Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?

[Gipper]

That solar cell lobby is running this country.

Can you read?

I said liberal elites. Do you deny that the liberal elites were and are doing all they can to impose draconian laws on us based on the hoax?

I wonder how much money Fat Al has made on the Big Lie.

 

[Gipper]

I know this is old news to those of you who are informed. This is probably new news to libs. It is worth posting again.

At his suburban Nashville home, Ex-Vice President Al Gore enjoyed the Oscar awarded to “An Inconvenient Truth,” the documentary on global warming in which he starred. But the Tennessee Center for Policy Research gained access to Gore’s utility bills for two years and published the gas and electric bills for his 20-room home and pool house. It turned out the home devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. The Center’s president, Drew Johnson said, “If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn’t care. But he tells other people how to live and he’s not following his own rules.”

http://listverse.com/2009/05/02/10-cases-of-liberal-hypocrisy/

 

[citizenzen]

Do you deny that the liberal elites were and are doing all they can to impose draconian laws on us based on the hoax?

Yes. I deny that.

I think that's a laughable assertion.

But I've come to expect punch lines like that at HOP.

They still tickle me... even after so many repeated viewings.

 

[Gipper]

Yes. I deny that.

I think that's a laughable assertion.

But I've come to expect punch lines like that at HOP.

They still tickle me... even after so many repeated viewings.

Laughable you say? Well I love making liberals laugh.

What have the lib elites proposed to limit global warming? Do you have a clue or is this another blind spot lib's possess?

This from the #1 Liar and your beloved leader..."more honesty in government..." "Heavy tax on CO2" now that is really funny... "right off a cliff" and compared our situation with Lincoln's war. Crisis Crisis Crisis...and fools believe.

 

[Gipper]

And how about this? How perfectly timed this article is for our friendly debate. But, I don't expect it will make you see the errors of your ways...

Keep on believin' the lie. Hey, isn't there a song with that title? That should be the theme song for warmers!!!

The greatest potential profits are possible in the ill-defined "carbon trading" industry, currently valued at $126 billion. The trade in carbon emission credits - a key aspect of the beleaguered "cap-and-trade" energy bill now stalled in Congress - will make quick fortunes for the "carbon brokers" assisting companies with reducing their carbon footprints. But because carbon quotas and the acceptable means of measuring them will be determined by the government, this will benefit those who combine presumed expertise with political access, which in the Obama administration means the climate-change alarmists.

Mr. Gore is heavily involved in this scam through Generation Investment Management LLP, which he chairs, and Mr. Pachauri also has been accused of making millions from carbon trading. The dubious science of cap-and-trade and its productivity-killing implications make the bill unlikely to be passed in an election year, but any moves toward this framework will enhance the fortunes of these and other well-connected adherents to the global-warming cult at the expense of businesses and private citizens.

Given the clear conflicts of interest of those who both promote and profit from climate-change alarmism, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize should be rescinded.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/03/global-warmings-biggest-winners/

 

[palerider]

Yes. I deny that.

I think that's a laughable assertion.

But I've come to expect punch lines like that at HOP.

They still tickle me... even after so many repeated viewings.

Do yours look like these ore is the model you use even more restrictive?

 

[samsara15]

AGW will either require no proof in a few decades, or have been refuted by the evidence. In any case, for lots of other reasons, as Pidgey suggests, our geometrically rising population will be culled soon enough, and it won't be pretty.

 

[Gipper]

AGW will either require no proof in a few decades, or have been refuted by the evidence. In any case, for lots of other reasons, as Pidgey suggests, our geometrically rising population will be culled soon enough, and it won't be pretty.

How here we go again. Another kooky believe by leftists. Overpopulation is going to kill us all!!!! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOhhhhh NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Do you people ever tire of crying wolf and pushing Marxism as the solution?

Can we conclude from your post that you wanted the global warming hoax to be real so that the elites would take away our liberty to procreate? Do you adhere to China's one child policy? Do you demand that women kill their unborn babies to limit population?

Why are liberals so intolerant and demanding to take liberties from the people?

 

[palerider]

AGW will either require no proof in a few decades, or have been refuted by the evidence. In any case, for lots of other reasons, as Pidgey suggests, our geometrically rising population will be culled soon enough, and it won't be pretty.

The evidence has already refuted AGW theory, and which generation hasn't thought that it would see the end of the world?

 

[citizenzen]

Do yours look like these ore is the model you use even more restrictive?

Palerider, for a while now I stopped claiming that you or anyone who's opinion differs from mine is "blind". It may be a sign of my squishy, liberal mind, but I believe that it's okay to have different perspectives and outlooks... and that it actually enriches our society when we do. Perhaps you'd prefer if everyone marched in lock-step. I however, don't mind when people see things differently than I. It doesn't make you blind, or wrong... just different.

Just a thought.

 

[palerider]

Palerider, for a while now I stopped claiming that you or anyone who's opinion differs from mine is "blind". It may be a sign of my squishy, liberal mind, but I believe that it's okay to have different perspectives and outlooks... and that it actually enriches our society when we do.

This isn't a matter of opinion. It is a matter of empirical evidence. When one deliberately ignores evidence that proves their opinion to be wrong, then one is blind.

Perhaps you'd prefer if everyone marched in lock-step. I however, don't mind when people see things differently than I. It doesn't make you blind, or wrong... just different.

Nah, I would just prefer that everyone accept reality as opposed to a crackpot religion like anthropogenic global warming.

 

[citizenzen]

Keep on believin' the lie.

It isn't really a matter of belief. I am a big fan of science and Global Warming falls under that realm. I don't "believe" in dark energy or dark matter. I don't "believe" in string theory, or the unified field theory. Tomorrow, somebody may come up with a theory or evidence that turns any of those concepts on their heads and I'd be happy to accept it. That's what science is all about: never being satisfied with the status quo, always digging deeper to find a clearer picture of life around us.

While GW should reside mostly in the scientific realm, it unfortunately has become a political battleground. And that is a shame. It gives us just another excuse to belittle each other, to draw lines and pick sides. I am more than willing to let time and science reveal the true nature of this phenomenon... or figment of our imagination.

So I'll let science do its work... and we'll see in time the picture more clearly.

 

[palerider]

It isn't really a matter of belief.

Of course it is. Anthropogenic global warming is a matter of faith, not science. The whole scam is built upon computer models that not only can't accurately predict the past, or produce results that match observed data, but don't have a prayer of predicting the future.

I am a big fan of science and Global Warming falls under that realm.

Science is interested in the natural factors that have resulted in climate change throughout the history of the earth. Far sharper and more severe changes, by the way, than anything that we are seeing now.

Pseudoscience on the other hand is interested in fabricating a hoax for the purpose of lining its pockets with money and aquiring political power. If you are interested in anthropogenic global warming, which has been disproven, then you are not intersted in science.

I don't "believe" in dark energy or dark matter. I don't "believe" in string theory, or the unified field theory. Tomorrow, somebody may come up with a theory or evidence that turns any of those concepts on their heads and I'd be happy to accept it.

And yet, when you see evidence that CO2 is not causing global warming, you get defensive, wring your hands a few times, and go into a clinical state of denial spouting how pro science you are.

That's what science is all about: never being satisfied with the status quo, always digging deeper to find a clearer picture of life around us.

And yet, when shown evidene that CO2 is not causing warming, and that the temperature of the earth is actually in decline, you reject it out of hand in favor of your religion.

While GW should reside mostly in the scientific realm, it unfortunately has become a political battleground.

Anthropogenic global warming is entirely political.

I am more than willing to let time and science reveal the true nature of this phenomenon... or figment of our imagination.

You have been shown hard scientific evidence that CO2 isn't warming the atmosphere and you reject it. Then you turn around and say that you are willing to let science settle the matter. What a hypocrite.

So I'll let science do its work... and we'll see in time the picture more clearly.

Climate science, being a pseudoscience whose primary interest lies in truckloads of grant money and political power, is never going to show you a clear picture. If you want to see what actual science has to say about the issue, then ask physicists, and chemists who have stated all along that the idea of CO2 causing global warming not only has no basis in actual science, but flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics.

Here is a little quiz for you. Answer it as honestly as you can and then tell me how you can place any faith at all in the "scientists" who are promoting anthropogenic global warming.


1. What is the "correct" (or expected) mean temperature of the Earth?

2. Can this be determined to within
a. Several degrees (C)
b. One degree
c. One-tenth of one degree
d. One one-hundredth?

3. What is the current mean temperature of the planet?

4. Can this be determined to within
a. Several degrees (C)
b. One degree
c. One-tenth of one degree
d. One one-hundredth?

5. What is Earth's precise albedo?

6. Can this currently be stated to within
a. Several percent
b. One percent
c. One-tenth of one percent
d. One one-hundredth?

7. Are net climate feedbacks
a. Positive
b. Negative
c. Neutral
d. Unknown?

8. Can we accurately account for how energy moves through the system?

9. Do we know all climate forcings, their values and signs?

10. Do we know enough about the climate to make confident predictions
a.One Week
b. One Month
c. One Year
d. One Decade
e. One Century into the future?

 

[citizenzen]

You have been shown hard scientific evidence that CO2 isn't warming the atmosphere and you reject it. Then you turn around and say that you are willing to let science settle the matter. What a hypocrite.

I said I'm a fan of science. But I am not a scientist. I can not look at a graph and understand its full significance... as you seem to think that you can.

But I can and do keep abreast of science news, and I don't recall reading that GW has been debunked and disproved. Now I know you'd like to believe that, but I'm afraid that you're not an impartial source. So you'll have to excuse me if I look beyond your posts and links for this information.

I'm not sure how that makes me a hypocrite. But this is a political forum, and I've come to expect that kind of rhetoric... so no big.

 

[Gipper]

So I'll let science do its work... and we'll see in time the picture more clearly.

The problem with this approach is that much of the science on global warming has been politicized and the BILLIONS of dollars involved tends impact the results.