Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global warning is fake
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Joecreek
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 114 | TRs | Pics
Joecreek
Member
PostWed Oct 01, 2014 5:52 pm 
The existing war was real. Determining where it would go... not so much and you have the value of a rear view mirror how cool is that? Right now warming is paused. Where it will go is not known. What the consequence of it will be even less well known. So lets throw billions at it. By the way, the other analogy would be since the Japanese are going to attack Hawaii, let's sink all our ships in advance. That's what cutting our emissions at tremendous expense while the world grows the net CO2 total is akin to. No China/India/3Rd world and our efforts are meaningless. Except for how it makes some feel, and it's pure crack for them. As far as waiting for fossil fuel reductions in supply to drive cost... that is exactly what should be done. Because then new energy sources might actually become economically viable. By viable I mean, they create energy that creates a net profit for the producer of the process after expenses without billions from the government. At that point there will be a massive flood of free market cash into that kind of energy because it will have an ROI. The fair market cost of energy will drive habitational, social and purchasing decisions. Right now we are artificially trying to drive the same outcome by taxation while the public can see that the heat isn't here and the cheap supply of energy is sitting there idle. Right now green tech requires NO ROI because it's irrelevant whether the energy is cost effective. Raising costs for carbon by natural reduction in supply will create the right kinds of markets and technologies worth having. Those with real world economic value. Steyer is the only one receiving value today and your children are paying for that too. And they're going to pay those taxes and send jobs overseas where there are cheaper energy markets so that those products can be sold back to your kids because China did not sign on to kill it's economy.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Oct 01, 2014 5:56 pm 
Joecreek wrote:
China did not sign on to kill it's economy.
Yep China is only signing on to kill it's citizens

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Joecreek
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 114 | TRs | Pics
Joecreek
Member
PostWed Oct 01, 2014 6:20 pm 
I can't buy groceries with dead chineese citizens. I can't put kids to college with my moral clarity and righteousness. How bad it is for the people of China for their failure to participate is irrelevant. If they don't, we are insane to do so ourselves. That's just the truth. Our expense will be their profit and our efforts to "reduce" CO2 will be washed away in net CO2 increases anyway. It's a Win-Lose proposition and no GW proponent here has had the honesty to admit the economics are senseless regardless of whether any model can make correct forecasts.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MadCapLaughs
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 954 | TRs | Pics
MadCapLaughs
Member
PostWed Oct 01, 2014 7:22 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
That sidesteps the actual problem here.
Au contraire, mon ami. It gets right to the heart of the problem, the problem being untrained joe schmoes thinking they can, with a few hundred words, easily dismantle the case built by thousands upon thousands of trained, degree-holding climate scientists worldwide who actually do research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals. If you are as cocksure as you come across, then why don't you do something about it rather than pointlessly bantering in an internet forum? Publishing your important findings would be directly addressing the problem, not sidestepping it. This really does get at something at the heart of the matter. Pretty much every actual climate scientist in the world disagrees with you. Really what more is there to it than that?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostWed Oct 01, 2014 7:33 pm 
MCL you don't understand, their job is not to convince anyone with their sophistic arguments. Their job is to convince naive folks that there is a "controversy". Politicians in pay from "energy producers" and " job creators" can then delay effective action due to the uncertainty. The result is short term profits for those who pay the bill.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Joecreek
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 114 | TRs | Pics
Joecreek
Member
PostWed Oct 01, 2014 8:07 pm 
I do not need to have the answer to what the future temperature will hold. I'm not burdened with explaining the lack of a troposphere hot spot. The burden to prove is on the party claiming the science is settled and that billions to trillions need to be spent. However I CAN, and DO, know when the claims that have been made, as settled fact, do not materialize. It is not a sign of my indebtedness to oil companies to demand that what GW models demand I spend my money on actually comport with the the real world results of the settled science. You've been asked repeatedly to prove that modeling works forward and back. In addition you've bee asked repeatedly to make the economic case for acting with out the primary CO2 driving countries. You ignore both in deference to a commitment of faith rather than proof. And even if right, you ignore the economics that make your suggested course of action juvenile and injurious without benefit globally. Address both or admit failure. I'm not required as the evaluator to know the answer, only to be able to see if you were right or wrong based on your own predictions.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
CHECKTHISOUT
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 204 | TRs | Pics
CHECKTHISOUT
Member
PostWed Oct 01, 2014 10:19 pm 
Malachai Constant wrote:
MCL you don't understand, their job is not to convince anyone with their sophistic arguments. Their job is to convince naive folks that there is a "controversy". Politicians in pay from "energy producers" and " job creators" can then delay effective action due to the uncertainty. The result is short term profits for those who pay the bill.
A perfect example of Exhibit A shown above. "It's not me who's the problem, it's evil oil companies and rich republicans." Real sophisticated viewpoint you got there toots.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
CHECKTHISOUT
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 204 | TRs | Pics
CHECKTHISOUT
Member
PostWed Oct 01, 2014 10:24 pm 
MadCapLaughs wrote:
the problem being untrained joe schmoes thinking they can, with a few hundred words, easily dismantle the case built by thousands upon thousands of trained, degree-holding climate scientists
Unfortunately you can't cite the name of even 1. Not saying there aren't any, just that you haven't really looked at and understand the data yourself. You're just taking the word of mouthpieces and parroting back that which you don't understand. Even a complete idiot can understand that we don't have accurate data going back far enough (100-150 years isn't far) to be able to make the claim .4 degree increase in average global temperature is unprecedented and caused by C02.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
CHECKTHISOUT
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 204 | TRs | Pics
CHECKTHISOUT
Member
PostWed Oct 01, 2014 10:29 pm 
Since all the GLOBAL WARMING believers know so much. When talking about GLOBAL average temps over a long time span, how is the data analyzed and corrected for things like the addition of new stations, elevation and of course proximity to urban centers. Do you suppose they look at like maybe the 2 temperature records from the 2 locations they were measuring from the year of 1850 say it averaged 90 degrees that year and then take the 30,000 measuring stations we have today and then say oh look it averaged 91 degrees this year and then claim it got hotter? And then of course assume the temperature measuring equipment registered the temperature to within 100th of a degree like the equipment we have today. Since you know everything, please inform us Joe Schmoes how the pros do it.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
CHECKTHISOUT
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 204 | TRs | Pics
CHECKTHISOUT
Member
PostWed Oct 01, 2014 10:33 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
Yep China is only signing on to kill it's citizens
Since they are making half of the consumable crap in the world, they get a pass for now. Environmentalists are the reason China looks that way. They accomplished good things but then went too far with stupidity so the companies moved offshore to countries like without regulations.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
CHECKTHISOUT
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 204 | TRs | Pics
CHECKTHISOUT
Member
PostWed Oct 01, 2014 10:37 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
Anyway -- independent of the CO2 / Global Warming debate -- I think the US needs to break it's dependence on imported oil -- sending billions of dollars each year to middle east and south american dictatorships serves only evil.
We are the ones that put the dictators in place...they are the ones that protect our oil interests. But, if you are actually serious then tell your buddy Obama YES! On the Keystone pipeline. Obama doesn't want it because Obamas handlers make lots of money in the mid-east oil trade and peripherals.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Daryl
Big Shot Economist



Joined: 05 Dec 2008
Posts: 1817 | TRs | Pics
Daryl
Big Shot Economist
PostThu Oct 02, 2014 7:20 am 
MadCapLaughs wrote:
If you are as cocksure as you come across, then why don't you do something about it rather than pointlessly bantering in an internet forum? Publishing your important findings would be directly addressing the problem, not sidestepping it.
See all the other papers already published and laughed off. the political machine has taken over and resistance is futile. The debate is over, science is settled, per the president of the united states. Why would i waste my time when I can work in a scientific field that actually makes money and pays me (so i can afford the new taxes on the way...)?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Daryl
Big Shot Economist



Joined: 05 Dec 2008
Posts: 1817 | TRs | Pics
Daryl
Big Shot Economist
PostThu Oct 02, 2014 7:26 am 
Malachai Constant wrote:
MCL you don't understand, their job is not to convince anyone with their sophistic arguments. Their job is to convince naive folks that there is a "controversy". Politicians in pay from "energy producers" and " job creators" can then delay effective action due to the uncertainty. The result is short term profits for those who pay the bill.
As opposed to profits from green energy companies and green funds taking in all the tax dollar subsidies off of the settled consensus, and politicians that look for any reason possible to raise tax revenues? It's $$$ vs $$$, people that want to keep the money they earned vs people that want to take the money someone else earned. Unfortunately there is a science project caught in the middle getting polluted.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MadCapLaughs
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 954 | TRs | Pics
MadCapLaughs
Member
PostThu Oct 02, 2014 2:42 pm 
Daryl wrote:
See all the other papers already published and laughed off. the political machine has taken over and resistance is futile.
Exactly the delusional paranoia I expected as an excuse. Of course it's not that you possess neither the expertise nor the evidence; no, it's the international socialist shadow government that has rigged the game against red-blooded, self-sufficient individuals such as yourself. Get a grip.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Daryl
Big Shot Economist



Joined: 05 Dec 2008
Posts: 1817 | TRs | Pics
Daryl
Big Shot Economist
PostThu Oct 02, 2014 7:21 pm 
MadCapLaughs wrote:
Daryl wrote:
See all the other papers already published and laughed off. the political machine has taken over and resistance is futile.
Exactly the delusional paranoia I expected as an excuse. Of course it's not that you possess neither the expertise nor the evidence; no, it's the international socialist shadow government that has rigged the game against red-blooded, self-sufficient individuals such as yourself. Get a grip.
I don't have climate expertise, never claimed to. I have scientific process expertise and can say without a doubt that thanks to the politicians, the media, missed predictions and some less than honorable scientists the scientific process has lost credibility in regards to global warming. I'd be glad to write a paper, but Judith Curry already wrote that paper and if they laughed off her paper I'm sure they'd laugh off mine and it would be a waste of time. Thus, my grip is quite fine, thanks for your concern though. Although I suppose if enough of us wrote papers we could out number the other papers and maybe claim to have s consensus or something. Does that science strategy work?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global warning is fake
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum