.



    You don't get to pick and choose what taxes you want to pay for. You pay them all. Recent or not. And if you voluntarily choose to live here, then you are giving the government the power to tax you.



    Well, I wasn't going to, but since you asked:

    1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.

    It's impossible to know, since I don't know what the change in CO2 emissions will be over the next 100 years.

    2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?

    I didn't give an exact amount. But since the increase in CO2 is due almost entirely to fossil-fuel burning, I would say that it is mostly controllable. I can't give you a percentage, though.
    Based on measured observations CO2 doesn't even effect the global temperature by even one fempto degree (0.000000000000001 C). Only 1/2 of one absorption band even contributes to greenhouse gas effect, while water vapor has 7 absorption bands in the infrared spectrum.... Making water vapor 270 times the greenhouse gas than what CO2 is. CO2 is nothing in the big picture, but I don't hear any of you Man Made Global Warming Propagandist complaining about water vapor (Not water droplets).

    There are 40,000ppm of water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere, while CO2 only has 380ppm. Water vapor is clearly the most dominate greenhouse gas by many orders of magnitude. But still the Enviornmental Fascist and Man Made Global Warming Propogandists ignore these glaring facts and never even mention water vapor, they never simulate water vapor in the computer models, yet they are the masters of the junk science of man made global warming.

    ...

    Global%20Warming%20Artic%20Temperatures%20and%20Solar%203.JPG

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    I appreciate your honest with this question. I also know that it changes over time. Would you say that based on the graph you provided additional warming of 3 degrees C can be expected by 2100? I'm really not looking to lock you into a number here. My goal is really to just get an idea of what you think the science is reporting and then have others give me their thoughts.
    I'd say 3.5 would probably be a fair number. I know higher numbers have been reported. As you can see by the graph I posted "Lord" Mockton and some other denier groups have reported that number as 6 or greater and have said it was the IPCC when it wasn't. They did this by taking a short term projection for a certain time period and than projecting it 100 years into the future while not taking into account Co2 saturation and other doubling factors.



    First off I can't see the graph you posted. But to answer your question I would define AGW pretty broadly. In other words is chopping down a forest decreases CO2 reduction then this is AGW as mankind did the cutting. And while forcing and feedbacks will be dealt with in great detail I say if the IPCC classifies the forcing as being dependent upon man's action then count it.

    Again I'm not trying to play tricks or lock you into a number here. I'm honestly asking what you think is a correct number.
    Sorry about the faulty graph. It shows up fine on my screen. However, please find linked the original source. (sorry I should have provided this in the first place.)
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

    If you want to define it very broadly than you could probably say 90-100% of the additional non-natural state. Keeping in mind that we are pumping Aersols into the atmosphere that are lowering the amount of warming that we are actually causing.

    I'd also say that number is considerably less if you were to limit to just human produced Co2's direct effect. It's the indirects that will arguably produce the most forcing of the next century.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    301
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    So are you saying that citizens have no power to detemine the taxes they are saddled with? We just have to shut up and take it? Accept whatever our lords and masters decide for us? You do know that this country was basically founded on issues of taxes and not wanting to pay them because they felt they weren't fair.
    No, that's not what I said. People have the right to choose and to vote for the politicians that they like. Those politicians can change, lower, or eliminate certain taxes. Sadly, a large percentage of Americans don't exercise their right to vote.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    BTW I was asking not for your scientific knowledge but from what you heard or know. After all if there is going to be NO warming then there is no problem right? There is a claim that we MUST take action right now or there will be a serious problem in the future because someone expects some kind of warming to happen. I'm asking if you know how much they say will happen. At least you sort of answered question #2. Whatever the amount of #1 you feel "is due almost entirely" tohuman causes. I'll put you in the group that thinks 90% or more is AGW.
    When I was going to college, my major was Business Administration. However, I did take a course on the science of global warming, and a course in Botany with an emphasis on environmental appreciation. Obviously, those 2 courses don't make me an expert on climate change, but I can tell you what I did learn:

    *The IPCC considers it "very likely" that if the atmospheric CO2 level stabilizes at double the current level, global temperatures will rise by more than 1.5 C. during the 21st century.

    *The predicted increase in global average temperature will increase anywhere from 1 - 6.5 C. by 2100 depending on various emissions scenarios.

    I never chose which scenario was most likely to come true, but I do think that the global average temperature will continue to rise during the 21st century.

    I also recall my professor saying that even if we completely stopped burning fossil fuels, global warming would continue for decades after that. Interesting.

    I'm not very worried, however. I don't think fossil fuels will be a major source of energy by the year 2100.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Internet Cafe Nigeria
    Posts
    6,195
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    Also, many of the taxes a a very recent concoction in the US. I only mention them because later on one solution is cap and trade, which is a tax. But you are right that taxes belong to their own thread.
    Taxes came up again in a later post, but I feel this is actually a more appropriate quote to build on my thought. This issue should be 100% about science and a cost benefit analysis on how to deal with problems, if any that result. It is as far from it as could be, and that is because of the very issue of money, specifically profits, taxes, and energy prices.

    If I were to poll 50 Fox viewers and 50 MSNBC viewers on why a stone will fall to the ground if dropped, I would expect nearly 100% would say gravity. At the same time I would expect very few including myself to be able to explain F=Gm1m2/d2. That is how a "scientific" debate should conclude. Now granted climate change is more complex in many ways than gravity.

    But if I were to poll 50 Fox viewers and 50 MSNBC viewers on climate change it would be split closer to 50/50. Now why is that? I would submit it has less to do with the science and more to do with money.

    As I mentioned to Edmund, and to you Mongo property insurers have walked and I would even say ran away from the risks associated with climate change. This is largely evidenced by the fact that flood insurance is now completely socialized. I would submit if this was a HOAX, the people who have only a financial interest would be running toward taking the risk as they would stand to clean up. In fact reinsurers have also run the other direction, again I ask why walk away from what could only be considered risk free profits? This leads me to one conclusion, the one group that stands to profit from this "hoax" is betting the other way. But is it man made?

    The second tell, again from the market is what liability carriers are starting to do with directors coverage and/or coverage for companies that are at risk for being sued from issues relating to climate change. Again, they are either raising the premiums or discontinuing coverage. Now is either of these things perfect, certainly not, but I know where the financial interest lies, and what they are showing via their actions.

    The second group of people with an interest are the companies that pollute, now why on earth would they want people to think they are benign? The equation is very simple, they don't care about anything but the bottom line. Scrubbers cost money, cap and trade costs money, and frankly it is an easy sell. Americans love cheap energy, and the less companies have to do, the more for them. So getting people upset about confiscation or $300 a barrel oil is an easy sell, just tell people it is a hoax and blame big government. Easy Peasy

    To conclude, companies that could profit from climate change being a hoax are acting as if it is very real. And companies that would lose profits for climate change being a real are saying its a hoax. I am coming back to the actions of the market. It would be interesting for me to see where the studies being quoted are funded. Some of that may be not be practical, but would in my opinion add some validity to the discussion.
    Last edited by ribshaw; 06-08-2013 at 09:50 PM.
    "It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    I'd say 3.5 would probably be a fair number. I know higher numbers have been reported.

    If you want to define it very broadly than you could probably say 90-100% of the additional non-natural state. Keeping in mind that we are pumping Aersols into the atmosphere that are lowering the amount of warming that we are actually causing.

    I'd also say that number is considerably less if you were to limit to just human produced Co2's direct effect. It's the indirects that will arguably produce the most forcing of the next century.
    These are just fine and pretty much fit right where the IPCC in it's last assessment siad they were. I think most people that support AGW will come up with numbers very close to this. So let's go with 3.5 and 90%. Simple math says that man will be responsible for 3.15 degrees C warming through 2100.

    Now let me ask a harder question that the supporters of AGW won't necessariry agree upon. What is the lowest temperature increase between now and 2100 that we should be concerned about. For example I doubt if anyone would care much if the increase was .0001 degrees. Another way to look at it is what number do we need for us to want to do something about it?

    My motive in asking this is some AGW supporters are really just fosil fuel opponents and even if there was no increase they would still demand money spent on 'green' and place a punishment on fossil fuels. These people can't be reasoned with as their fight is not AGW but something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post
    To conclude, companies that could profit from climate change being a hoax are acting as if it is very real. And companies that would lose profits for climate change being a real are saying its a hoax. I am coming back to the actions of the market. It would be interesting for me to see where the studies being quoted are funded. Some of that may be not be practical, but would in my opinion add some validity to the discussion.
    This reminds me of a circus. They will say or do anything to make a buck. This is a hugh logical fallacy being made on your part. Companies are in it to make a buck Just because appearing green makes them more money doesn't mean they actually believe it. And flood insurance, or lack has nothing to do with climate change. Here is a direct quote from wiki on flood insurance:

    "Most private insurers do not insure against the peril of flood due to the prevalence of adverse selection, which is the purchase of insurance by persons most affected by the specific peril of flood. In traditional insurance, insurers use the economic law of large numbers to charge a relatively small fee to large numbers of people in order to pay the claims of the small numbers of claimants who have suffered a loss. Unfortunately, in flood insurance, the numbers of claimants is larger than the available number of persons interested in protecting their property from the peril, which means that most private insurers view the probability of generating a profit from providing flood insurance as being remote."

    You will need to provide proof of companies motive and stance in relation to AGW otherwise it is just an assumption being made by you. The only thing we know is companies want to make a buck and will appear to be anything and do anything if they think that sells.

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    19,835
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo
    The only thing we know is companies want to make a buck and will appear to be anything and do anything if they think that sells.
    No, we in fact, DON'T know that "companies want to make a buck and will appear to be anything and do anything if they think that sells"

    We know that SOME "companies want to make a buck and will appear to be anything and do anything if they think that sells" but we certainly don't know that ALL "companies want to make a buck and will appear to be anything and do anything if they think that sells"

    How about Mongo holds him/her self to the same standards of debate that he/she demands of others ??
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Internet Cafe Nigeria
    Posts
    6,195
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Mongo, I really thought you were going to add and expand on the conversation with some consistent principles. Instead you quote everything that would appear to contradict your belief structure as a "fallacy", did you just finish a class in logic at the local college? If so, perhaps you can humor an old hillbilly and go to the chapter on deductive reasoning because you just proved my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post
    This issue should be 100% about science and a cost benefit analysis on how to deal with problems, if any that result. It is as far from it as could be, and that is because of the very issue of money, specifically profits, taxes, and energy prices.

    To conclude, companies that could profit from climate change being a hoax are acting as if it is very real. And companies that would lose profits for climate change being a real are saying its a hoax. I am coming back to the actions of the market. It would be interesting for me to see where the studies being quoted are funded. Some of that may be not be practical, but would in my opinion add some validity to the discussion.
    To which you replied, I will bold the important parts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    This reminds me of a circus. They will say or do anything to make a buck. This is a hugh logical fallacy being made on your part. Companies are in it to make a buck Just because appearing green makes them more money doesn't mean they actually believe it. You will need to provide proof of companies motive and stance in relation to AGW otherwise it is just an assumption being made by you. The only thing we know is companies want to make a buck and will appear to be anything and do anything if they think that sells.


    Part 1.

    So you Mongo have just said that companies will say and do anything to make a buck. However, your implication is that only companies that are "green" are lying. What you fail to draw from your very astute comment is that maybe "big energy" are the ones that are lying to make a buck. Maybe they are the ones funding "research" and a "PR" campaign to call climate change a "hoax". Now what other reason could there be that a "scientific" issue is being decided based on what news channel people watch or what radio station they listen to?

    To wit, for big energy to maintain its current profit structure it must convince the public that climate change is a hoax. Therefore, from my perspective Mongo, anything "scientific" that you quote from here on out must be sourced back to the organization that FUNDED the study to be even close to credible.

    Unfortunately that is ONE data point of how the "free market" works where lobbying and misinformation campaigns sway public opinion. Anyone with the smallest degree of business understanding gets why "big energy" wants the public to think climate change is a hoax. But what about companies that stand to PROFIT from climate change being a hoax?
    "It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Internet Cafe Nigeria
    Posts
    6,195
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post
    Companies that could profit from climate change being a hoax are acting as if it is very real. And companies that would lose profits for climate change being real are saying its a hoax. I am coming back to the actions of the market.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo View Post
    And flood insurance, or lack has nothing to do with climate change.
    Mongo, flood damage is the single largest financial risk of climate change to property insurers and they have said as much in their actions. The national flood insurance program is socialized, meaning property insurers largely refuse to underwrite the risks of flood damage. The taxpayers are now assuming almost all of the risk! Now adverse selection is one issue, but that is true with all insurance so they factor it in. Although, as an aside I do find your defense of Socialism sort of touching when juxtaposed with your previous comments about taxes being confiscated.

    A primer on how flood insurance works. People buy essentially two policies, a homeowners policy and a flood policy. A storm like Katrina hits and the insurance company says "flood damage", go see the taxpayer. They are at virtually no risk of loss to flooding, so you would think they would have nothing to say about climate change. One would guess that they have fired all their actuaries, climate people, turned on the news and realized it was all a big scam. Now they can rake in all the premiums they can from this HOAX. In fact Mongo, you alluded to them being complicit in the hoax in an effort to make more money by raising premiums. Unfortunately, in many cases they are saying the risks of climate change are real and too great for us to bear. Again, for me to put much stock in what you say it must be well sourced as by your very own words companies are acting in their own best interests and are giving us two very different stories. The market has spoken.

    But please, don't believe me, I have sourced 10 articles on the subject. So it would also be nice when you are giving us all more information on thinking about climate change if you could include a few studies funded not just by Big Energy, but Big Insurance as well.

    Allstate, for instance, has said that climate change has prompted it to cancel or not renew policies in many Gulf Coast states, with recent hurricanes wiping out all of the profits it had garnered in 75 years of selling homeowners insurance

    Insurance in a Climate of Change: Availability & Affordability

    The rise in sea level caused by climate change will further increase the risk of storm surge.” Most insurers, including the reinsurance companies that bear much of the ultimate risk in the industry, have little time for the arguments heard in some right-wing circles that climate change isn’t happening, and are quite comfortable with the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is the main culprit of global warming.

    StopGlobalWarming.org For Insurers, No Doubts on Climate Change

    Growing evidence suggests that climate change is worsening through droughts and other severe weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. These natural disasters can destroy homes, cars, businesses and crops, leading to more and larger insurance claims.
    As a result, insurers in some parts of the country have stopped offering coverage, and those that do offer coverage often limit what they cover. It’s also meant higher insurance premiums that many people cannot afford, leaving them uninsured or underinsured.

    Climate Change and your insurance

    Private insurers also point fingers at a changing climate, citing a report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this year that concluded global warming is to blame for a doubling over the past five years of natural disasters—and that the situation will worsen if nothing is done to stop it.

    Insurers Claim Global Warming Makes Some Regions Too Hot to Handle: Scientific American

    Given that accurate and unbiased weather forecasts are key to property insurers’ business, the fact that the industry broadly accepts that climate change is real and likely to be a problem should be taken seriously by anyone who believes in the power of markets to aggregate information.

    Insurers and Climate Change: The Truth is More Complicated than the Sound Bytes

    Insurance companies are actively looking for more detailed weather and climate data to help make decisions, said Kyle Beatty, senior vice president for business solutions at Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER). Property and casualty insurance companies have asked AER and 11 other companies to conduct research on tornado and hail frequency in Canada and the United States, Beatty said.

    Billion-Dollar Decisions Held up by Poor Use of Climate Data, Insurers Say - Bloomberg

    There are few industries more exposed to financial risk from climate change than insurance. Every time the ocean creeps into neighborhoods or hurricanes shatter windows or drought kills a planting, it costs insurers money. Unsurprisingly, the industry at large is trying to figure out how to limit its losses from extreme weather events. Individual insurers are a little slower to act.

    Insurers Aren't So Worried About Climate Change That They're Preparing for It - Philip Bump - The Atlantic Wire

    But what may be surprising to E2 members is that more and more, it's the federal government – and not the insurance industry – that pays for cleanup efforts in the aftermath of the kinds of extreme weather events associated with climate change.

    Insurance companies seeing increasing risk from climate change — Climate Solutions

    If climate change raises the probability of horrible outcomes where the insurance companies must payout a fortune, then doesn’t this industry have an incentive to root for carbon mitigation?

    The Economics of Insurance in the Face of Climate Change | Legal Planet: Environmental Law and Policy

    The biggest weather concern is about hurricanes. There also was some concern about wildfires and convective storms that produce tornadoes, thunderstorms and other undesirable weather events.

    Is the Insurance Industry Clueless about the Risks Posed by Climate Change? - Forbes
    Last edited by ribshaw; 06-09-2013 at 11:41 AM.
    "It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Ribshaw. I think you may have just blown Mongo out of the water. Thank you for expanding on the insurence argument in more depth. I'm going to have to use your links in the future.

    As with most problems in life solutions are about risk management. People can argue uncertanty, they can argue that the affects won't be as bad as people claim. However, in reality it is impossible for an intelligent person to argue that we should do nothing. Any intelligent person would put considerations in place incase they were wrong. You bring an umbrella when it looks like rain, you buy travelers insurence when you are taking a long trip.

    Considering what we do know about the affects, what the insurence companies know, and what the economists predict. The cost of doing nothing about runaway climate change. Exceed the costs of doing something about climate change.


    ED I hope you noticed that everyone was ignoring you. Your ponts are repetative and thus uninteresting. People in this thread have already debunked most of them and you have FAILED to respond to them. People would be more likely to take you seriously if you actually responded to there rebuttles or came up with some new arguments when you origenal arguments fail. Instead of repeating the sames ones over and over.

  21. Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post
  22. #121
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post
    Taxes came up again in a later post, but I feel this is actually a more appropriate quote to build on my thought. This issue should be 100% about science and a cost benefit analysis on how to deal with problems, if any that result. It is as far from it as could be, and that is because of the very issue of money, specifically profits, taxes, and energy prices.

    If I were to poll 50 Fox viewers and 50 MSNBC viewers on why a stone will fall to the ground if dropped, I would expect nearly 100% would say gravity. At the same time I would expect very few including myself to be able to explain F=Gm1m2/d2. That is how a "scientific" debate should conclude. Now granted climate change is more complex in many ways than gravity.

    But if I were to poll 50 Fox viewers and 50 MSNBC viewers on climate change it would be split closer to 50/50. Now why is that? I would submit it has less to do with the science and more to do with money.

    As I mentioned to Edmund, and to you Mongo property insurers have walked and I would even say ran away from the risks associated with climate change. This is largely evidenced by the fact that flood insurance is now completely socialized. I would submit if this was a HOAX, the people who have only a financial interest would be running toward taking the risk as they would stand to clean up. In fact reinsurers have also run the other direction, again I ask why walk away from what could only be considered risk free profits? This leads me to one conclusion, the one group that stands to profit from this "hoax" is betting the other way. But is it man made?
    Fox News has the largest Cable and Network Audience in the Country, while MSNBC has the lowest viewer ship in all of Cable. That proves that MSNBC's news quality is so poor you couldn't find 50 viewers; even the cartoon channel beats not only MSNBC but also CNN + MSNBC combined. Americans are sick and tired of the Anti-American, Anti-Capitalists, Anti-Industrialist propaganda the pukes out from MSNBC. That is why it comes in dead last in the ratings. Fox News even beats the worthless CBS networks as well. That is why about 10 years ago 100% of all the CBS affliates got bought up by Fox leaving CBS with ZERO affiliates. Which forced CBS to seek out more affiliates very quickly. Because CBS had the same loosing formula that MSNBC now has. Blame America First attitude.

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post

    The second tell, again from the market is what liability carriers are starting to do with directors coverage and/or coverage for companies that are at risk for being sued from issues relating to climate change. Again, they are either raising the premiums or discontinuing coverage. Now is either of these things perfect, certainly not, but I know where the financial interest lies, and what they are showing via their actions.
    That is another pathetic lie propagated by the Communist propaganda machine known as the Apollo alliance. Every single Global Warming case brought to court can't even pass the laugh test and has been summarily thrown out of court on its worthless ass.

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post

    The second group of people with an interest are the companies that pollute, now why on earth would they want people to think they are benign? The equation is very simple, they don't care about anything but the bottom line. Scrubbers cost money, cap and trade costs money, and frankly it is an easy sell. Americans love cheap energy, and the less companies have to do, the more for them. So getting people upset about confiscation or $300 a barrel oil is an easy sell, just tell people it is a hoax and blame big government. Easy Peasy
    Because of the mass fraud of "Man Made Global Warming"; 95% of all the oil industries of the world have been confiscated by world governments, literally stealing peoples jobs, investments, retirement funds, IRA's, Pension plans, etc., ... All in the name of saving us from the fictitious threats of "Man Made Global Warming".

    Crude oil and other fossil fuels have done more to protect and save the environment by diverting humans from using plants and animals toward using harmless crude oil, natural gas and coal. Which doesn't require us to kill a single plant or animal to use.

    Quote Originally Posted by ribshaw View Post

    To conclude, companies that could profit from climate change being a hoax are acting as if it is very real. And companies that would lose profits for climate change being a real are saying its a hoax. I am coming back to the actions of the market. It would be interesting for me to see where the studies being quoted are funded. Some of that may be not be practical, but would in my opinion add some validity to the discussion.
    Any one that thinks that a 0.6 degree rise in the last 154 years is a sign that global warming is going to destroy us all and thus justifies the mass destruction of Free Market Capitalism, 7 billion human lives, privately owned property, retirement pensions, IRA's; is one sick twisted scientifically illiterate retard.


  23. #122
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    AAA correlation between Man Made CO2 and Solar cycles.jpg

    As one can clearly see from this chart published by the IPCC; There is a very clear correlation between Earth's average temperature but clearly no correlation between human activity involving fossil fuels.

    Notice how when humans started to really use fossile fuels after 1940, that the temperatures fell, not for one or two years, but for 4 decades before they started to rise again, in direct synchronized harmony with solar activities.

    So why are we implementing Cap-N-Trade Laws, it is nothing more than Government mandated unemployment quota's to force a larger and growing welfare state that will force more voters to vote for more unemployment, more welfare, more Democrats, more Marxist, More Communists and More Socialists dictators hell bent on the mass destruction of free market capitalism?

    ...

  24. #123
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle



    The Father of the Weather Channel John Coleman exposes the mass fraud behind Climate-gate and "Man Made Global Warming" and how government grants are being used to manipulate scientific reports to justify the instant take over of the world by Environmental Fascists and Marxists.

    ..

    No America Warming so far this spring
    Posted on June 13, 2013 by Steve Milloy | Leave a comment

    Coolest spring since 1996 40 ppm CO2 ago.

    The spring average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 50.5F, 0.5F below the 20th century average, making it the 38th coolest spring on record and the coolest spring since 1996.

    Read more at NOAA.
    Last edited by Edmund129; 06-14-2013 at 03:29 PM.

  25. #124
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle



    The Father of the Weather Channel John Coleman reports on how the Climate-gate Emails exposed confessions by Michael Mann and others on how they tried to hid the decline in global temperatures over the past decade.

    ....

  26. #125
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    More bad news for warmism: ‘Hot spot’ predicted by climate models doesn’t exist, new paper reports
    Posted on June 13, 2013 by Steve Milloy | 1 Comment

    “The modeled temperature anomaly differences trend is significantly higher than that of the measured ones, confirming that the vertical amplification of warming is exaggerated in models.”

    Read more at The Hockey Schtick.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •