# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!

## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth!

 Man Made CO2 is less than 1% !!!

Man-Made-Global-Warming swindle is about Global Governance, not the environment, and is based on a lie!

----------


## amy31416

Yeah...I read long ago that water vapor is a "greenhouse gas." Kinda made a little alarm go off.

From everything that I've looked into, both man-made and naturally occurring CO2 could actually be used to vastly improve plant growth...it's a totally untapped resource. Though there is a tipping point where too much CO2 can stunt plant growth--at current levels, it improves it. Nobody really talks about reasonable reactions to increased CO2--such as increasing plantings of the types of plants that most efficiently utilize the stuff (I like to think along the lines of agriculture.)

It is a somewhat complicated issue though, because runoff from industry can destroy the fertility of soils nearby, and thus make my notions null and void. But...if there were some reasonable solutions being discussed, like containment, and possible recycling of byproducts from industry--it could actually make a business more profitable, and certainly more innovative.

But those kinds of solutions aren't discussed (anymore.) It's either the right-wing "it's all bull$#@!!" notion, or the left-wing "we're all gonna die!" mode of thought.

It's a huge opportunity for the right person, in my opinion.

----------


## TCE

> Yeah...I read long ago that water vapor is a "greenhouse gas." Kinda made a little alarm go off.
> 
> From everything that I've looked into, both man-made and naturally occurring CO2 could actually be used to vastly improve plant growth...it's a totally untapped resource. Though there is a tipping point where too much CO2 can stunt plant growth--at current levels, it improves it. Nobody really talks about reasonable reactions to increased CO2--such as increasing plantings of the types of plants that most efficiently utilize the stuff (I like to think along the lines of agriculture.)
> 
> It is a somewhat complicated issue though, because runoff from industry can destroy the fertility of soils nearby, and thus make my notions null and void. But...if there were some reasonable solutions being discussed, like containment, and possible recycling of byproducts from industry--it could actually make a business more profitable, and certainly more innovative.
> 
> But those kinds of solutions aren't discussed (anymore.) It's either the right-wing "it's all bull$#@!!" notion, or the left-wing "we're all gonna die!" mode of thought.
> 
> It's a huge opportunity for the right person, in my opinion.


And after studying it for a topic in Biology, it turns out rain forests have adapted and can soak up more CO2 than ever before. One theory is that the trees only used to consume a little CO2 because that was all that was available, but since it has become much more plentiful, the trees and plants can feel free to consume as much as they want for photosynthesis and other operations. It's pretty cool.

----------


## Dr.3D

I really enjoy and appreciate this explanation of the carbon cycle.
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

It explains how the environment will balance the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to maintain a constant global temperature.

----------


## Carole

Thanks for the link. I had not read that particular explanation before today and also found it interesting, especially at the end with the examples at the end explaining the way the balance is kept.

I wish political and other agenda-oriented folks would stop trying to interfere with nature. 

"It's not nice to fool around with Mother Nature." 
http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/2903/


http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm


"some examples: 

If CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere because of an increased rate of outgassing, global temperature will rise. Rising temperature and more dissolved CO2 will lead to increased weathering of crustal rocks as a result of faster reaction rates (temperature effect) and greater acidity. Enhanced weathering will use up the excess CO2 thereby cooling the climate. 

If global temperature cools as a result of some astronomical forcing or tectonic/ocean circulation effect, the lower temperatures will result in lower rates of chemical weathering. Decreased weathering means less CO2 being drawn from the atmosphere by weathering reactions, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere to increase temperatures. 

If more rocks become available for rapid weathering as a result of mountain uplift the enhanced weathering will draw down atmospheric CO2 and decrease global temperatures. But the decreased temperatures will slow reaction rates, thereby using less CO2, thus allowing temperatures to moderate. "

----------


## awake

"...A crucial                  means of establishing and maintaining this domination is by co-opting,                  by bringing within the ruling elite, the opinion-moulding classes                  in society. These opinion-moulders are the professional shapers                  of opinion: theorists, academics, journalists and other media                  movers and shakers, script writers and directors, writers, pundits,                  think-tankers, consultants, agitators, and social therapists.                  There are two essential roles for these assorted and proliferating                  technocrats and intellectuals: to weave apologies for the statist                  regime, and to help staff the interventionist bureaucracy and                  to plan the system.
The keys                  to any social or political movement are money, numbers, and ideas.                  The opinion-moulding classes, the technocrats and intellectuals                  supply the ideas, the propaganda, and the personnel to staff the                  new statist dispensation. The critical funding is supplied by                  figures in the power elite: various members of the wealthy or                  big business (usually corporate) classes."

_Rothbard_


...And scientists are some how magically immune to these political forces...?   The climate has always been changing, we survive it and will continue to do so by adopting unfettered capital accumulation, not more government. In fact, the government burdens those who are trying to adapt by taking their very means to do so.

----------


## fj45lvr

if I remember correctly CO2 is not even 1%...a closer to 1/2 of 1%.

----------


## agitator

Could post this here also:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdi...-Warming-Fraud

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Mexico loses over 80% of its crops to big freeze, the coldest weather in over half a century. This, in combination with inflation, points to skyrocketing food prices in Mexico and the US. [And they are still pushing cap-and-trade taxes to combat the effects of so-called global warming. Hmmm...]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/303583

Courtesy of http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

----------


## sailingaway

Yeah.

----------


## RideTheDirt

ban water!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Nice 

http://morphcity.com/home/92-playing...l-warming-card

Playing the Global-Warming Card: This analysis explains how the myth of global warming is the centerpiece of the current movement for expanding government, controlling people, and depopulation, a movement known as Agenda 21. MorphCity 2011 Feb 11 (Cached)

----------


## MRK

As CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, the ocean becomes warmer. As the ocean becomes warmer, the ocean absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere. There's a natural recycling buffer.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> As CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, the ocean becomes warmer. As the ocean becomes warmer, the ocean absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere. There's a natural recycling buffer.


Nice.

----------


## Aldanga

> As CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, the ocean becomes warmer. As the ocean becomes warmer, the ocean absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere. There's a natural recycling buffer.


 Do you have a reference for that? I'd like to use it in the discussions I have about this topic.

Also, are there any negative implications for increased CO2 levels in the oceans?

----------


## BenIsForRon

> As CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase, the ocean becomes warmer. As the ocean becomes warmer, the ocean absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere. There's a natural recycling buffer.


It's not a 1:1 ratio.  The ocean doesn't absorb all the extra carbon.  The extra carbon dioxide in the water can also lead to more acidity in certain areas, and damage things like coral reefs.

I really hope most people aren't getting their global warming information from this forum.

----------


## Dr.3D

> It's not a 1:1 ratio.  The ocean doesn't absorb all the extra carbon.  The extra carbon dioxide in the water can also lead to more acidity in certain areas, and damage things like coral reefs.
> 
> *I really hope most people aren't getting their global warming information from this forum.*


Well it sure as hell beats getting it from a politician.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yeah...I read long ago that water vapor is a "greenhouse gas." Kinda made a little alarm go off.
> 
> From everything that I've looked into, both man-made and naturally occurring CO2 could actually be used to vastly improve plant growth...it's a totally untapped resource. Though there is a tipping point where too much CO2 can stunt plant growth--at current levels, it improves it. Nobody really talks about reasonable reactions to increased CO2--such as increasing plantings of the types of plants that most efficiently utilize the stuff (I like to think along the lines of agriculture.)
> 
> It is a somewhat complicated issue though, because runoff from industry can destroy the fertility of soils nearby, and thus make my notions null and void. But...if there were some reasonable solutions being discussed, like containment, and possible recycling of byproducts from industry--it could actually make a business more profitable, and certainly more innovative.
> 
> But those kinds of solutions aren't discussed (anymore.) It's either the right-wing "it's all bull$#@!!" notion, or the left-wing "we're all gonna die!" mode of thought.
> 
> It's a huge opportunity for the right person, in my opinion.


On the right track.
Oddly enough there is a plant that is very efficient at converting/using CO2, it also grows nearly everywhere without fertilizers and pesticides. And has about 1001 uses.



unfortunately it's illegal.

----------


## libertarian4321

It's not the "percentage" that is important.

When you have a system at equilibrium, a change to that system, even if small, has the ability to disturb the equilibrium and potentially create unwanted changes.  

To put it in layman's terms, its the "straw that broke the camel's back" idea.  The camel may have been successfully carrying 970 pounds of goods on his back (think of that as the "water vapor")- but if you toss a 1 lb bale of straw (think of that as anthropogenic CO2) on it's back, the camel might not be able to carry the load.  That last little bit of straw was enough to screw things up, even though that straw was a tiny percentage of the weight the camel was carrying.

Scientists and people can discuss/argue the effect that the straw we call "man-made CO2" has on the system, but discussing percentages is irrelevant.

The reason anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases (including CO2) are a hot topic is that WE CAN CONTROL THEM.  We can't control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (nor can we control natural sources of CO2), but we can control our CO2 output.

Once you understand the problem, then you can better discuss what should be done about it (if anything).

----------


## libertarian4321

It's not the "percentage" that is important.

When you have a system at equilibrium, a change to that system, even if small, has the ability to disturb the equilibrium and potentially create unwanted changes.  

To put it in layman's terms, its the "straw that broke the camel's back" idea.  The camel may have been successfully carrying 970 pounds of goods on his back (think of that as the "water vapor")- but if you toss a 1 lb bale of straw (think of that as anthropogenic CO2) on it's back, the camel might not be able to carry the load.  That last little bit of straw was enough to screw things up, even though that straw was a tiny percentage of the weight the camel was carrying.

Scientists and people can discuss/argue the effect that the straw we call "man-made CO2" has on the system, but discussing percentages is irrelevant.

The reason anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases (including CO2) are a hot topic is that WE CAN CONTROL THEM.  We can't control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (nor can we control natural sources of CO2), but we can control our CO2 output.

Once you understand the problem, then you can better discuss what should be done about it (if anything).

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> It's not the "percentage" that is important.
> 
> When you have a system at equilibrium, a change to that system, even if small, has the ability to disturb the equilibrium and potentially create unwanted changes.  
> 
> To put it in layman's terms, its the "straw that broke the camel's back" idea.  The camel may have been successfully carrying 970 pounds of goods on his back (think of that as the "water vapor")- but if you toss a 1 lb bale of straw (think of that as anthropogenic CO2) on it's back, the camel might not be able to carry the load.  That last little bit of straw was enough to screw things up, even though that straw was a tiny percentage of the weight the camel was carrying.
> 
> Scientists and people can discuss/argue the effect that the straw we call "man-made CO2" has on the system, but discussing percentages is irrelevant.
> 
> The reason anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases (including CO2) are a hot topic is that WE CAN CONTROL THEM.  We can't control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (nor can we control natural sources of CO2), but we can control our CO2 output.
> ...


Geological record shows plainly that CO2 levels lag by 100 to 200 years behind global temperature changes. In other words, historically, FIRST a global temperature change occurs, and 100 to 200 years later CO2 level changes. So CO2 is NOT the global temperature driver, quite the opposite.

Secondly, geological record also show that CO2 levels used to be 10 times what they are now, and it corresponded with great increase in vegetation and plant life. So, far from being a global killer CO2 is a life giving gas for the plants!

Thirdly, in light of these facts, your “straw that broke the camel’s back” argument makes no sense at all; and to build on this argument an economy and freedom destroying policies, that will reasonably result in death and starvation of hundreds of millions of people is no less than criminal!

Man-made Global worming scam is a ploy to: 
1)	Destroy liberty the world over and to establish a global dictatorship
2)	Depopulate the earth by starving hundreds of millions of people.Do you want to be a part of that based on illogical and contradictory claims that latest global temperature changes (including freezing in Mexico) are caused by man made CO2?

The science of this claim is wrong and compromised, the morality behind the scam is criminal. Let’s use true science and liberty instead!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*New Jersey withdraws from 10-state "climate pact" that is slated to implement cap-and-trade policies.* [Bravo! Now, for the other 9.] 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/ny...tion.html?_r=1


from http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Prof. Horst Malberg: Climate Change At Most 10% Because Of CO2 – Dominated by The Sun

http://www.prisonplanet.com/prof-hor...y-the-sun.html

----------


## Teaser Rate

> It's not a 1:1 ratio.  The ocean doesn't absorb all the extra carbon.  The extra carbon dioxide in the water can also lead to more acidity in certain areas, and damage things like coral reefs.
> 
> I really hope most people aren't getting their global warming information from this forum.


In my experience, more information alone won't change anyone's mind about the subject of Climate Change, people are going to continue to believe what they want to believe no matter what evidence you can show them.

----------


## amy31416

> In my experience, more information alone won't change anyone's mind about the subject of Climate Change, people are going to continue to believe what they want to believe no matter what evidence you can show them.


Pretty rare that I agree with you, but being pretty familiar with the butterfly effect, it's obvious and inevitably true that human activity has an effect on the environment. How detrimental that is or isn't is quite debatable though. Same with the solutions. 

I'm a pretty serious free market person, but the deforestation of the rain forest is tragic on so many levels. It's one of those issues that I don't have some great libertarian response for.

----------


## Sam I am

for body temperature, 98.6 degrees is normal, and 104 degrees warrants a trip to the hospital.

The point is, that small changes can mean a whole lot.  

Generally, a majority of researchers agree that emissions contribute to global warming which counts for about half a degree every several years, which might not seem like a lot, but it does matter.

----------


## acptulsa

Must be time to blow up some dams, then.  And as humid a sauna as it is around here today, and as many of the old folks have told me that this region used to have a 'dry heat' in the summer, I'm more than ready.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> "...A crucial                  means of establishing and maintaining this domination is by co-opting,                  by bringing within the ruling elite, the opinion-moulding classes                  in society. These opinion-moulders are the professional shapers                  of opinion: theorists, academics, journalists and other media                  movers and shakers, script writers and directors, writers, pundits,                  think-tankers, consultants, agitators, and social therapists.                  There are two essential roles for these assorted and proliferating                  technocrats and intellectuals: to weave apologies for the statist                  regime, and to help staff the interventionist bureaucracy and                  to plan the system.
> The keys                  to any social or political movement are money, numbers, and ideas.                  The opinion-moulding classes, the technocrats and intellectuals                  supply the ideas, the propaganda, and the personnel to staff the                  new statist dispensation. The critical funding is supplied by                  figures in the power elite: various members of the wealthy or                  big business (usually corporate) classes."
> 
> _Rothbard_
> 
> 
> ...And scientists are some how magically immune to these political forces...?   The climate has always been changing, we survive it and will continue to do so by adopting unfettered capital accumulation, not more government. In fact, the government burdens those who are trying to adapt by taking their very means to do so.


 A very important point.  This is why federal funding for arts and sciences exists.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Pretty rare that I agree with you, but being pretty familiar with the butterfly effect, it's obvious and inevitably true that human activity has an effect on the environment. How detrimental that is or isn't is quite debatable though. Same with the solutions. 
> 
> I'm a pretty serious free market person, but the deforestation of the rain forest is tragic on so many levels. It's one of those issues that I don't have some great libertarian response for.


Couldn't you and a bunch of other nature-lovers just buy up forest land and keep people off of it?  Problem solved.

----------


## acptulsa

> Couldn't you and a bunch of other nature-lovers just buy up forest land and keep people off of it?  Problem solved.


That's almost certainly what would have to be done, considering the Northwest gets replanted and it's mainly the Brazilian rainforests which are actually disappearing.

----------


## amy31416

> Couldn't you and a bunch of other nature-lovers just buy up forest land and keep people off of it?  Problem solved.


Yeah...but most of those other treehuggers don't roll that way. We need more lefty libertarians for that sort of solution, and there's quite a PR campaign against libertarianism on the left. Otherwise, it's the perfect solution!

----------


## DamianTV

Kind of off topic, what what exactly do they say is wrong with Libertarianism?

----------


## oyarde

Last I checked , .2 %

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Pretty rare that I agree with you, but being pretty familiar with the butterfly effect, it's obvious and inevitably true that human activity has an effect on the environment. How detrimental that is or isn't is quite debatable though. Same with the solutions. 
> 
> I'm a pretty serious free market person, but the deforestation of the rain forest is tragic on so many levels. It's one of those issues that I don't have some great libertarian response for.


I do. I learned it from Ron Paul. He said, that historically, if forest is privately owned, it is much better taken care of and replanted by the owner. Makes sense. If something is owned by the government, which sells lumber rights, no wander the forest is disappearing, because no one cares! Private ownership is a solution.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> for body temperature, 98.6 degrees is normal, and 104 degrees warrants a trip to the hospital.
> 
> The point is, that small changes can mean a whole lot.  
> 
> Generally, a majority of researchers agree that emissions contribute to global warming which counts for about half a degree every several years, which might not seem like a lot, but it does matter.


Half a degree is 100%. Human CO2 is less than 2% of that 100%!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> A very important point.  This is why federal funding for arts and sciences exists.


Federal funding for art and sciences is immoral. It is an act of legal plunder.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

"*The prestigious Times Atlas of the World, is caught fabricating images and information to sell the myth of global warming. It illustrates Greenland with 16% ice reduction while satellite images show an entirely different picture.* [This book now is being used in schools to twist cheldren's minds.]" (from http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2039797/Global-warming-twisting-childrens-minds.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The global worming will happen. The Bible predicted it. But it will NOT be cause by human made CO2! *It will be caused by the Sun*. The elites however wish to exploit that to destroy peoples liberty by lying about the causes of climate change.

For now, however, we have global cooling for a decade or so.

Let the truth prevail. Let Liberty triumph!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty



----------


## reillym

Except for that little thing that happens when we have too much water vapor... what is it called again? oh, RAIN.


98/100 climate scientists are not in a worldwide conspiracy to promote climate change, deniers. Please, that notion is more than childish, it's irresponsible. The science is settled, that is a fact. Please research before making ridiculous claims about water vapor that you have no idea about.

----------


## ds21089

> Except for that little thing that happens when we have too much water vapor... what is it called again? oh, RAIN.
> 
> 
> 98/100 climate scientists are not in a worldwide conspiracy to promote climate change, deniers. Please, that notion is more than childish, it's irresponsible. The science is settled, that is a fact. Please research before making ridiculous claims about water vapor that you have no idea about.


Who are these "climate scientists"? Government-paid scientists? A bullshitted number to serve an agenda? Is there a verified list of well-known scientists that say this is the case? 

It's not hard for the government to lie.. And as far as the "worldwide conspiracy" part... U.N... Bilderberg. Two meetings where rich from all over the world join together. You don't think the leaders could easily conspire to preach this agenda to their country? Think outside the box.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Except for that little thing that happens when we have too much water vapor... what is it called again? oh, RAIN.
> 
> 
> 98/100 climate scientists are not in a worldwide conspiracy to promote climate change, deniers. Please, that notion is more than childish, it's irresponsible. The science is settled, that is a fact. Please research before making ridiculous claims about water vapor that you have no idea about.



I feel sorry for you dude.  I hope one day the scales drop from your eyes.

----------


## Diurdi

Even minimal changes do have impact. Common sense unfortunately does not have too big of a place within science. But when people are using science to tell you how you must live, then red flags should rise.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Sixteen very distinguished scientists publish a letter in the Wall Street Journal stating that CO2 (even at 10x the current amount) is beneficial, not harmful, global warming alarmism is motivated by money and power, and that governments fund academics who promote alarmism because it justifies more political control and higher taxes.
WSJ Posted 2012 Jan 31 (Cached)*

----------


## Simple

> Prof. Horst Malberg: Climate Change At Most 10% Because Of CO2  Dominated by The Sun
> 
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/prof-hor...y-the-sun.html


A better source for this would be the CLOUD experiment published by CERN. Not only do they say that solar variation is the major driver of climate, but the experiment also explains some of the chemical reactions caused by solar radiation that leads to cloud formation.

----------


## Simple

> Except for that little thing that happens when we have too much water vapor... what is it called again? oh, RAIN.
> 
> 
> 98/100 climate scientists are not in a worldwide conspiracy to promote climate change, deniers. Please, that notion is more than childish, it's irresponsible. The science is settled, that is a fact. Please research before making ridiculous claims about water vapor that you have no idea about.


These same climate scientists now say that we are entering a cooling cycle. I guess that means they don't have to try to hide the decline anymore, LOL. I've asked a couple climate scientists personally to refute this article and the best they can do it downplay it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-again.html

----------


## LeJimster

> Except for that little thing that happens when we have too much water vapor... what is it called again? oh, RAIN.
> 
> 
> 98/100 climate scientists are not in a worldwide conspiracy to promote climate change, deniers. Please, that notion is more than childish, it's irresponsible. The science is settled, that is a fact. Please research before making ridiculous claims about water vapor that you have no idea about.


I'm sorry, but you are living in a cave on this.  Anyone who possess' logic can do the math and see that co2/global warming is a fraud.  It was designed to benefit the powerful and make them even more so.  The push to deal with carbon emissions is the biggest fraud of the century and the many thousands of independent thinkers & scientists dispute the pro-global warming sharlatens getting rich off this lie.

I personally do not believe 98% believe the myth.  But just pretend for a second they do, it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.  You would have thought we as a human species would have learned by now not to be absolutists.  For the earth was flat right?  And the center of the universe..

More recently during the 70's Scientists said we were heading for another ice age, that never happened and most recently we were experiencing man made global warming.  Only to find out in the last 15 years the earth has been *cooling*.  And if you look at the graphs we see a cyclical natural pattern with hotter periods, followed by cooler periods.  And what causes these?  Primarily the Sun.  And what do all pro-man made warming theorists conveniently ommit from their data?  Indeed, the Sun.  If that doesn't throw up a red herring I don't know what would.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Excellent! Thank you!

----------


## WilliamC

Global Warming?

Try Solar System Warming.

Man-made pollution and environmental destruction I worry about. 

Man-made global warming I laugh about.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/sci...at-cent,21088/




> Scientists Trace Heat Wave To Massive Star At Center Of Solar System
> 
> According to scientists, the large star could be described as a tremendous ball of energy.
> 
> PASADENA, CA—Groundbreaking new findings announced Monday suggest the record-setting heat wave plaguing much of the United States may be due to radiation emitted from an enormous star located in the center of the solar system.
> 
> Scientists believe the star, which they have named G2V65, may in fact be the same bright yellow orb seen arcing over the sky day after day, and given its extreme heat and proximity to Earth, it is likely not only to have caused the heat wave, but to be responsible for every warm day in human history.
> 
> "Our measurements indicate the massive amount of energy this thing gives off is able to travel 93 million miles and reach our planet is as little as eight and a half minutes," said Professor Mitch Kivens, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. "While we can't see them, we're fairly certain these infrared rays strike Earth's surface, become trapped by the atmosphere, and just heat everything up like a great big oven."
> ...


Worry about what we can control, not what you think we should control.

----------


## gerryb

A lot of you have seemed to fall into the trap conceding that CO2 levels have risen...  While that is technically accurate, how meaningful is the change?

You'll hear that they have "increased by 25%" etc.

But, by volume, how much has it actually increased?  IT has gone from around 280 parts per million(ppm) to just under 400ppm.

What does this mean?

It means carbon dioxide has gone from being 0.0280% of our atmosphere to now become 0.0400%.  

If a change of this minuscule amount ends life as we know it on earth...  We don't stand a chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...27s_atmosphere

----------


## Liberty74

Man made global warming is a complete fraud. If one looks at the last 420,000 years and the temperature chart, there are about 4 major global cooling periods that take about 100K years to reach (with mini warming and cooling periods on the way down) and then a straight up global warming line (always reaching the same peak point in all instances). The last global warming period happened about 20K years ago and the temperature has remained somewhat flat. 

Scientists aren't even sure if CO2 causes the warming or if CO2 trails the warming. Also, there is more evidence that the solar system and the sun control the temperature than my 2004 Honda Civic. Fraudster and anti-human Gore only concentrates on the last 100 or so years because he can make a case for man made global warming but if you look over the 420,000 years, he has no case. Man couldn't change the temperature if we tried. It's all natural and out of our control.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Excellent points everyone! Thank you!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Scientists Trace Heat Wave To Massive Star At Center Of Solar System



Thanks, WilliamC!

----------


## gerryb

> Scientists Trace Heat Wave To Massive Star At Center Of Solar System
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, WilliamC!


This is the argument I always use with global warming folks...

I simply ask is it possible that there is an alternative cause to global warming..  After letting them flounder for a few minutes explaining why CO2 levels are the only possible explanation..  I ask about the big fireball in the sky

If we actually cared about the environment, we would be going after things we can measure, like mercury in the water, or MBTE in ta reservoir, or other toxic wastes etc. -- Progress can be measured on actual pollution cleanup.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*The global-warming hoax is evident in this year's incredibly cold winter in Europe. The big freeze now is responsible for over 500 deaths.* [Some observers say this is because unreliable wind power has failed to produce enough heat for homes and businesses. In the US, the EPA is closing coal plants, and it is feared that the same result eventually will follow.]_Canada Free Press 2012 Feb 13 (Cached)_

From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Polar bears and penguins are thriving while Arctic sea ice and Asian glaciers are increasing. Global-warming myth makers are proven wrong again.*_InfoWars_ 2012 Apr 16 (Cached)

----------


## awake

Why do those who disagree on the actual crises get called "deniers"? Can we start calling the psudio scientists and political "researchers" climate deceivers?

Who's in?

The climate is always changing; its the crises that never shows up when they need it. Which is why they need constant media propaganda.

I was reading the notes and papers from the father of Earth Day, Gaylord Nelson. Summary: too many people, not enough resources and we should all be dead 10 years ago blah, blah, blah...

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Data shows that the average Arctic ice thickness was the same in 1940 as it is now (6.5 feet). [So what were you saying about global warming, Mr. Gore?]*_Real Science_ 2012 May 7 (Cached)

From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm sorry, but you are living in a cave on this.  Anyone who possess' logic can do the math and see that co2/global warming is a fraud.  It was designed to benefit the powerful and make them even more so.  The push to deal with carbon emissions is the biggest fraud of the century and the many thousands of independent thinkers & scientists dispute the pro-global warming sharlatens getting rich off this lie.
> 
> I personally do not believe 98% believe the myth.  But just pretend for a second they do, it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.  You would have thought we as a human species would have learned by now not to be absolutists.  For the earth was flat right?  And the center of the universe..
> 
> More recently during the 70's Scientists said we were heading for another ice age, that never happened and most recently we were experiencing man made global warming.  Only to find out in the last 15 years the earth has been *cooling*.  And if you look at the graphs we see a cyclical natural pattern with hotter periods, followed by cooler periods.  And what causes these?  Primarily the Sun.  And what do all pro-man made warming theorists conveniently ommit from their data?  Indeed, the Sun.  If that doesn't throw up a red herring I don't know what would.


Nobody knows what the center of the universe is.  I happen to think it may be the earth.  The fallacy you're referring to is the fact that some used to believe it was the center of the solar system.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> *The global-warming hoax is evident in this year's incredibly cold winter in Europe. The big freeze now is responsible for over 500 deaths.* [Some observers say this is because unreliable wind power has failed to produce enough heat for homes and businesses. In the US, the EPA is closing coal plants, and it is feared that the same result eventually will follow.]_Canada Free Press 2012 Feb 13 (Cached)_
> 
> From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html


No!  Don't you get it?  Climate change causes hot AND cold weather, so we can't possibly be wrong!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Global-warming tax advocate, James Hansen, admits that global warming is caused primarily by sources other than man-made greenhouse gases from fossil fuels.* [Think about that. If the carbon tax is not designed to reduce environmental pollution, then it must be to provide another source of tax revenue and to allow more government control over society.]_OccupyCorporatism_ 2012 Jun 4 (Cached)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Rings in fossilized trees give the first accurate climate reading dating back to 138 BC and prove that climate was warmer during the Roman and Medieval period than it is now. [The Earth has been slowly cooling for 2000 years. The UN's climate models are completely wrong.] DailyMail 2012 Jul 11 (Cached)*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Federal funding for art and sciences is immoral. It is an act of legal plunder.


Agreed.  It's also usually state-sponsored propaganda.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why do those who disagree on the actual crises get called "deniers"? Can we start calling the psudio scientists and political "researchers" climate deceivers?


An attempt to reframe the debate and put the burden of proof on those making a negative claim (the polar opposite of how rational discourse and science works)

----------


## Bosco Warden

This argument has moved out of the debatable arena into the educational system now. I was talking to a friend's daughter who is a liberal college student some of the things she was saying just defied even simple logic. 


.
This is all going to culminate into a push for Agenda 21.

----------


## Dr.3D

> This argument has moved out of the debatable arena into the educational system now. I was talking to a friend's daughter who is a liberal college student some of the things she was saying just defied even simple logic. 
> 
> 
> .
> This is all going to culminate into a push for Agenda 21.


Well, since nearly all of the educational system is controlled by liberals, I have no doubt, about that.   And they will no doubt say, "If you are an educated person, you will know climate change is real."

----------


## NoOneButPaul

The fact we're having one of our worst droughts in history doesn't at least make some of think maybe something IS wrong?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> The fact we're having one of our worst droughts in history doesn't at least make some of think maybe something IS wrong?


If "something is wrong," it does not mean that you should blindly sacrifice your liberty and life to a lying world government. But that is exactly what they demand of us in the name of "human caused global worming" fraud. This fraud is very blatant now. Climate change is a constant occurrence, but it is NOT caused by human produced CO2! But that is the very lie pushed on us by the likes of Al Gore and the Rothschild crime family. So facts are important, and correct principles of Liberty are important. And we reasserting both here.

----------


## anaconda

Good video in case you missed it:

----------


## anaconda

All of the planets in the solar system were experiencing global warming. It's because of solar flare activity.

----------


## Dr.3D

> All of the planets in the solar system were experiencing global warming. It's because of solar flare activity.


Well those stuck on the religion of "Climate Change" will tell you they are not concerned with the other planets, just the one we are on.  LOL

----------


## keh10

> The fact we're having one of our worst droughts in history doesn't at least make some of think maybe something IS wrong?


There's always a bigger fish. My point being that all weather records are beaten eventually.

Oh, and what's really pissing me off is that the Dept of Agriculture has already declared this a national disaster which will allow all those $#@!ty farmers who weren't prepared a chance to avoid bankruptcy by injecting them with federal credit.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> There's always a bigger fish. My point being that all weather records are beaten eventually.
> 
> Oh, and what's really pissing me off is that the Dept of Agriculture has already declared this a national disaster which will allow all those $#@!ty farmers who weren't prepared a chance to avoid bankruptcy by injecting them with federal credit.


The large agri-business or are the mom and pop's are covered too? (ie, the mom and pop's that won't use GMO seeds)?

At Prudue, my son (when in 5th grade super saturday program) demonstrated that CO2 falls to the ground by pouring CO2 out of a 2 liter coke bottle into a candle.  Made a lot of people at the college start thinking.  Of course that was in a breezless environment.  Just sayin'

----------


## Simple

> This argument has moved out of the debatable arena into the educational system now. I was talking to a friend's daughter who is a liberal college student some of the things she was saying just defied even simple logic. 
> .
> This is all going to culminate into a push for Agenda 21.


This is true. It's not a subtle push for Agenda 21 either, it is assigned material in some classes. It is all rhetoric and no factual science. Especially the Human-Environment Interactions class (required class for me) was 100% propaganda 0% real science. I was told that airlines charge a carbon tax so they can go plant a tree.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty



----------


## matt0611

Doesn't more water vapor create more clouds which reflects the sun more thereby cooling the planet?

----------


## PBrady

> Doesn't more water vapor create more clouds which reflects the sun more thereby cooling the planet?


Clouds can both cool and warm the planet. There are many variables at play. On one hand it can keep certain things out and on the other hand it can keep certain things in. It's impossible to label it one way or the other.

----------


## Nickels

> Clouds can both cool and warm the planet. There are many variables at play. On one hand it can keep certain things out and on the other hand it can keep certain things in. It's impossible to label it one way or the other.


when people throw these percentages around, ask them do they mean "amount/abundance" or "effect/contribution". Also, people who say "this is a worse GHG, GW is unstoppable!" cannot turn around and say "there is no global warming".

----------


## juleswin

Lets just assume for a moment that CO2 is the major cause of global warming and everything said by Al Gore in The inconvinent Truth is true. The question I ask then is how much in CO2 reduction can be achieved(best case scenario)? how much will it cost the world? and how much of a difference are we looking at? These are question I need answered before acting. We should consider as part of the debate adapting to new wather realities instead of acting lie we can manipulate nature

Then again, which organization is going to be responsible for managing the carbon shares? It cant be the UN after what they did to Libya

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*The British weather agency (called the Met Office) quietly released a report stating that global warming ended 16 years ago and that industrialization has little effect on the climate.* [This is huge news, but mainstream media has not carried the story.] _
DailyMail 2012 Oct 13 (Cached)_*

From* http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

----------


## Dr.3D

> *The British weather agency (called the Met Office) quietly released a report stating that global warming ended 16 years ago and that industrialization has little effect on the climate.* [This is huge news, but mainstream media has not carried the story.] _
> DailyMail 2012 Oct 13 (Cached)_*
> 
> From* http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html


Somebody should inform Obama..... maybe he would quit being such a dumb ass about "green" everything and allow some coal to be mined and some oil to be drilled for and for sure, stop with the stupid government spending on failing green enterprises.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Somebody should inform Obama..... maybe he would quit being such a dumb ass about "green" everything and allow some coal to be mined and some oil to be drilled for and for sure, stop with the stupid government spending on failing green enterprises.


Good point. But then again. He has been told. "Human cause global warming" is just a PRETEXT for more government control. It has no basis in reality, fact, science, logic, justice, or morality. It is a SCAM. (And most of them know it, including Obama!)

----------


## boneyard bill

The global warming theory was falsified long ago. Global warming is supposed to occur in the troposphere. That's where the CO2 collects. The surface of the earth gets its warming from there. Therefore, according to the greenhouse gas theory, tropospheric warming should be roughly 30% higher than surface warming. But observational evidence shows the reverse to be true. Tropospheric warming is less than the surface warming. So where is that extra heat coming from to warm the surface? Global warming theorists have no clue. 

Of course, even on the surface it hasn't warmed for the last 15 years or so. So the global warmers have an even bigger problem with that issue. Still, they persist. Now they're trying to claim "climate change." More hurricanes, etc. This is also unsupported by observational evidence.

----------


## jtstellar

and not all 1% is 'men-generated'?  trees give out co2 at night.

----------


## boneyard bill

> and not all 1% is 'men-generated'?  trees give out co2 at night.


Yes, and the oceans out-gas CO2 IN RESPONSE to warming. This theory is just a bunch of crap from start to finish. It's all about expanding the role of government and making a lot of money off carbon credits in the process.

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes, and the oceans out-gas CO2 IN RESPONSE to warming. This theory is just a bunch of crap from start to finish. It's all about expanding the role of government and making a lot of money off carbon credits in the process.


Oh, it goes deeper than that.  There's also oil and nuclear interests (a group which includes the Military Industrial Complex) vs. coal interests.  We have plenty of coal.  We aren't in danger of running out of it.  We don't need to accept the incredible risks of nuclear energy to get our electricity; we don't need to waste natural gas to get our electricity.  Coal can do that job.

But what fun is that?  If we get all of our electric power from hydroelectric and coal, and use compressed/liquified natural gas to replace gas and diesel in our transportation, how do we jack up oil prices and justify more Mid-East war?  And what excuse to we have to run our weapons-grade uranium generation plants?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Good points, everyone!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Geoengineering: The real climate threat




   *      "Geoengineering, the Real Climate Threat", is an excellent analysis by James      Corbett.*  [Corbett shows that (1) the claim that manmade CO2 is      a threat to the planet is a politically motivated hoax, (2) the same group      that had perpetuated that hoax is involved with geoengineering (changing the      climate through chemical and electrical technology), and (3) their      geoengineering schemes to combat the mythological CO2 threat is creating the      very doomsday scenario that they claim to be trying to avoid.]
 
_Global Research TV_ 2013 Feb 13 


http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

----------


## Carson

Plants take in CO2 and expel oxygen?

People take in oxygen and expel CO2?

Aren't we just doing our jobs?

----------


## green73

CO2 comprises 0.0387  of the atmosphere. That's less than 1/10 of a percent. Of that Man produces a small percent. AGW is a scam to bring about a tax on energy consumption. The oligarchs want ever so much to keep us hobbled.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

That's it! - We MUST BAN WATER!

-t

----------


## bolil

Look, the science is irrelevant (To them).  Do you think the Mayan priests really cared what caused an eclipse, if anything?  No, they had this mysterious thing with potentially catastrophic consequences, and they monopolized the interpretation of the phenomenon (data) to shore up public support for the religion dominated power structure of the time.  Fear is a powerful tool, the number one fulcrum of human nature.  What?  Are the Global scientists to the establishment what Mayan priest were to the Mayan King?  Albeit in a much more sophisticated way, I believe they are.  Religion has given way to science.

----------


## Carson

> That's it! - We MUST BAN WATER!
> 
> -t


Your going to have to go all, "Dihydrogen Monoxide" on us and explain how;



    Dihydrogen monoxide:

        is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
        contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
        may cause severe burns.
        is fatal if inhaled.
        contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
        accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
        may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
        has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

    Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

        as an industrial solvent and coolant.
        in nuclear power plants.
        in the production of Styrofoam.
        as a fire retardant.
        in many forms of cruel animal research.
        in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
        as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

----------


## idiom

Water Vapour and CO2 block different spectra. But please don't let any science get involved in the conversation.

Climate is a chaotic system. This means its nearly impossible to predict what effect a given input will have on the system.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Water Vapour and CO2 block different spectra. But please don't let any science get involved in the conversation..


 By all means, elaborate.






> Climate is a chaotic system. This means its nearly impossible to predict what effect a given input will have on the system.


 So you're saying it is impossible for Climate scientist to know if human caused CO2 is creating global warming or climate change? I agree.

----------


## idiom

> By all means, elaborate.







> So your saying it is impossible for Climate scientist to know if human caused CO2 is creating global warming or climate change? I agree.


I am saying its virtually impossible to predict what would happen if we dumped 100x more CO2 into the atmosphere than we are currently doing.

Chaotic systems have massive changes if a 10 decimal place input gets *rounded* to a 5 decimal place input. There are way to many variables and far to much noise in the data to make predictions even if there was no massive political pressure on the results.

Lets say the Earth was heating up naturally and humanity decided a 60 metre sea level rise was an undesired outcome. How would we fix it? The best idea I have seen involves sun shades in space. These would probably cool the planet, we hope, but they would massively bugger up so many other natural systems and biomes.

----------


## Antischism

Man, both sides on the global warming issue give me massive headaches. Both seem to be extreme and unwilling to change their viewpoints when facts are presented. All people do is choose from column A and ignore column B, while the other side does the reverse. Yes, there's a lot of alarmism and environmental doom porn, but I think there's also reason to believe that man has negatively influenced/shaped our environmental issues. How much and whether or not it's sustainable is the real question, and I don't think it's possible to know. Now, does this mean we should take drastic preventative measures? Certainly, having the government interfere in these issues isn't the right way to go. We need less government, not more.

Should we be collecting/raising money to stop deforestation, for example, so that private ownership is used as a means to end it? What about gas emissions? Is it worthwhile to reduce it now, or has the damage already been done, if any?

The Earth is going to continue going through cycles regardless what we humans do, but the big question will always be: How big of a role do we play, and how much can we change for the better?

----------


## libertariantexas

> Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth!
> 
>  Man Made CO2 is less than 1% !!!
> 
> Man-Made-Global-Warming swindle is about Global Governance, not the environment, and is based on a lie!


So if you weigh 200 lbs, and have a 2 lb malignant tumor in your brain (only 1%- how could such a small percentage matter?), you have nothing to worry about, right?

----------


## libertyjam

> So if you weigh 200 lbs, and have a 2 lb malignant tumor in your brain (only 1%- how could such a small percentage matter?), you have nothing to worry about, right?


Yeah, because CO2, a necessary compound for life, is so like a malignant tumor...

----------


## acptulsa

And yet government _still_ dams up rivers, thus encouraging more of the stuff to evaporate than God ever intended...

----------


## whippoorwill

> "...A crucial                  means of establishing and maintaining this domination is by co-opting,                  by bringing within the ruling elite, the opinion-moulding classes                  in society. These opinion-moulders are the professional shapers                  of opinion: theorists, academics, journalists and other media                  movers and shakers, script writers and directors, writers, pundits,                  think-tankers, consultants, agitators, and social therapists.                  There are two essential roles for these assorted and proliferating                  technocrats and intellectuals: to weave apologies for the statist                  regime, and to help staff the interventionist bureaucracy and                  to plan the system.
> The keys                  to any social or political movement are money, numbers, and ideas.                  The opinion-moulding classes, the technocrats and intellectuals                  supply the ideas, the propaganda, and the personnel to staff the                  new statist dispensation. The critical funding is supplied by                  figures in the power elite: various members of the wealthy or                  big business (usually corporate) classes."
> 
> _Rothbard_
> 
> 
> ...And scientists are some how magically immune to these political forces...?   The climate has always been changing, we survive it and will continue to do so by adopting unfettered capital accumulation, not more government. In fact, the government burdens those who are trying to adapt by taking their very means to do so.


Rothbard is the man.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Man, both sides on the global warming issue give me massive headaches. Both seem to be extreme and unwilling to change their viewpoints when facts are presented. All people do is choose from column A and ignore column B, while the other side does the reverse. Yes, there's a lot of alarmism and environmental doom porn, but I think there's also reason to believe that man has negatively influenced/shaped our environmental issues. How much and whether or not it's sustainable is the real question, and I don't think it's possible to know. Now, does this mean we should take drastic preventative measures? Certainly, having the government interfere in these issues isn't the right way to go. We need less government, not more.
> 
> Should we be collecting/raising money to stop deforestation, for example, so that private ownership is used as a means to end it? What about gas emissions? Is it worthwhile to reduce it now, or has the damage already been done, if any?
> 
> The Earth is going to continue going through cycles regardless what we humans do, but the big question will always be: How big of a role do we play, and how much can we change for the better?


Good points! However notice, that column A and B are not equivalent. Supporters of "Man made global warming hoax" are predominantly and overwhelmingly the supporters of world government with world wide taxation and tyranny. 

That, in itself should give you a pause about the column they subscribe to. The people who are against the "man-made global worming" hoax, predominantly are for liberty.

This is a KEY difference. 

MASSIVE difference.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> So if you weigh 200 lbs, and have a 2 lb malignant tumor in your brain (only 1%- how could such a small percentage matter?), you have nothing to worry about, right?


No, you got it wrong. The proper comparison is this: You have TWO tumors: one is 200 lbs, the other is much less than 20 lbs. 

Which one is likely to have the greater effect upon you?

(Of course to have a 200 lbs tumor you probably must weigh over 300 lbs, but for the sake of example, lets use the number).

----------


## Carson

I suppose if we're going to have a global warming thread we should study a little history on the topic. Check out the 1 minute video that can bring you up to date.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ne-should-see/

Actually it could this manipulation is meant to stem some of the problems we are going to face down the road if everyone starts going all ape-y with energy consumption the way we do here. If so, perhaps an upfront approach explaining the goals should be presented instead of them once firing up the fake money presses to dictate their will. 

Besides, in today's situation all honest business has been brought to its knees through the stealth back door socialism we are all headed to be homeless, country-less nomads wandering the countryside always prodded into being on the move.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Methinks it's appropriate to repost this now:

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I really hate that phrase: _"To put it in layman's terms,"_

----------


## Danke

> No, you got it wrong. The proper comparison is this: You have TWO tumors: one is 200 lbs, the other is much less than 20 lbs. 
> 
> Which one is likely to have the greater effect upon you?
> 
> (Of course to have a 200 lbs tumor you probably must weigh over 300 lbs, but for the sake of example, lets use the number).


lol.  Trying to use logic with an Obama supporter?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Environmentalists Call For Banning Water  

*Prison Planet.com*
April 11, 2013
 In a nod to a 10 year old Penn and Teller Skit, Infowars reporter Lee  Ann McAdoo asks Austin residents if they would like to ban water.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*  *   * Satellite data from Australia's national science      agency shows that rising levels of carbon dioxide is causing increased      foliage in desert regions around the world.*  [Increased CO2 allows plants to grow larger and faster      with less water. Of course, the global-warming myth-makers will ignore this      and continue to claim that CO2 is the enemy.] _Principia-Scientific_ Posted 2013 Jul 13 (Cached)


From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Nigel Farage confronts Barroso on global warming scam*




Read more here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/n...raud-revealed/

Human CO2 caused global warming is a Rothschild promoted fraud designed to trick the population of the earth into surrendering their sovereignty and subjecting themselves to taxation and a tyrannical world government. It is a lie.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year*

[Lying, Rothchild's paid for, prostitute "scientists" at UN's IPCC are caught red-handed! ]
*Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012**BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013**Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month* 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...edictions.html


Human CO2 caused global warming is a FRAUD. Fraud with the agenda of global taxation and global tyranny.

----------


## Antischism

> snip


Link

Antarctica is a continent with 98% of the land covered by ice, and is surrounded by ocean that has much of its surface covered by seasonal sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.

Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorbtion of solar energy by the darker oceans.

To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:

-Antarctic _land_ ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
-Antarctic _sea ice_ is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean


*Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing*

Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since the 1990s satellites have been launched that allow us to measure those changes. There are three entirely different approaches, and they all agree within their measurement uncertainties. The most recent estimate of land ice change that combines estimates from these three approaches reported (Shepherd and others, 2012) that between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr, or 1.9 mm per decade. Together with the land ice loss from Greenland, this represents about 30% of the observed global-average sea level rise over this period.

Examining how this change is spread over time (Figure 1) reveals that the ice sheet as a whole was not losing or gaining ice in the early 1990s. Since then ice loss has begun, and is clearly seen to have accelerated during that time:



Shepherd et al. 2012

Figure 1: Estimates of total Antarctic land ice changes (bottom) and regions within it (top) and approximate sea level contributions using a combination of several different measurement techniques (Shepherd and others, 2012). Shaded areas represent the estimate uncertainty (1-sigma).

The satellite mission that is best suited to measuring land ice mass change is the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). The GRACE satellites measure changes in Earth's gravity and these can be directly related to surface mass variations such as the Antarctic ice sheet. Recent GRACE estimates of mass change show the dramatic mass loss in West Antarctica and mass gain in East Antarctica (King and others, 2012):



King and others, 2012
Figure 2: a, GRACE estimate of ice-mass change (2002-2012), with ice drainage basins numbered (boldface italics where trends are statistically different to zero with 95% confidence). b, c, Basin-specific lower and upper bounds on ice-mass change, respectively, reflecting the potential systematic error in the basin estimates (King and others, 2012).

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over satellite period (Figures 1&2) but not enough to offset the other losses. It is not yet clear if the increase in mass in Antarctica is a short-term phenomena due to a particularly snowy period (Boening and others, 2012) or if it is a long-term trend. Increased snowfall in East Antarctica has long been predicted in a warming climate, so this is an important region to continue monitoring. 

The land ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is not due to surface melting, as the summer temperatures in Antarctica are generally always below freezing, and measured changes in precipitation cannot explain it either. Instead, the melting is occuring due to warm ocean water melting the land ice around its edges, resulting in a spreading of this ice loss inland:



Pritchard and others, 2012

Figure 3: Rates of lowering of land ice and its floating extensions in West Antarctica, 2003–2008 (Pritchard and others, 2012). Floating extensions of the land ice (ice shelves) that are labelled are Venable (V), Abbott (A), Cosgrove (C), Pine Island (PI), Thwaites (TH), Crosson (CR), Dotson (D), Getz (G), De Vicq (DV), Land (L), Nickerson (N) and Sulzberger (SZ). Arrows highlight areas of slow-flowing, grounded ice. Bathymetry landward of the continental-shelf break is in greyscale. The divide between floating and grounded ice is shown in white. The inset shows the location of the figure (green box) overlaid on the outline of Antarctica.

The influx in warm water onto the continental shelf in this region is not entirely understood but is probably at least partly linked to increased westerly winds that have occured as a result of reduced stratospheric ozone levels since the mid-20th Century (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).

The Antarctic ice sheet plays an important role in the total contribution to sea level. That contribution is continuously and rapidly growing.


*Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing*

Antarctic sea ice has shown long term growth since satellites began measurements in 1979. This is an observation that has been often cited as proof against global warming. However, rarely is the question raised: why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? The implicit assumption is it must be cooling around Antarctica. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than the rest of the world's oceans. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it is warming faster than the global trend.



Figure 3: Surface air temperature over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean (top). Sea ice extent, observed by satellite (bottom). (Zhang 2007)

If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). An increase in melting of Antarctic land ice will also contribute to the increased sea ice production (Bintanga et al. 2013).

In summary, Antarctic sea ice is a complex and unique phenomenon. The simplistic interpretation that it must be cooling around Antarctica is decidedly not the case. Warming is happening - how it affects specific regions is complicated.

----------


## alucard13mm

water vapor and methane is far more effective as green house gas. methane release in artic thundras will be bad ;p.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> In summary, Antarctic sea ice is a complex and unique phenomenon. The simplistic interpretation that it must be cooling around Antarctica is decidedly not the case. Warming is happening - how it affects specific regions is complicated.


To which I will say, Is warming usually accompanied with INCREASE of ice?



Have you lost the last of your logic under a mountain of lies?

To paraphrase you: "Math is a complicated science, so 2 + 2 is not 4." 
Are you out of your mind?

----------


## angelatc

> Plants take in CO2 and expel oxygen?
> 
> People take in oxygen and expel CO2?
> 
> Aren't we just doing our jobs?


At night, plants emit C02 .    I'm not going to try to figure out what my husband emits.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

* Antarctic: A ship of researchers looking for evidence in  support of the global-warming myth, got stuck in the ice and, when icebreaking  ships could not reach them, had to be rescued by helicopter.*  [They had told the world that the region they were  exploring was in danger of meltdown but found, instead, that it was thicker than  last year by two magnitudes. Do not expect the mainstream media to report this  fact.] _InfoWars_  2014 Jan 1 (Cached)

----------


## alucard13mm

Water is the most potent green house gas, followed by methane, and then CO2. There are various other gases, but these three are the most prevalent. 

If global warming is real, then it is a runaway reaction with water vapor. More water vapor in the air, the hotter it gets, the more ice melts and water evaporate, thus creating more water vapor to making it hotter. So if it is real, we can't stop it. What will they do? Ban water?

----------


## willwash

> And after studying it for a topic in Biology, it turns out rain forests have adapted and can soak up more CO2 than ever before. One theory is that the trees only used to consume a little CO2 because that was all that was available, but since it has become much more plentiful, the trees and plants can feel free to consume as much as they want for photosynthesis and other operations. It's pretty cool.


It's pretty simple really.  Plants inhale CO2 and exhale O2.  Giving them more CO2 makes them stronger, like giving us more oxygen.

----------


## PRB

> So if you weigh 200 lbs, and have a 2 lb malignant tumor in your brain (only 1%- how could such a small percentage matter?), you have nothing to worry about, right?


exactly, they're measuring % of gases by volume, as if all else are equal.

----------


## PRB

> It's pretty simple really.  Plants inhale CO2 and exhale O2.  Giving them more CO2 makes them stronger, like giving us more oxygen.


only if there's enough plants to process it. I'm sure you've heard of people dying from drinking too much water or sufficated from too much oxygen.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> exactly, they're measuring % of gases by volume, as if all else are equal.


This is gibberish. It doesn't even make any sense. Posting nonsense does not mean you've made a good argument.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> only if there's enough plants to process it. I'm sure you've heard of people dying from drinking too much water or sufficated from too much oxygen.


Another gibberish! You sound like a typing monkey on drugs. More CO2 results in larger and stronger plants, and more of them. And you cannot suffocate from oxygen, just as there are no square circles. People can breathe 100% oxygen. It has been proven by experiment numerous time. Besides, "suffocation" by definition means LACK of oxygen. So you are posting oxymorons, i.e. self-contradictions.

----------


## PRB

> Another gibberish! You sound like a typing monkey on drugs. More CO2 results in larger and stronger plants, and more of them. And you cannot suffocate from oxygen, just as there are no square circles. People can breathe 100% oxygen. It has been proven by experiment numerous time. Besides, "suffocation" by definition means LACK of oxygen. So you are posting oxymorons, i.e. self-contradictions.


so you should have no problem posting an example of people breathing 100% oxygen.

I can show you an example of hyperventilation from excess oxygen.

----------


## PRB

> This is gibberish. It doesn't even make any sense. Posting nonsense does not mean you've made a good argument.


you're talking to yourself, right? :P

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> so you should have no problem posting an example of people breathing 100% oxygen.


"Non-rebreathing masks for delivery of 100% oxygen" for oxygen therapy:
http://www.smiths-medical.com/catalo...-cannulae.html




> I can show you an example of hyperventilation from excess oxygen.


And I can show you an example of people being hit on the  head with an oxygen tank. Doesn't mean though they are suffocating from oxygen. As I said, you sound like a typing monkey, post self-contradictions, and make ZERO sense.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Greenpeace Co-Founder: 
No Scientific Evidence of Man-Made Global Warming*


 By Michael Bastasch
The Daily Caller
February 27, 2014
 

There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the  planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who  testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil  fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific  evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and  some warming would be a good thing.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide  (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s  atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony.  “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on  earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be  anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”
 “It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a  [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans  are a tropical species,” Moore said. “We evolved at the equator in a  climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can  survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.”

“It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except  for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing  temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age,” he added. “It is  ‘extremely likely’ that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far  better than a cooler one.”

Indeed, cold weather is more likely to cause death than warm weather. RealClearScience reported that  from “1999 to 2010, a total of 4,563 individuals died from heat, but  7,778 individuals died from the cold.” Only in 2006 did heat-related  deaths outnumber cold deaths.
 In Britain, 24,000 people are projected to die this winter because they cannot afford to pay their energy bills. Roughly 4.5 million British families are facing “fuel poverty.”

“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a  time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today  fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions  are the main cause of global warming,” Moore said.

*Read the rest of the article*


*Testimony by Dr. Patrick Moore PhD. Feb. 25, 2014*

----------


## Kelly.

@ Foundation_Of_Liberty

i didnt read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been covered.

can you explain how deforestation and topsoil loss effect the climate?
what do you think about mans management of watersheds, as it relates to climate?

do a bunch of micro changes effect the macro?

is it possible to separate "global warming" from "mans mismanagement of the environment" ? 
better yet, what do you think of mans management of his environment?

thanks,

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> @ Foundation_Of_Liberty
> 
> i didnt read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been covered.
> 
> can you explain how deforestation and topsoil loss effect the climate?
> what do you think about mans management of watersheds, as it relates to climate?
> 
> do a bunch of micro changes effect the macro?
> 
> ...


The only just way to manage environment is through Private Property rights. 

No one has the right to pollute his neighbors environment. Thus Free Market Private Property is the best and only just way to preserve the environment.

----------


## PRB

> do a bunch of micro changes effect the macro?
> 
> thanks,


of course, just like microevolution inevitably leads to macroevolution and small doses of thimerisol ultimately guarantees you get autism or death.

----------


## PRB

> The only just way to manage environment is through Private Property rights. 
> 
> No one has the right to pollute his neighbors environment. Thus Free Market Private Property is the best and only just way to preserve the environment.


that assumes pollution can only be limited, confined and contained. this may be true if you're talking about dump yards and buildings, but not true if you're talking about air and water, which flows around. 

what you seem to be suggesting, is that people would have a right to sue polluters IF ONLY they owned the land and air, and it's the government getting in the way of people owning more land and more air which is facilitating pollution. in current reality, the government enforces environmental protection on the basis that people can be affect even if they don't own any land or air, so the person need not be a property owner, he/she merely needs human rights and an imagined right to clean air and clean water.

----------


## pcosmar

Global warming.



I'm just not feeling it.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> that assumes pollution can only be limited, confined and contained. this may be true if you're talking about dump yards and buildings, but not true if you're talking about air and water, which flows around. 
> 
> what you seem to be suggesting, is that people would have a right to sue polluters IF ONLY they owned the land and air, and it's the government getting in the way of people owning more land and more air which is facilitating pollution. in current reality, the government enforces environmental protection on the basis that people can be affect even if they don't own any land or air, so the person need not be a property owner, he/she merely needs human rights and an imagined right to clean air and clean water.


No, that is not what I am suggesting at all.

Public property is based on private property. Public property is defined as property to which all have equal claim of ownership. Therefore, each person's equal share in public property is his private property, and must not be violated. 

If someone pollutes Public Property, he is actually violating Private Property of everyone, because, again, everyone's equal share in Public Property is their Private Property and thus, must not be violated.

Therefore, Private Property, being the bed-rock foundation of all other property types, takes care of the Public environment perfectly.

See more here: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty.

----------


## PRB

> No, that is not what I am suggesting at all.
> 
> Public property is based on private property. Public property is defined as property to which all have equal claim of ownership. Therefore, each person's equal share in public property is his private property, and must not be violated. 
> 
> If someone pollutes Public Property, he is actually violating Private Property of everyone, because, again, everyone's equal share in Public Property is their Private Property and thus, must not be violated.
> 
> Therefore, Private Property, being the bed-rock foundation of all other property types, takes care of the Public environment perfectly.
> 
> See more here: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty.


sounds good, in that case, it doesn't sound like you'd have a problem with national border enforcement

----------


## PRB

> Global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just not feeling it.




I don't see government in my backyard, so it must not exist.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Talking about things we can ACTUALLY SEE.

----------


## PRB

> Talking about things we can ACTUALLY SEE.


Limbaugh took Rose’s misleading claims about Arctic sea ice, and then made them even wronger by saying the ice was at record size for this time of year. That is complete and utter bilge. The extent of sea ice for September 2013 was far lower than the 1981-2010 average, by two standard deviations (think of a standard deviation like a letter grade; if the average is a C, then this year’s ice level is an F). The actual sea ice “death spiral” is dramatic, scary, and all too real.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...speak_out.html

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't see government in my backyard, so it must not exist.


Either you aren't looking,,or you have no backyard.

Or Both.

Oh,, and it is -20F tonight.
In a state and county that I was born and raised in,, and weather I grew up with,, we are breaking  records for cold this year.

Global warming is bull$#@!,, based on a thoroughly flawed computer program that was fed disinformation,, and for the purpose of imposing taxes on the air we breath.
Nothing more.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Limbaugh took Rose’s misleading claims about Arctic sea ice, and then made them even wronger by saying the ice was at record size for this time of year. That is complete and utter bilge. The extent of sea ice for September 2013 was far lower than the 1981-2010 average, by two standard deviations (think of a standard deviation like a letter grade; if the average is a C, then this year’s ice level is an F). The actual sea ice “death spiral” is dramatic, scary, and all too real.
> 
> www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/17/climate_change_denial_speak_up_speak_out.html


Yes, and you should end it by saying: "Are you going to believe me, or your own lying eyes?!"

There is more ice there at the same time of year. Nothing you say can change that fact.

----------


## PRB

> Yes, and you should end it by saying: "Are you going to believe me, or your own lying eyes?!"
> 
> There is more ice there at the same time of year. Nothing you say can change that fact.


as if global warming means ice never increases, ever...lol

facts are useless without context. I guess using your logic, any increase in employment means there's no recession, depression or economic problem, because nothing you say can change the fact that employment has increased!

*"The extent of sea ice for September 2013 was far lower than the 1981-2010 average, by two standard deviations". You don't need to believe me, but it may help you if you stopped looking at only what you want to see.*

----------


## pcosmar

> as if global warming means ice never increases, ever...lol
> 
> facts are useless without context. I guess using your logic, any increase in employment means there's no recession, depression or economic problem, because nothing you say can change the fact that employment has increased!
> 
> *"The extent of sea ice for September 2013 was far lower than the 1981-2010 average, by two standard deviations". You don't need to believe me, but it may help you if you stopped looking at only what you want to see.*


And it is a LIE.
I don't care what they say to attempt to justify and continue the LIE.
It is simply not true. It never has been. How hard is it to get through your head.
The Globe is not Warming, There were a couple years that were slightly warmer than normal. Not "caused" by anything other than normal earth cycles.

AL Gore is a lying Politician. The idiots that pushed this with false data fed into a flawed Computer Program to predict "Global Warming" were lying.
This has been proven and documented.
It never was anything but a Scam to create a TAX. To Line the pockets of the Scammers.

Global Warming never had any basis in fact. It was pushed to the point of Mass Hysteria.
And you bought it.

Oh,,and the shipload of "scientists" that went to document that decrease in polar ice,, got stuck in the ice hundreds of miles from where they were going. They were spectacularly WRONG.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Any volunteers to tell the Apple CEO to pull his head out of his butt?

----------


## PRB

> And it is a LIE.
> I don't care what they say to attempt to justify and continue the LIE.
> It is simply not true. It never has been. How hard is it to get through your head.
> The Globe is not Warming, There were a couple years that were slightly warmer than normal. Not "caused" by anything other than normal earth cycles.
> 
> AL Gore is a lying Politician. The idiots that pushed this with false data fed into a flawed Computer Program to predict "Global Warming" were lying.
> This has been proven and documented.
> It never was anything but a Scam to create a TAX. To Line the pockets of the Scammers.
> 
> ...


and you seem to assume that to line pockets and force taxes, they need the globe to be warming, since you're so sure that CO2 doesn't cause warming, according to you, the argument would work equally fine if they said CO2 causes cooling, and therefore cooling can also justify taxes. 

What do you know about normal earth cycles? If you're so sure the warming and cooling is normal cycles, you must have a greater prediction power than these warmist alarmists.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

if more CO2 in the air causes more heat to be retained then won't that increase the amount of water vapor? derp.

----------


## pcosmar

> What do you know about normal earth cycles? If you're so sure the warming and cooling is normal cycles, you must have a greater prediction power than these warmist alarmists.


prediction power?

These fools cannot predict the weather within a week accurately.
In general they are as accurate as throwing darts at a dart board. 



I swear,, they don't even look out the damn window to see if it is sunny or raining.

----------


## PRB

> prediction power?
> 
> These fools cannot predict the weather within a week accurately.


You can't predict my next coin flip accurately either, does that mean you can't predict 1 million coin flips?




> In general they are as accurate as throwing darts at a dart board. 
> 
> 
> 
> I swear,, they don't even look out the damn window to see if it is sunny or raining.


forget about them, are you, or is there anybody, who believes the climate hasn't changed due to human activity, and has a better predictive power for either climate or weather? That's my question, I don't care about the people who are wrong, I want to know is there anybody who's right.

----------


## PRB

> if more CO2 in the air causes more heat to be retained then won't that increase the amount of water vapor? derp.


yes, which also causes more releasing CO2 into atmosphere from ocean, which is what some describe as a vicious cycle.

----------


## Dr.3D

If you study the carbon cycle, you will note, it is a self moderating system that will balance out anyway.



> The primary source of carbon/CO2 is outgassing from the Earth's interior at midocean ridges, hotspot volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs.


http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

----------


## pcosmar

> I want to know is there anybody who's right.


NO.
weather changes. From day to day,, from year to year. it goes through heating and cooling cycles and has done so for thousands of years.

They can not predict the weather next week,, let alone next year.

When I was in High School a few years back,,they were predicting an Ice Age. (they were wrong) Then there was global warming (they were wrong)

Now it is Climate Change. (well duh) it changes.. and has done so ,, and will continue to do so.

CO2 is not even relevant. (it is an insignificant % of the atmosphere)

That huge  Bright Ball in the sky heats the planet. It fluctuates. and does so without the input of man.

----------


## juleswin

> yes, which also causes more releasing CO2 into atmosphere from ocean, which is what some describe as a vicious cycle.


If you actually believed that then why hasn't earth gone into a run away global warming the first Tuesday it got hot?. One thing you guys never mention is the negative feedbacks built into the system.

----------


## Dr.3D

> That huge  Bright Ball in the sky heats the planet. It fluctuates. and does so without the input of man.


Yes, and that's why many of the other planets in the system have the same things happen to their polar ice. It's not like they have inhabitants spewing CO2 into their atmospheres.

----------


## pcosmar

> yes,   ,  which is what some describe as a vicious cycle.


NO,, that is the rain cycle. (or water cycle)

----------


## PRB

> If you actually believed that then why hasn't earth gone into a run away global warming the first Tuesday it got hot?. One thing you guys never mention is the negative feedbacks built into the system.


no, they do, and that's part of the point, feedback doesn't always catch up with the rate of warming.

----------


## PRB

> NO.
> weather changes. From day to day,, from year to year. it goes through heating and cooling cycles and has done so for thousands of years.
> 
> They can not predict the weather next week,, let alone next year.
> 
> When I was in High School a few years back,,they were predicting an Ice Age. (they were wrong)


No, they're right, according to you. But to be clear, it wasn't scientists who predicted it, the media picked up a story and sensationalized it, most scientists at the time did NOT predict global cooling or an ice age. the fact you were misinformed does not change the fact scientists knew a bit more than looking out their windows.




> Then there was global warming (they were wrong)


they're wrong? so they're right about cooling then? which one is it? 




> Now it is Climate Change. (well duh) it changes.. and has done so ,, and will continue to do so.


No, it's still global warming, and climate change is used interchangeably, despite political rhethoric.




> CO2 is not even relevant. (it is an insignificant % of the atmosphere)


what is significant? are you disputing greenhouse effect? or just how much it plays in climate?




> That huge  Bright Ball in the sky heats the planet. It fluctuates. and does so without the input of man.


that's not what's been happening for the past 30 years, where we expected the sun to decrease warming ,but warming increased. so nice try.

----------


## PRB

> Yes, and that's why many of the other planets in the system have the same things happen to their polar ice. It's not like they have inhabitants spewing CO2 into their atmospheres.


which planets are we talking about?

----------


## PRB

> If you study the carbon cycle, you will note, it is a self moderating system that will balance out anyway.
> 
> http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm


that's like saying whatever droughts, hurricanes, floods happen, the water level will eventually balance out. well duh. do you want to live through it though? even for a year? 

whatever depressions, inflations this economy has, it will EVENTUALLY BALANCE OUT, let's ignore what's going to happen, because in the end it'll all come back to equilibrium, right?

----------


## Dr.3D

> which planets are we talking about?


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

----------


## Dr.3D

> that's like saying whatever droughts, hurricanes, floods happen, the water level will eventually balance out. well duh. do you want to live through it though? even for a year? 
> 
> whatever depressions, inflations this economy has, it will EVENTUALLY BALANCE OUT, let's ignore what's going to happen, because in the end it'll all come back to equilibrium, right?


So far it hasn't gotten out of balance.

----------


## PRB

> So far it hasn't gotten out of balance.


just like we're not in a depression yet. don't worry about things until they happen.

----------


## PRB

> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html


http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

The CO2 constitutes less than 1% of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Water vapor constitutes over 97% of green house gasses. Should we forbid water? 

It is undisputed scientific fact that CO2 levels used to be 10 times what they are now during periods of BOTH cooling and warming. 

Therefore, to state that CO2 level (let alone human produced CO2) is the key driving parameter for the climate is unscientific and contradicts observable facts. And yes, the entire solar system goes through sycles of global warming and global cooling; and no, it is not caused by SUV's.

----------


## PRB

> The CO2 constitutes less than 1% of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Water vapor constitutes over 97% of green house gasses. Should we forbid water?


Not unless it has a greater effect.




> It is undisputed scientific fact that CO2 levels used to be 10 times what they are now during periods of BOTH cooling and warming.


When exactly are you talking about?




> Therefore, to state that CO2 level (let alone human produced CO2) is the key driving parameter for the climate is unscientific and contradicts observable facts. And yes, the entire solar system goes through sycles of global warming and global cooling; and no, it is not caused by SUV's.


You can't first say water is also a greenhouse gas, and then say CO2 isn't in the same breath. Which one is it?

What is the observable facts that give a better explanation of warming (it's not the sun, since the correlation has stopped for over 30 years)

----------


## juleswin

> no, they do, and that's part of the point, feedback doesn't always catch up with the rate of warming.


How do we know feedback is not catching up to warming, all the record snow, floods in bone try Australia, etc etc etc may just be feedback catching up to warming.

----------


## juleswin

> The CO2 constitutes less than 1% of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Water vapor constitutes over 97% of green house gasses. Should we forbid water?


Don't forget, the small part of that 1% that is due to humans in about 4% and then you have to consider that the best outcome for CO2 reduction is about 18% and then you realize how little humans CO2 emission affect anything.

----------


## pcosmar

> When exactly are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't first say water is also a greenhouse gas, and then say CO2 isn't in the same breath. Which one is it?


PRB is just trolling again.

No one could possibly be that stupid and still turn on a computer.

----------


## PRB

> PRB is just trolling again.
> 
> No one could possibly be that stupid and still turn on a computer.


I can be stupid, now answer my stupid question.

----------


## PRB

> How do we know feedback is not catching up to warming, all the record snow, floods in bone try Australia, etc etc etc may just be feedback catching up to warming.


your assumption is that only warming is a problem, that cooling and feedback and everything in between can't also be. Putting aside any liberal solutions and taxes they wish to force on us, do you have no expectation of what the near future climate will be? Do you have any preparation for the best and worst? 

Forget about whether global warming is happening, do you trust anybody in weather or climate prediction? or is everybody a liar? and they're all as good as guessers? 

If Sandy and Katrina could have been predicted even one month in advance, would you ignore it because "it's just alarmists trying to tax us" or would you try to protect yourself regardless of any policies that may be suggested? *This is really my question, is your interest in climate and weather based solely on whether regulations and taxes would increase?*

----------


## pcosmar

> I can be stupid, now answer my stupid question.





> You can't first say water is also a greenhouse gas, and then say CO2 isn't in the same breath.* Which one is it?*


It is both and a few other gasses.. CO2 is such a small percentage of the whole as to be very nearly irrelevant.



> The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.


And out of that irrelevance,, Mans  CO2 contribution is a small % of the existing CO2 content,,, the whole of which has little or no impact on the planets temperature.

Water Vapor,, (Humidity, Clouds) it the main contributing factor of any "greenhouse" effect,,  and as shown earlier in the thread,, is cyclical.

Anyone pushing the CO2 factor is an idiot.

----------


## pcosmar

> Forget about whether global warming is happening, do you trust anybody in weather or climate prediction? or is everybody a liar? and they're all as good as guessers? 
> [/B]


To an extent,, some short term weather patterns can be predicted. Certainly not with any long term accuracy.

And NOAA is wrong a very large % of the time. They have an accuracy about equal to a carnival fortune teller.

----------


## PRB

> To an extent,, some short term weather patterns can be predicted. Certainly not with any long term accuracy.
> 
> And NOAA is wrong a very large % of the time. They have an accuracy about equal to a carnival fortune teller.


is there somebody better at predicting?

----------


## Madison320

How can you possibly look at a few years of data and be sure of a trend when the earth is over 4 billion years old? From all the data I've seen the earth has been much warmer and much colder than it is now, many hundreds if not thousands or even hundreds of thousands of times. What's different this time? And why do I have to reach into my wallet to "save" us?

----------


## Mini-Me

Josh_LA, this one is for you.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762

----------


## PRB

> How can you possibly look at a few years of data and be sure of a trend when the earth is over 4 billion years old? From all the data I've seen the earth has been much warmer and much colder than it is now, many hundreds if not thousands or even hundreds of thousands of times. What's different this time? And why do I have to reach into my wallet to "save" us?


the Earth is 4 billions years old, our modern lifestyle is not. 

People lived through Sandy, Katrina, recent droughts and floods, and then some, and they can live through many more, people lived without electricity until 1800s. The question here isn't whether we will survive or whether the earth will destroyed. you don't need extinction to suffer inconvenience. 

Based on the logic of "the world is more than thousands of years old, things were just fine", why do you complain about taxes and government when people in the past had it much worse, obviously they survived too! I didn't say you need to pay carbon taxes to save anything either.

----------


## Madison320

> the Earth is 4 billions years old, our modern lifestyle is not. 
> 
> People lived through Sandy, Katrina, recent droughts and floods, and then some, and they can live through many more, people lived without electricity until 1800s. The question here isn't whether we will survive or whether the earth will destroyed. you don't need extinction to suffer inconvenience. 
> 
> Based on the logic of "the world is more than thousands of years old, things were just fine", why do you complain about taxes and government when people in the past had it much worse, obviously they survived too! I didn't say you need to pay carbon taxes to save anything either.


That's not what I'm getting at. My point is strictly one of logic and statistics. How do you determine a trend exists with such a microscopic sampling? It would be like landing on another planet and taking a 1 inch photograph of the ground and determining the composition of the entire planet.





> I didn't say you need to pay carbon taxes to save anything either.


As long as its voluntary, that's fine with me. What did you have in mind?

----------


## PRB

> That's not what I'm getting at. My point is strictly one of logic and statistics. How do you determine a trend exists with such a microscopic sampling? It would be like landing on another planet and taking a 1 inch photograph of the ground and determining the composition of the entire planet.


are 4 seasons and day and night "microscopic sampling"? 

you don't need to know or try to determine the composition of the whole planet to know what may affect you.

Can you predict the next Earthquake? If not, why do you prepare for it? Or do you live your whole life on the assumption it'll never happen? If you live your life based on the assumption it MIGHT happen, what reasoning are you employing?




> As long as its voluntary, that's fine with me. What did you have in mind?


voluntarily preparing for disasters, floods, droughts, earthquakes, storms...etc. we may not fix it, but I won't ignore warning signs just because I don't want to pay carbon taxes. my goal is to preserve my fragile modern lifestyle with electricity, cellular communications, stable climate, cheap gasoline. (notice I didn't say environment or animals) if my goal were just to survive, I can ignore all of the weather or climate news, since I'll survive no matter what, no matter how much I suffer, is that your goal? If it were, I also wouldn't complain about government in my backyard, because even taxed to death, I'm better off than people were in stone ages, bronze age, pre-revolution ages, after all, why look only at the past 200 years of political history? 

how much you care about climate and politics depends a lot on how much you value your freedom and modern luxuries.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Don't forget, the small part of that 1% that is due to humans in about 4% and then you have to consider that the best outcome for CO2 reduction is about 18% and then you realize how little humans CO2 emission affect anything.


Good point.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> It is both and a few other gasses.. CO2 is such a small percentage of the whole as to be very nearly irrelevant.
> 
> 
> And out of that irrelevance,, Mans  CO2 contribution is a small % of the existing CO2 content,,, the whole of which has little or no impact on the planets temperature.
> 
> Water Vapor,, (Humidity, Clouds) it the main contributing factor of any "greenhouse" effect,,  and as shown earlier in the thread,, is cyclical.
> 
> Anyone pushing the CO2 factor is an idiot.


Brilliant. Thanks.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> How can you possibly look at a few years of data and be sure of a trend when the earth is over 4 billion years old? From all the data I've seen the earth has been much warmer and much colder than it is now, many hundreds if not thousands or even hundreds of thousands of times. What's different this time? And why do I have to reach into my wallet to "save" us?


Good point. It is a scam. Plain and simple. A scam for idiots.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> voluntarily preparing for disasters, floods, droughts, earthquakes, storms...etc. we may not fix it, but I won't ignore warning signs just because I don't want to pay carbon taxes. my goal is to preserve my fragile modern lifestyle with electricity, cellular communications, stable climate, cheap gasoline. (notice I didn't say environment or animals) if my goal were just to survive, I can ignore all of the weather or climate news, since I'll survive no matter what, no matter how much I suffer, is that your goal? If it were, I also wouldn't complain about government in my backyard, because even taxed to death, I'm better off than people were in stone ages, bronze age, pre-revolution ages, after all, why look only at the past 200 years of political history? 
> 
> how much you care about climate and politics depends a lot on how much you value your freedom and modern luxuries.


The point is that non-logic like yours, wrongly implicating human produced CO2 as the major and key driving factor in climate changed is the SCAM, the lying excuse to impose just such taxes on the whole world, whether you are personally for or against it. It is the scam that we are talking about, and you seem to support the false premise that is used to justify the scam. That's the issue here.

----------


## DamianTV

*Great Lakes 90% covered by Ice*
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...#ixzz2v0bMZe1z



Should all the Global Warming peps just "chill out"?

----------


## PRB

> The point is that non-logic like yours, wrongly implicating human produced CO2 as the major and key driving factor in climate changed is the SCAM, the lying excuse to impose just such taxes on the whole world, whether you are personally for or against it. It is the scam that we are talking about, and you seem to support the false premise that is used to justify the scam. That's the issue here.


I don't support carbon taxing if that's what you're accusing.

----------


## Zack

From everything that I've seen and read, I can say this: If you took any sharp person, _isolated them from any and all politics, philosphy, and society_, while raising them in a bubble to learn everything ever discovered about climate science, they -evil corporatist globalists that they are?!-  would invent the "scam" of anthropogenic climate change themselves. The data just points in that direction. Search out conservative and libertarian climate scientists. Find retirees or independently wealthy people that have no financial interest in following established scientific consensus. Heck, poll _only_ climate scientists that are explicitly against _all_ policies that hint at regulating carbon output. They will still tell you that the evidence points that way.

To know why, you can simply google each point made in this thread, like "co2 vs water vapor global warming" and you will find articles explaining the science. You may run into some scientists and science journalists that are pretty hacky and/or intellectually incurious/dishonest when it comes to the civics, but you will likely not find much obfuscation in the science.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> From everything that I've seen and read, I can say this: If you took any sharp person, _isolated them from any and all politics, philosphy, and society_, while raising them in a bubble to learn everything ever discovered about climate science, they -evil corporatist globalists that they are?!-  would invent the "scam" of anthropogenic climate change themselves. The data just points in that direction.


No, it does not. The data points the OPPOSITE way, THAT is the point. 

Even though a first uneducated glance may suggest this hypothesis, an actual look at the data clearly shows that anthropogenic activity is causing global warming no more than wet sidewalks cause rain! 

Science is NOT a matter of opinion, which you seem to suggest. THAT is the point!

----------


## PRB

> Search out conservative and libertarian climate scientists. Find retirees or independently wealthy people that have no financial interest in following established scientific consensus.


No financial interest in establishing consensus does not mean no financial interest in his/her own agenda or incentive to lie. Conservatives and libertarians have more than enough incentive to be biased, their agenda is cheap fuel, no regulations, no carbon taxes, and more use of coal, oil.

an easy way to illustrate this would be, libertarians need not be in the industry that financially benefits from gay marriages, abortions or birth control pills, they only need to want such choices to be available because they want less government. this is enough reason to be biased for a goal.

----------


## Zack

> No, it does not. The data points the OPPOSITE way, THAT is the point. 
> 
> Even though a first uneducated glance may suggest this hypothesis, an actual look at the data clearly shows that anthropogenic activity is causing global warming no more than wet sidewalks cause rain! 
> 
> Science is NOT a matter of opinion, which you seem to suggest. THAT is the point!


I certainly agree that science is not a matter of majority opinion. I've seen a crapload of articles and videos like the ones in this thread. I wish I could say I've seen something convincing. The video you link to is actually unusually good by climate change skeptic standards. So much so that it, perhaps accidently, _isn't_ very skeptical. The video itself says that 9-27% of the total greenhouse gas effect is due to CO2. Now combine that with the the sudden increase in CO2 to 400ppm, and the rest is just arithmetic. Then the argument gets boiled down to "Maybe most of that increase isn't man-made", but that's an even harder argument to make realistic, and isn't usually what climate change skeptics try to go with.

----------


## Zack

> No financial interest in establishing consensus does not mean no financial interest in his/her own agenda or incentive to lie. Conservatives and libertarians have more than enough incentive to be biased, their agenda is cheap fuel, no regulations, no carbon taxes, and more use of coal, oil.
> 
> an easy way to illustrate this would be, libertarians need not be in the industry that financially benefits from gay marriages, abortions or birth control pills, they only need to want such choices to be available because they want less government. this is enough reason to be biased for a goal.


I think you might be combining two of my sentences into one? I certainly agree that people of various backgrounds have various motivations and biases.

My point was only that even among climate scientists with no bias, or even a _contrary_ bias, you would still see that they generally find themselves in agreement with the current scientific consensus, due to the preponderance of evidence.

----------


## PRB

> I think you might be combining two of my sentences into one? I certainly agree that people of various backgrounds have various motivations and biases.
> 
> *My point was only that even among climate scientists with no bias, or even a contrary bias, you would still see that they generally find themselves in agreement with the current scientific consensus, due to the preponderance of evidence.*


Agreed. And luckily, whether scientist or not, you can easily ask any person "If you were guaranteed there would be no carbon taxes, would you still care whether global warming is true?" (and variations of the same question) I've not seen one person who has passed this test.

----------


## PRB

> I certainly agree that science is not a matter of majority opinion. I've seen a crapload of articles and videos like the ones in this thread. I wish I could say I've seen something convincing. The video you link to is actually unusually good by climate change skeptic standards. So much so that it, perhaps accidently, _isn't_ very skeptical. The video itself says that 9-27% of the total greenhouse gas effect is due to CO2. *Now combine that with the the sudden increase in CO2 to 400ppm*, and the rest is just arithmetic. Then the argument gets boiled down to "*Maybe most of that increase isn't man-made", but that's an even harder argument to make realistic, and isn't usually what climate change skeptics try to go with.*


now, watch Mr. Skeptic yell, but it's still in PPM! Not even 1%, what a small amount! (the same guy who will tell you even 1ppb is unacceptable contamination for vaccines or drinking water)

as for "most of it isn't man made", you are correct, because just earlier this guy would have told you "correlation is not causation" either he granted that CO2 increase was man made, or he knows it. he may still try "most of it is from volcanoes!!!!" 

personally, I cut through the crap by just asking _"Let's say there will be no carbon taxes, and let's say we can't do anything about global warming, and let's even say global warming is a good rather than bad thing.....................can you agree and admit that CO2 causes global warming, and humans have caused it through industrial output"_

----------


## limequat

> Agreed. And luckily, whether scientist or not, you can easily ask any person "If you were guaranteed there would be no carbon taxes, would you still care whether global warming is true?" (and variations of the same question) I've not seen one person who has passed this test.


*Raises hand*

Not sure what you interpret the correct answer to be, but I care either way.  
My son was practicing his reading via a school-recommended online program.  The "book" was all about reducing energy usage.  Personally, I get pretty tired of people preaching to me or my kids about how we should be living.  It's just like the goddamned johavah's witnesses.  You wanna be retarded?  Fine.  Go be retarded on your own time and leave me the $#@! alone.

----------


## limequat

> now, watch Mr. Skeptic yell, but it's still in PPM! Not even 1%, what a small amount! (the same guy who will tell you even 1ppb is unacceptable contamination for vaccines or drinking water)
> 
> as for "most of it isn't man made", you are correct, because just earlier this guy would have told you "correlation is not causation" either he granted that CO2 increase was man made, or he knows it. he may still try "most of it is from volcanoes!!!!" 
> 
> personally, I cut through the crap by just asking _"Let's say there will be no carbon taxes, and let's say we can't do anything about global warming, and let's even say global warming is a good rather than bad thing.....................can you agree and admit that CO2 causes global warming, and humans have caused it through industrial output"_


No because historically CO2 lags warming.  

No because historically we've had much higher CO2 concentrations.

No because the models have proven themselves wrong.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Agreed. And luckily, whether scientist or not, you can easily ask any person "If you were guaranteed there would be no carbon taxes, would you still care whether global warming is true?" (and variations of the same question) I've not seen one person who has passed this test.


Global warming is not the question, neither is global cooling. Both happen on regular basis. The question is does human produced CO2 cause it. And the answer to that is resounding NO.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Global warming is not the question, neither is global cooling. Both happen on regular basis. The question is does human produced CO2 cause it. And the answer to that is resounding NO.


Yeah, well no more than taking a piss in an Olympic size swimming pool changes it's salinity.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> now, watch Mr. Skeptic yell, but it's still in PPM! Not even 1%, what a small amount! (the same guy who will tell you even 1ppb is unacceptable contamination for vaccines or drinking water)
> 
> as for "most of it isn't man made", you are correct, because just earlier this guy would have told you "correlation is not causation" either he granted that CO2 increase was man made, or he knows it. he may still try "most of it is from volcanoes!!!!" 
> 
> personally, I cut through the crap by just asking _"Let's say there will be no carbon taxes, and let's say we can't do anything about global warming, and let's even say global warming is a good rather than bad thing.....................can you agree and admit that CO2 causes global warming, and humans have caused it through industrial output"_


Definitely not. The available evidence resoundingly disproves that hypothesis. Human produced CO2 causes just as much global warming as wet sidewalks cause rain.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> No because historically CO2 lags warming.  
> 
> No because historically we've had much higher CO2 concentrations.
> 
> No because the models have proven themselves wrong.


Brilliant! Thanks.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Yeah, well no more than taking a piss in an Olympic size swimming pool changes it's salinity.


Good one.

----------


## PRB

> *Raises hand*
> 
> Not sure what you interpret the correct answer to be, but I care either way.  
> My son was practicing his reading via a school-recommended online program.  The "book" was all about reducing energy usage.  Personally, I get pretty tired of people preaching to me or my kids about how we should be living.  It's just like the goddamned johavah's witnesses.  You wanna be retarded?  Fine.  Go be retarded on your own time and leave me the $#@! alone.


You just basically said you care because you're being told how to live, what if you were not? Would you still care?

But there isn't a correct answer, just an honest answer & consistent one, I ask because I'm interested in what people believe (and why).

Since you asked, I've not heard a person say "I believe scientists are wrong about global warming, and I have purely scientific reasons why, and I will defend the conclusions based on evidence regardless of whether there will be carbon taxes" EVER. 

All I've ever heard was "I only care about global warming because I don't want carbon taxes, if it were shown that global cooling is true, and there would still be carbon taxes on that basis, I'd argue global cooling is false too, I'd always argue for every premise to be re-examined as long as it's used to justify taxes, because my agenda is reducing taxes and increasing freedom, regardless of which direction temperature and climate is going" which logically means "If global warming is an argument to reduce carbon taxes and government, I'd argue that it's true regardless of what scientists say" 

Are you an exception? I doubt it.

Logically, one cannot believe both 
"global warming isn't happening" and "It's happening but it's natural", or
"global warming isn't happening, it's a scam" and "it's happening, but it's a good thing!" or
"global warming isn't happening, so there's no reason for carbon taxes" and "it's happening, but there's better ways to prepare and deal with it" or
"global warming isn't caused by humans" and "it's caused by humans but it can't be undone"
"global warming can't be undone" and "it can be undone, I just don't want to"
lastly, you can't say "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas" and also "but water vapor is a greenhouse gas too, are you going to ban water!!!!"

...........all of these are contradictions (A bit like wanting Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination but also wanting him to run as a third party candidate, or wanting people to vote for Ron Paul but then say elections are all rigged)
You can only BS your position so many times before it becomes obvious, *if your goal and agenda is prevent taxes, oppose regulations, I am with you,* I don't need to argue with scientists to say I don't want to be told how to live. *If you think you need to deny climate science to defend your freedom, you've conceded already that IF scientists are right*, you're no better at solving the problem than they are, and you'd defend the liberal agenda of regulations and taxes too.

----------


## PRB

> No because historically CO2 lags warming.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...ture-basic.htm




> No because historically we've had much higher CO2 concentrations.


With or without higher temperatures too?




> No because the models have proven themselves wrong.


Which models are wrong, and are there good and working models (one thing I've realized here, nobody can tell me who is right in climate predictions, they're good at knowing who's wrong though)

----------


## PRB

> Definitely not. The available evidence resoundingly disproves that hypothesis. Human produced CO2 causes just as much global warming as wet sidewalks cause rain.


Chemically, human produced CO2 is no different than naturally occurring CO2, the only difference is rate of production. If CO2 causes warming at all, it wouldn't matter where it came from. So, either you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes global warming, increases heat absorption, or you believe humans don't produce enough of it.

----------


## Zack

Potholer54's youtube videos are generally pretty entertaining. He has 30 just on climate change. 




> No because historically CO2 lags warming.









> No because historically we've had much higher CO2 concentrations.


With relatively higher temperatures, at least once you account for lower solar output. see below video about _climate change evidence without computer models_ at about 5 1/2 min.




> No because the models have proven themselves wrong.

----------


## PRB

> 


Did he just say there's evidence and he can make predictions, conclusions, using *No computer models and no IPCC?!*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Chemically, human produced CO2 is no different than naturally occurring CO2, the only difference is rate of production. If CO2 causes warming at all, it wouldn't matter where it came from. So, either you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes global warming, increases heat absorption, or you believe humans don't produce enough of it.


Exactly. Humans do not produce enough of it. There are factors orders of magnitude more powerful than human produced CO2. The point being that even if you eliminate ALL human produced CO2 it will make no more difference to global temperatures than pissing in the pool would change the temperature of the pool.   

  So HUMAN produced CO2 is the issue here, and its potential in driving global temperatures. The science is clear: HUMAN produced CO2 does NOT drive global temperature movements BECAUSE there is not enough of it to make a significant difference, much like tennis ball bouncing in the trunk of a car does not determine the car’s direction or speed. Why? Because the ball is too small, and there are factors MASSIVELY more important to the car’s movement than the movements of the tennis ball in its trunk. 

Now this is a key fact. The proponents of global carbon taxation essentially argue that the movments of the tennis ball (HUMAN produced CO2) will significantly determine the direction and speed of the car. That is a lie. THAT IS THE POINT.

----------


## PRB

> Exactly. Humans do not produce enough of it.


Then you must know what is enough, since you know it's not enough now. By the way, can I take this as confirmation that you concede CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes increased warming, increase heat absorption, your only problem is how much there is and how much is human caused?

Back to this thread title, what is the difference between water vapor, CO2 and O2?

This is basic high school physics, but if there's anything I missed, please feel free to add.

How do you get water vapor? Either allow existing water to evaporate, or burn hydrogen (and products that contain hydrogen). The water cycle is fairly fast and simple, since water exists in 3 phases, and vapor can condense into liquid, the atmosphere releases it as rain when it can't hold more. 

Now, CO2, how do you get it? You can release it from places it's trapped in, such as ocean water, but there's a much faster way, which is burning carbon. CO2 cycle? Much slower, since CO2 cannot condense as liquid, it can only deposit as solid if it's cold enough (dry ice). This means, unless and until CO2 gets re-absorbed into water, or plants, which is harder when temperatures are higher, CO2 remains in the atmosphere. 

Oxygen? You can electrolize water, or you can ask plants to do it. One requires electricity, the other takes time and as plants decrease, the pace decreases too. The point here, is that gases differ greatly in how fast they can be renewed. This is why soundbytes like "CO2 is plant food" and "Water vapor is 97% of all greenhouse gas" is extremely naive. CO2 being plant food is useless unless plants can process it fast enough, and if it did, we'd have an abundance of O2, which might be great. Water vapor, as explained above, is much easier to cycle, nothing like CO2 which humans have increased and it's not dropping anytime soon. 

Here's the question : put aside whether humans "produce enough" CO2 to be problematic, is it true or not true that CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing and hasn't decreased in the past 30 years? Better yet, put aside which direction temperatures are going, can you predict the CO2 concentration any better than current scientists do?

----------


## Kelly.

> The only just way to manage environment is through Private Property rights. 
> 
> No one has the right to pollute his neighbors environment. Thus Free Market Private Property is the best and only just way to preserve the environment.


thanks for staying on message and ignoring my question.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> thanks for staying on message and ignoring my question.


Please, state your question. Thanks.

----------


## PRB

> Please, state your question. Thanks.


here were the questions from Kelly.

@ Foundation_Of_Liberty

i didnt read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been covered.

can you explain how deforestation and topsoil loss effect the climate?
what do you think about mans management of watersheds, as it relates to climate?

do a bunch of micro changes effect the macro?

is it possible to separate "global warming" from "mans mismanagement of the environment" ? 
better yet, what do you think of mans management of his environment?

thanks,

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Then you must know what is enough, since you know it's not enough now. By the way, can I take this as confirmation that you concede CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes increased warming, increase heat absorption, your only problem is how much there is and how much is human caused?
> 
> Back to this thread title, what is the difference between water vapor, CO2 and O2?
> 
> This is basic high school physics, but if there's anything I missed, please feel free to add.
> 
> How do you get water vapor? Either allow existing water to evaporate, or burn hydrogen (and products that contain hydrogen). The water cycle is fairly fast and simple, since water exists in 3 phases, and vapor can condense into liquid, the atmosphere releases it as rain when it can't hold more.
> 
> Now, CO2, how do you get it? You can release it from places it's trapped in, such as ocean water, but there's a much faster way, which is burning carbon. CO2 cycle? Much slower, since CO2 cannot condense as liquid, it can only deposit as solid if it's cold enough (dry ice). This means, unless and until CO2 gets re-absorbed into water, or plants, which is harder when temperatures are higher, CO2 remains in the atmosphere.
> ...


You are missing the point again.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is less than 1% of all other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Does tennis ball in a trunk of a car effects speed and direction of the vehicle by bouncing loose in the trunk? Yes. Is it the controlling or even discernible factor? Not at all. Does one person pissing into an Olympic size pool change the temperature of the water in the pool? Yes. Is it significant? No! It is practically indiscernible!

The FRAUD that is being perpetrated by the world elite is to convince the world of a lie that human produced CO2 is the key, major and driving factor in global temperature change on earth. That is a lie; a lie on the basis of which they propose to destroy the remainder of liberty on earth via a global taxation scheme. A lie, used to justify policies that if implemented would result in millions of people starving to death and worldwide tyranny established.

THIS is the lie, and this unscientific FRAUD is used to justify the LIE. And you are, (though cleverly and covertly) supporting the lie. But you are not that clever. Your craftiness is quite obvious to most people here.

Address the LIE. HUMAN produced CO2, that constitutes LESS than 1% of total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, does it or does it not constitute a major driving factor in global temperature variations? If you are not a liar, you will have to say NO!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

del

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> here were the questions from Kelly.
> 
> @ Foundation_Of_Liberty
> 
> i didnt read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been covered.
> 
> can you explain how deforestation and topsoil loss effect the climate?
> what do you think about mans management of watersheds, as it relates to climate?
> 
> ...


I already answered that. What do I think of man's management of his environment? Answer: the only just way for man to manage his environment is via private property rights.

----------


## Kelly.

> I already answered that. What do I think of man's management of his environment? Answer: the only just way for man to manage his environment is via private property rights.





> thanks for staying on message and ignoring my question.


this scenery looks is familiar.....

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

You are welcome. Except I answered your question.

----------


## PRB

> You are missing the point again.
> 
> Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is less than 1% of all other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.


This number is irrelevant once you understand that volume is not the sole determinant of effect on atmosphere temperature.




> Does tennis ball in a trunk of a car effects speed and direction of the vehicle by bouncing loose in the trunk? Yes.


depends on how fast the car is moving, how hard the ball is hitting and how heavy the car is.




> Is it the controlling or even discernible factor? Not at all. Does one person pissing into an Olympic size pool change the temperature of the water in the pool? Yes. Is it significant? No! It is practically indiscernible!


These analogies are useless until you can tell us what IS or would be significant.




> The FRAUD that is being perpetrated by the world elite is to convince the world of a lie that human produced CO2 is the key, major and driving factor in global temperature change on earth.


If CO2 is a factor at all, then increased CO2 would be too, regardless of whether humans produce enough, we already know what the concentration is now, and we can likely predict what it will be in the next 10, 20 years based on rate of decrease. 




> That is a lie; a lie on the basis of which they propose to destroy the remainder of liberty on earth via a global taxation scheme. A lie, used to justify policies that if implemented would result in millions of people starving to death and worldwide tyranny established.


Don't pretend you care about millions starving to death. But if it's a lie for the basis to propose a tax, does that mean you agree IF it were true that human produced CO2 is the key cause, taxes would be justified? (Honestly answer please, because if it doesn't justify the tax EVEN IF humans caused global warming, you don't need it to be a lie)

I'll ask it again, : *IF IT WERE TRUE and proven to your satisfaction that humans increased enough CO2 to be* the major driving force of global warming, global climate instability, would carbon tax be justified? If not, then simply say what is the better way to deal with it, no need to argue that it's a lie, as if it matters.




> THIS is the lie, and this unscientific FRAUD is used to justify the LIE. And you are, (though cleverly and covertly) supporting the lie. But you are not that clever. Your craftiness is quite obvious to most people here.
> 
> Address the LIE. HUMAN produced CO2, that constitutes LESS than 1% of total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, does it or does it not constitute a major driving factor in global temperature variations? If you are not a liar, you will have to say NO!


Volume is not the sole determinant on greenhouse effects, so the fact it's only in PPMs or less than 1% of all greenhouse gases, is irrelevant. I will say yes, it's a major driving force because evidence has shown consistently that it has, both in a lab and in climate, without any computer models. If you're going to argue against scientific theories and studies, you should have SOME scientific arguments, not just childish knee jerk numbers.

----------


## PRB

> I already answered that. What do I think of man's management of his environment? Answer: the only just way for man to manage his environment is via private property rights.


now, on to the other questions please.

----------


## Kelly.

maybe the issue is more than one question in a post.

@ Foundation_Of_Liberty
can you explain how deforestation and topsoil loss effect the climate?

----------


## Kelly.

@ Foundation_Of_Liberty 

what do you think about mans management of watersheds, as it relates to climate?

----------


## Kelly.

@ Foundation_Of_Liberty 

do a bunch of micro changes effect the macro?

----------


## Kelly.

@ Foundation_Of_Liberty 

is it possible to separate "global warming" from "mans mismanagement of the environment"

----------


## Kelly.

@ Foundation_Of_Liberty 

better yet, what do you think of mans management of his environment?

----------


## Kelly.

and for the record, im not debating whether private property rights are good or bad.  i do believe they are good.

im interested in an original thought as it relates the environment, not some scripted abstract line about property rights.

----------


## PRB

> @ Foundation_Of_Liberty 
> 
> is it possible to separate "global warming" from "mans mismanagement of the environment"


yes. I certainly do.

----------


## PRB

> @ Foundation_Of_Liberty 
> 
> do a bunch of micro changes effect the macro?


not if you're a creationist who thinks there's a limit to how much a species can change

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> If CO2 is a factor at all, then increased CO2 would be too, regardless of whether humans produce enough,



Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is less than 1% of all other  greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Does tennis ball in a trunk of a car  effects speed and direction of the vehicle by bouncing loose in the  trunk? Yes. Is it the controlling or even discernible factor? Not at  all. Does one person pissing into an Olympic size pool change the  temperature of the water in the pool? Yes. Is it significant? No! It is  practically indiscernible!

The FRAUD that is being perpetrated by the world's bankster elites is to convince  the world of a lie that human produced CO2 is the key, major and driving  factor in global temperature change on earth. That is a lie; a lie on  the basis of which they propose to destroy the remainder of liberty on  earth via a global taxation scheme. A lie, used to justify policies that  if implemented would result in millions of people starving to death and  worldwide tyranny established.

THIS is the lie, and this unscientific FRAUD is used to justify the LIE.  And you are, (though cleverly and covertly) supporting the lie. But you  are not that clever. Your craftiness is quite obvious to most people  here.




> But if it's a lie for the basis to propose a tax, does that mean you agree IF it were true that human produced CO2 is the key cause, taxes would be justified?


First of all HUMAN produced CO2 is NOT the key cause, not even a significant cause. It may actually be INDISCERNIBLE cause to global temperature changes, because we have OTHER factors that are hundreds, if not thousand times more potent at play here. So "if pigs could fly, should we build unicorn protection stations?" Yes. 

But, IF some human activity caused provable danger and damage to the property of others then action can be taken to prevent the damage, based on Non-violation of Private Property principle, a.k.a. the principle of JUSTICE.

What is being proposed by the "pigs could fly" crowd, i.e. "human produced CO2 is the major global temperature factor"-lie crowd, is actually is a violation of JUSTICE. It is a FRAUD, plain and simple.





> (Honestly answer please, because if it doesn't justify the tax EVEN IF humans caused global warming, you don't need it to be a lie)
> 
> I'll ask it again, : *IF IT WERE TRUE and proven to your satisfaction that humans increased enough CO2 to be* the major driving force of global warming, global climate instability, would carbon tax be justified? If not, then simply say what is the better way to deal with it, no need to argue that it's a lie, as if it matters.


First of all it is a lie, and human produced CO2 is NOT a significant factor AT ALL. And secondly, No, taxation is not a just way to deal with it at all. Private Property rights is the right way to deal with any environment issue. NO ONE, has the right to pollute or damage the property of his neighbor. NO ONE. Granting "permissions" to pollute other people's property (via carbon credit scam) is not a just way to deal with pollution of any kind. No one can grant a "permission" to anybody to pollute that which does not belong to them. PERIOD. So, the whole carbon credit scheme is a violation of JUSTICE and a fraud from beginning to end. The premise is fraud, and the implementation is fraud (even if the premise was not, which it is a fraud). So the whole thing is a FRAUD. A fraud based on a LIE. And you support it. 




> Volume is not the sole determinant on greenhouse effects, so the fact it's only in PPMs or less than 1% of all greenhouse gases, is irrelevant. I will say yes, it's a major driving force because evidence has shown consistently that it has, both in a lab and in climate, without any computer models. If you're going to argue against scientific theories and studies, you should have SOME scientific arguments, not just childish knee jerk numbers.


That is a lie. The evidence clearly and irrefutably shows that human produced CO2 never was significant factor in determining global temperatures. The recent 15 year cooling is another evidence of that, not to mention the fact that less than 1% cannot by DEFINITION be major factor in contravention of the other 99%. You are peddling a lie.

----------


## PRB

> The recent 15 year cooling is another evidence of that, not to mention the fact that less than 1% cannot by DEFINITION be major factor in contravention of the other 99%. You are peddling a lie.


Wow, you're the liar here. You bought the media lie without even looking at the data.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-w...n-16-years.htm

Again, your assumption is that volume is the sole determinant of effects. That's why you keep repeating the line "it's only 1%"

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

"The recent 15 year cooling is another evidence of that, not to mention  the fact that less than 1% cannot by DEFINITION be major factor in  contravention of the other 99%. You are peddling a lie."




> Wow, you're the liar here. You bought the media lie without even looking at the data.
> www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm


Here is the evidence that a cooling has occurred. More ice means more cold. So your "skeptics" should end their article by saying: "Are you going to believe me, or your own lying eyes!"







> Again, your assumption is that volume is the sole  determinant of effects. That's why you keep repeating the line "it's  only 1%"


How exactly less than 1% of greenhouse gasses can be  significantly more effective than the other 99%? Please do enlighten!

----------


## juleswin

> "The recent 15 year cooling is another evidence of that, not to mention  the fact that less than 1% cannot by DEFINITION be major factor in  contravention of the other 99%. You are peddling a lie."
> 
> Here is the evidence that a cooling has occurred. More ice means more cold. So your "skeptics" should end their article by saying: "Are you going to believe me, or your own lying eyes!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly less than 1% of greenhouse gasses can be  significantly more effective than the other 99%?



They believe in amplification from CO2 will increase the greenhouse effects of the 97% of the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Why they believe is a mystery because the climate model predictions that had this CO2 amplification all came back with very exaggerated temperature results.

----------


## Kelly.

well, i tried...

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> They believe in amplification from CO2 will increase the greenhouse effects of the 97% of the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Why they believe is a mystery because the climate model predictions that had this CO2 amplification all came back with very exaggerated temperature results.


Then I can believe in pink unicorns and magical flying fairy dust. What is the scientific basis for such "amplification?"

----------


## Kelly.

let me try another angle.

@ Foundation_Of_Liberty 
do you think the climate is stabilizing, or becoming more erratic?

edit:
not looking for links to googled articles.
looking for a reply in your own words.

----------


## PRB

> How exactly less than 1% of greenhouse gasses can be  significantly more effective than the other 99%? Please do enlighten!


The same way, according to conspiracy theorists like you, believe that less than 1/10,000 can achieve and earn more than the remaining 99.99%. Some people simply have more power and influence, numbers alone isn't always the answer to everything. 

For starters though, CO2 cycles much slower than water vapor, and water vapor condenses as liquid, the nature of the gases alone make the volume comparisons irrelevant.

----------


## PRB

> Here is the evidence that a cooling has occurred. More ice means more cold. So your "skeptics" should end their article by saying: "Are you going to believe me, or your own lying eyes!"


There's a reason you only post ONE YEAR'S INCREASE, because it doesn't undo the previous years of decrease! Try again.

So the allegedly "15 years" has not been steadily increasing of ice in article circle, if it was, you'd show it (but you can't, the data isn't on your side)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

"How exactly less than 1% of greenhouse gasses can be  significantly more effective than the other 99%? Please do enlighten!"



> For starters though, CO2 cycles much slower than water vapor, and water vapor condenses as liquid, the nature of the gases alone make the volume comparisons irrelevant.


How is the fact that water vapor condenses into liquid makes it less effective as greenhouse gas? When we speak of 97%, we speak of water VAPOR, not liquid. If anything, opaque clouds are more effective at trapping infrared radiation than TRANSPARENT CO2 gas!

You have proven nothing. Water vapor should be more effective at trapping heat than CO2! Try again.

----------


## PRB

> First of all it is a lie, and human produced CO2 is NOT a significant factor AT ALL. And secondly, No, taxation is not a just way to deal with it at all. Private Property rights is the right way to deal with any environment issue. NO ONE, has the right to pollute or damage the property of his neighbor. NO ONE. Granting "permissions" to pollute other people's property (via carbon credit scam) is not a just way to deal with pollution of any kind. No one can grant a "permission" to anybody to pollute that which does not belong to them. PERIOD. So, the whole carbon credit scheme is a violation of JUSTICE and a fraud from beginning to end. The premise is fraud, and the implementation is fraud (even if the premise was not, which it is a fraud). So the whole thing is a FRAUD. A fraud based on a LIE. And you support it. 
> 
> That is a lie. The evidence clearly and irrefutably shows that human produced CO2 never was significant factor in determining global temperatures. The recent 15 year cooling is another evidence of that, not to mention the fact *that less than 1% cannot by DEFINITION be major factor in contravention of the other 99%. You are peddling a lie.*


According to your conspiracy theory, the less than 0.0001 (or .01%) bad guys, elitists, are able to be a major factor in contravention of the remaining 99.99% or more. They, in attempt to further their agenda to force a new tax on innocent freedom loving people, *have to lie not ONCE BUT TWICE.* 

*They first lie about humans causing global warming, then they lie about having the best way to solve it.* Why bother all the trouble? Why can't they base the latter lie on something that's irrefutable? Or why can't they use the first lie to profit without a new tax? 

If they really had the goal to regulate, control and tax, why won't they be a bit more efficient, why lie twice and risk getting caught by a genius who thinks that the warming has stopped for 15 years, one year of ice increase in arctic circle disproves global warming, and 1% can never outdo the 99% because volume is always the only factor? 

Keep trying.

----------


## PRB

> "How exactly less than 1% of greenhouse gasses can be  significantly more effective than the other 99%? Please do enlighten!"
> How is the fact that water vapor condenses into liquid makes it less defective as greenhouse gas?


Oh, easy, because phase changes exchange heat. When water condenses, it releases heat, when water evaporates, it absorbs heat. When it rains, the ground usually cools as a result...all of these phase changes exchange heat much faster than a CO2 cycle. 




> When we speak of 97%, we speak of water VAPOR, not liquid. If anything, opaque clouds are more efective at trapping infrared radiation than transparent CO2 gas!


Yes, we are talking about water vapor. Opaque clouds are not water vapor. Water vapor is as transparent as CO2 gas. (you don't know your basics of this high school chemistry and you're qualified to call scientists liars?)

This is different than saying "Ok, you know your basic physics and chemistry, but that's not the full story". You don't even know the bottom line, which is just sad.




> You have proven nothing. Water vapor should be more defective at taping heat than CO2! Try again.


*Should?* That's not what experiments show and predictions have supported. If you have even one study that can back this up, let us know. You base your* "should"* entirely on your naive, half ass understanding of gases, which is why you go from volume to color, with no idea what you're talking about.

----------


## pcosmar

> let me try another angle.
> 
> 
> do you think the climate is stabilizing, or becoming more erratic?
> 
> .


As compared to?

The climate is cyclical.  meaning that it cycles through warmer and cooler stages. It has done so for thousands of years.

----------


## Kelly.

> It has done so for thousands of years.


how can you claim that?

----------


## pcosmar

> how can you claim that?


Archeology, Tree rings. and recorded history.

The earth has been both warmer and cooler than at present.

I expect this to continue at least as long as the earth and sun remain. 
Though extrapolating possible future events,,  the earth is likely to cool some as the sun cools or get very hot very fast if the sun goes Nova.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> There's a reason you only post ONE YEAR'S INCREASE, because it doesn't undo the previous years of decrease! Try again.
> 
> So the allegedly "15 years" has not been steadily increasing of ice in article circle, if it was, you'd show it (but you can't, the data isn't on your side)


The point is that we have wild increase in the amount of ice in the space of one year, while CO2 steadily increased according to you. So we have a DROP in temprature that prduced extra 920,000 square miles of ice, combined with INCREASE in CO2. How does it then follow that human produced CO2 is a major factor in global WARMING, when exactly the OPPOSITE occurred? Do enlighten. Or simply admit the FACT that 1% or less of greenhouse gases in the form of CO2 are not at all the driving factor in global warming because we have quite stark COOLING manifested in 920,000 square miles of ice.

So 99% seem to be more important than less than 1%, after all, and the whole theory of HUMAN CO2 DRIVEN global warming is a FRAUD.

----------


## PRB

> how can you claim that?


because computer models and reconstructions are golden air tight evidence when it favors HIS argument.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Archeology, Tree rings. and recorded history.
> 
> The earth has been both warmer and cooler than at present.
> 
> I expect this to continue at least as long as the earth and sun remain. 
> Though extrapolating possible future events,,  the earth is likely to cool some as the sun cools or get very hot very fast if the sun goes Nova.


I've been freezing my ass off this winter.   Mr. Gore had me hoping I was going to be able to make a lawn chair out of my snow shovels.   Oh well, perhaps in another solar cycle I might.

----------


## PRB

> The point is that we have wild increase in the amount of ice in the space of one year, while CO2 steadily increased according to you.


Find me ONE person who has ever claimed ice will never increase. 




> So we have a DROP in temprature that prduced extra 920,000 square miles of ice, combined with INCREASE in CO2. How does it then follow that human produced CO2 is a major factor in global WARMING, when exactly the OPPOSITE occurred?


1. Because it's local, and short term
2. Warming isn't the full story, instability is




> Do enlighten. Or simply admit the FACT that 1% or less of greenhouse gases in the form of CO2 are not at all the driving factor in global warming because we have quite stark COOLING manifested in 920,000 square miles of ice.


There's a great gray area between "not at all the driving factor" and "the end all answer". I will say neither are true. 





> So 99% seem to be more important than less than 1%,


No, it isn't. Not unless there's evidence to support it. You're still just looking at numbers without ANY understanding of gas laws.




> after all, and the whole theory of HUMAN CO2 DRIVEN global warming is a FRAUD.


Oh, I get it,  I call it a fraud and repeat it a million times, maybe once, somebody will forget to correct me, and I win. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. 

One question nobody has answered so far : if scientists are so bad at predicting climate, who IS good at it? Anybody? Or is it always a coin toss?

----------


## Kelly.

> Archeology, Tree rings. and recorded history.


so you are relying on others data?

what are you seeing with your own eyes?


doesnt anyone have a $#@!ing opinion other than googles on this

----------


## PRB

> Archeology, Tree rings. and recorded history.
> 
> The earth has been both warmer and cooler than at present.


People have died at 30 years old too. People have died from food poisoning too. If it happened in the past ,we must ignore it and let it happen again.




> I expect this to continue at least as long as the earth and sun remain.


I do too.




> Though extrapolating possible future events,,  the earth is likely to cool some as the sun cools or get very hot very fast if the sun goes Nova.


except it's already been different for 30 years. 
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm

----------


## juleswin

> The same way, according to conspiracy theorists like you, believe that less than 1/10,000 can achieve and earn more than the remaining 99.99%. Some people simply have more power and influence, numbers alone isn't always the answer to everything.


The same conspiracy theorist will be thorn between believing that small % of greenhouse gas that is CO2 amplifying the effects of the rest of the greenhouse gas and a small group of govt scientists modifying the whether. Just sayings, there more to small groups of things affecting the whole here than just CO2




> For starters though, CO2 cycles much slower than water vapor, and water vapor condenses as liquid, the nature of the gases alone make the volume comparisons irrelevant.


The thing is that this CO2 effect theory has to start producing better predictions for anyone to believe it. You have to understand that you are talking to people here that are very distrustful of governments and government scientist. For any of your academic theories to be accepted, it has to be able to prove reliable in real world situations(especially when it comes to climate models). Because when they are widely off the mark in their 10 yr predictions then why should anyone believe their 100 yr predictions which is even that much harder to predict that a 10 yr one. 

I think of the quote by Upton Sinclair when I think of government scientists.




> _It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it_


.

----------


## PRB

> so you are relying on others data?
> 
> what are you seeing with your own eyes?
> 
> 
> doesnt anyone have a $#@!ing opinion other than googles on this


don't give them the idea that science is a matter of opinion

----------


## juleswin

> People have died at 30 years old too. People have died from food poisoning too. If it happened in the past ,we must ignore it and let it happen again.


The reason why he said that is that if it has happened before without us, why do you think its happening now because of us and more people will start dying at 30 yrs if we listen to people like you and Al Gore. Sorry but there are still places on earth that need to benefit from cheap, clean carbon sources of energy.

----------


## Kelly.

im not arguing that taxes carbon is good, or that we need a new set of laws, 
im simply trying to get people to discuss a topic without hiding behind some science link.  there is "science" to back up pretty much any claim, so im not sure that is enough.

that is why i was asking the specifics on deforestation, top soil loss and watershed management.
i view those as he sources of our erratic climate, and have suggestion on how to mitigate it. 

but we can seem to ever get to that part in to conversation. its like talking to a newscaster who can only read teleprompter lines in here sometimes.....

----------


## pcosmar

> what are you seeing with your own eyes?


Multiple sources,,
But if I just go from my "own eyes",, in my travels across this country and some trips outside  including views of the Southern Cross.. over the last 50 years.

My conclusion is that there is not any global warming. and perhaps a trend toward cooling.

Though it has been rather nice today. We are above zero.. around 20 degrees..and looks like we may be done with the sub zero $#@!.

but I ain't betting on it yet.

----------


## PRB

> The reason why he said that is that if it has happened before without us, why do you think its happening now because of us and more people will start dying at 30 yrs if we listen to people like you and Al Gore. Sorry but there are still places on earth that need to benefit from cheap, clean carbon sources of energy.


I don't listen to Al Gore and I don't believe in regulating CO2 emissions, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say "listen to me and Al Gore". 

People died before 30 and from food poisoning without being murdered, so that must people people can die today at 30 and we should never be suspicious of how, after all, they were able to die in the past without being murdered, why investigate?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Oh, easy, because phase changes exchange heat. When water condenses, it releases heat, when water evaporates, it absorbs heat. When it rains, the ground usually cools as a result...all of these phase changes exchange heat much faster than a CO2 cycle.


Since water exchanges heat faster than CO2, how does it follow it is less effective in trapping heat?




> Yes, we are talking about water vapor. Opaque clouds are not water vapor. Water vapor is as transparent as CO2 gas.


Not always. I simply was pointing out that water vapor, IN ADDITION to being a greenhouse gas, ALSO produces clouds which trap even more infrared radiation, whereas CO2 does not create clouds. Thus water vapor has extra mechanisms for trapping heat, that CO2 does not have.




> *Should?* That's not what experiments show and predictions have supported. If you have even one study that can back this up, let us know.


Actually the burden of proof is on you, since you are claiming the bizarre and assert that the 1% of gasses somehow are magically more effective in changing global temperature than the other 99%, of which 97% is water vapor which can trap heat much more effectively than CO2. (This is the reason why radiators are filled with water and not CO2). As for your "predictions" they were proven profoundly wrong. Which had to be even publicly admitted. That is the point here. You are peddling a fraud.

----------


## PRB

> im not arguing that taxes carbon is good, or that we need a new set of laws, 
> im simply trying to get people to discuss a topic without hiding behind some science link.  there is "science" to back up pretty much any claim, so im not sure that is enough.
> 
> that is why i was asking the specifics on deforestation, top soil loss and watershed management.
> i view those as he sources of our erratic climate, and have suggestion on how to mitigate it. 
> 
> but we can seem to ever get to that part in to conversation. its like talking to a newscaster who can only read teleprompter lines in here sometimes.....


I'm totally with you.

Tell us your suggestion

----------


## Kelly.

> Multiple sources,,
> But if I just go from my "own eyes",, in my travels across this country and some trips outside  including views of the Southern Cross.. over the last 50 years.
> 
> My conclusion is that there is not any global warming. and perhaps a trend toward cooling.
> 
> Though it has been rather nice today. We are above zero.. around 20 degrees..and looks like we may be done with the sub zero $#@!.
> 
> but I ain't betting on it yet.


thanks for the reply.

while my sampling time frame is much shorter, i would disagree with your view.

i also do not like the term global warming, as think it implies that ONLY warming is the result.
erratic climate is the term i prefer.

----------


## PRB

> Since water exchanges heat faster than CO2, how does it follow it is less effective in trapping heat?


*Idiot question of the day : "how is a faster process in exchanging heat through phase changes, compared to a slower process without phase changes, less effective in trapping heat?"
*

----------


## PRB

> thanks for the reply.
> 
> while my sampling time frame is much shorter, i would disagree with your view.
> 
> i also do not like the term global warming, as think it implies that ONLY warming is the result.
> erratic climate is the term i prefer.


Erratic climate, artificial climate change, climate instability, are more accurate terms.

----------


## pcosmar

> im not arguing that taxes carbon is good, or that we need a new set of laws, 
> im simply trying to get people to discuss a topic without hiding behind some science link.  there is "science" to back up pretty much any claim, so im not sure that is enough.
> 
> that is why i was asking the specifics on deforestation, top soil loss and watershed management.
> i view those as he sources of our erratic climate, and have suggestion on how to mitigate it. 
> 
> but we can seem to ever get to that part in to conversation. its like talking to a newscaster who can only read teleprompter lines in here sometimes.....


You know,, I personally like living simply. and in harmony (as much as possible) with my environment. at least half of my 20 acres is wild land..

but to your other,, points.
i could take you for a walk and get you lost in woods that I Clear Cut as a kid.

I can show you nature repossessing  areas that were once claimed by man.

Nature makes a way.

----------


## PRB

> Actually the burden of proof is on you, since you are claiming the bizarre and assert that the 1% of gasses somehow are magically more effective in changing global temperature than the other 99%


It's only magic to an idiot who thinks all gases are equally capable of trapping and exchanging heat, which is clearly not the case.




> , of which 97% is water vapor which can trap heat much more effectively than CO2. (This is the reason why radiators are filled with water and not CO2).


Radiators are trapped with coolant mixture, which requires a specific phase change temperature to be effective. CO2 is gas, which expands and is hard to trap, while it has no phase changes within the car's operating temperature. 




> As for your "predictions" they were prove profoundly wrong. That is the point here. You are peddling a fraud.


No, they've not been. You're peddling your ignorance and you seem very proud of it.

----------


## Kelly.

> I'm totally with you.
> 
> Tell us your suggestion


i dont have long before i leave, so here is a small list - a large list would be rather involved.

stop deforestation - trees moderate climate (wind buffering, shades the soil, produces o2, hold the soil in place)

stop plowing soil - top soil loss is causing deserts to spread. the same thing that caused the dust bowl is being done on a planetary scale. its killing the soils.

watershed management - we need to hold water where it falls. the higher up we can hold water the more energy potential and more life can be created

most of my ideas are derived from permaculture thinking.


what say you?

----------


## Kelly.

> You know,, I personally like living simply. and in harmony (as much as possible) with my environment. at least half of my 20 acres is wild land..
> 
> but to your other,, points.
> i could take you for a walk and get you lost in woods that I Clear Cut as a kid.
> 
> I can show you nature repossessing  areas that were once claimed by man.
> 
> Nature makes a way.


i dont doubt it, i wish i could afford a larger chuck of land to steward. i actually looked at leaving the country to find a larger chunk. (and still may)
i also think that nature builds some resilient systems. the forests in your area are a great example. 

but, i think that currently, man has tools that are able to destroy landscapes beyond natural repairs systems. 
we seem to be able to change our environment faster than we can recognize the effects of those changes. 

there are a bunch of examples of fallow land that continues to degrade (large tracts in the west being the best example)

edit: just saw your picture -
some would call that a weed and kill it, which i would submit is part of the problem.
i see that plant as preforming a function. it is breaking up the soil that has been compacted by man; in preparation for the next succession of plants. nature will progress towards a forest if she is allowed to retain water 

we are seeding in dandelion into our pasture this year

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> *Idiot question of the day : "how is a faster process in exchanging heat through phase changes, compared to a slower process without phase changes, less effective in trapping heat?"*


Exactly. If it takes LONGER for CO2 to absorb the same amount of heat that water does, and if water absorbs MORE heat per unit of mass than CO2 does, how does it then follow that water is less effective at trapping heat? Do you fill your radiators with water or CO2?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> It's only magic to an idiot who thinks all gases are equally capable of trapping and exchanging heat, which is clearly not the case.


Yes. Then please prove that CO2 traps more heat than water. I think exactly the reverse is true. Thus again, you are peddling garbage. 




> Radiators are trapped with coolant mixture, which requires a specific phase change temperature to be effective. CO2 is gas, which expands and is hard to trap, while it has no phase changes within the car's operating temperature.


Water can hold significantly more units of heat per unit of mass than CO2. That is a scientific fact. This is why water is a better heat accumulator than CO2. That is a fact.

So, please, prove that CO2 is better at trapping heat than water vapor. CO2 is not better at trapping heat.

----------


## PRB

> Exactly. If it takes LONGER for CO2 to absorb the same amount of heat that water does


Who said that?




> , and if water absorbs MORE heat per unit of mass than CO2 does


Nobody said that, are you going to keep talking out of your ass? Besides, you're talking about mass.




> , how does it then follow that water is less effective at trapping heat? Do you fill your radiators with water or CO2?


We fill radiators with a liquid mixture of both water and antifreeze, *this is a mixture which AVOIDS PHASE CHANGES TO EFFECTIVELY TRAP HEAT.* 

Why don't we use gases? Because gases expand and shrink (much more than both liquid and solid), and thus is unstable.

----------


## Kelly.

> Why don't we use gases? Because gases expand and shrink (much more than both liquid and solid), and thus is unstable.


hes never opened a hot radiator, obviously.

----------


## PRB

> I think exactly the reverse is true.


You think, very well then, keep telling yourself what you want to believe. Let me know when you're actually ready to read some science.

Whether water vapor composes of 97% of greenhouse gases by volume, and whether water is a more effective heat sink than CO2, are all scientific facts which can be verified and tested by experiments irrespective of any climate observations and arguments.

----------


## PRB

> Water can hold significantly more units of heat per unit of mass than CO2.


you're talking about MASS now, not VOLUME (which is what you were talking about when you started the argument, am I wrong?)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

"Exactly. If it takes LONGER for CO2 to absorb the same amount of heat that water does"



> Who said that?


You said that. You said that one was "*faster process*" than the other.

"and if water absorbs MORE heat per unit of mass than CO2 does"



> Nobody said that, are you going to keep talking out of your ass?


It seems that you are the one doing that. I refer you to Heat Capacity table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity. As you can see water vapor can hold more than twice the amount of heat (*2.080*), per unit of mass, than CO2 (0.839). That is a scientific fact.

----------


## PRB

> "Exactly. If it takes LONGER for CO2 to absorb the same amount of heat that water does"
> You said that. You said that one was "*faster process*" than the other.


faster process, being the PHASE CHANGE.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> you're talking about MASS now, not VOLUME (which is what you were talking about when you started the argument, am I wrong?)


The estimate of 1% to 97% was in terms of mass as I understand it. But even if we were talking volume (which it is not) they are pretty comparable, so one is is not significantly more effective than the other. But for your hypothesis to be true, one has to be MASSIVELY more effective than the other, when in reality, according to mass, water vapor is TWICE more effective at holding heat than CO2.

So your hypothesis that CO2 is somehow drastically better greenhouse gas than water vapor, does not hold water. Pun intended.

----------


## PRB

> As you can see water vapor can hold more than twice the amount of heat (*2.080*), per unit of mass, than CO2 (0.839). That is a scientific fact.


So many things wrong with your argument, but I know you're not trolling, I can tell you're actually ignorant.

1. Heat capacity is not the same a ability to absorb and trap heat (you'd know this had you even read the *FIRST SENTENCE ON THE LINK YOU PROVIDED . "Heat capacity, or thermal capacity, is the measurable physical quantity of heat energy required to change the temperature of an object by a given amount."* )
2. Per mass is NEVER EVER the same as per volume/per molecule (besides, you were looking at water vapor at 100C, which clearly nearly none in the atmosphere is)
3. Phase changes cost energy, which, in layman terms, empties out your savings you were trying to hoard when you get into the next phase

----------


## PRB

> The estimate of 1% to 97% was in terms of mass as I understand it.


Citation please. Let me know when you can actually find the fact in specific, take your time. I'm not trying to piss contest you, I really want to get the facts with context.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> So many things wrong with your argument, but I know you're not trolling, I can tell you're actually ignorant.
> 
> 1. Heat capacity is not the same a ability to absorb and trap heat (you'd know this had you even read the *FIRST SENTENCE ON THE LINK YOU PROVIDED . "Heat capacity, or thermal capacity, is the measurable physical quantity of heat energy required to change the temperature of an object by a given amount."* )
> 2. Per mass is NEVER EVER the same as per volume/per molecule (besides, you were looking at water vapor at 100C, which clearly nearly none in the atmosphere is)
> 3. Phase changes cost energy, which, in layman terms, empties out your savings you were trying to hoard when you get into the next phase


1. I know that heat capacity is not the same as greenhouse gas performance. However it is related to it. I was pointing out that you have exactly ZERO evidence that CO2 is a better greenhouse gas than water vapor. In fact, there are significant indications that water vapor makes a better greenhouse gas because it can hold more heat per unit of mass. So my point is still valid, and you failed to refute it.

2. I never said that per mass was the same as per volume. In fact I gave you the comparison for both. Secondly, even though the number given is at 100C, at lower temperature that number will probably be even better, because at 25C water has TWICE the heat holding capacity of steam at 100C, so it only strengthens my case again. 

3. I know that phase changes cost/require energy. It does not, however, at all, strengthen your case. 

There is no evidence that CO2 is a vastly superior greenhouse gas, as your hypothesis demands, because of 1%/99% ratio. In fact there is strong evidence to suggest, that in fact, water vapor, that constitutes overwhelming, 97% majority of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is the more potent pound for pound greenhouse gas than CO2. 

Thus again, this shows that the hypothesis that the human produced CO2 that is less than 1% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is somehow the determining, significant and driving parameter for global temperature increase is an utter nonsense! 

In fact, it is an insult to reason!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Citation please. Let me know when you can actually find the fact in specific, take your time. I'm not trying to piss contest you, I really want to get the facts with context.

----------


## PRB

> 


the video doesn't say either mass or volume. try again.

----------


## PRB

> 3. I know that phase changes cost/require energy. It does not, however, at all, strengthen your case.


Indeed it doesn't if I'm talking to an idiot who doesn't know that (faster) phase changes make for a less effective heat trap.

----------


## PRB

> Thus again, this shows that the hypothesis that the human produced CO2 that is less than 1% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is somehow the determining, significant and driving parameter for global temperature increase is an utter nonsense! 
> 
> In fact, it is an insult to reason!


The guy who doesn't know the basic laws of gas wants to tell me what's an insult to reason. 

You continue to insist that greenhouse effects are either determined solely and primarily by mass or volume, or refuse to accept the simple (easily verifiable) evidence that water, with phase changes, makes for a less effective long term heat trap compared to CO2.

All that aside, you wanna play the "I got the silver bullet, I win" game? Here we go.

We can ignore the comparisons of water and CO2 in volume and mass
we can ignore the heat absorption ability of both

These 2 facts alone will tell you why CO2 is a concern, while water is not
1. Water cycle is FAST, that means what? it BALANCES BACK QUICKLY (compared to CO2), so the feedback, temperature changes, can be adjusted in a matter of days and weeks, rather than months and years. This is a fact you can't deny, you can only continue to say "yeah but water is still more abundant". How often do you see dramatic CO2 temperature balancing events? In contrast, you see rain and snow almost every year in places which are known to have high water saturation. 

2. Water isn't being increased with industrial growth, but even if it was, again, see above, it cycles much faster. Temperature changes and imbalances can be fixed quickly. Essentially, the mere fact that water cycles happen faster, more frequent, is enough reason why water as a greenhouse gas, is much easier to predict, less concern to prepare (even taking into account all other properties which make CO2 different in nature)

*So go ahead and keep ignoring these facts and tell yourself "ICE IS INCREASING, 15 YEARS COOLING, 1% CAN'T WIN 99%, IT'S ALL A SCAM". I've presented as much of the evidence I can find, all you can do is ask stupid questions which any honest high school and college student can answer.*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Indeed it doesn't if I'm talking to an idiot who doesn't know that (faster) phase changes make for a less effective heat trap.


You are the idiot, sir.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> The guy who doesn't know the basic laws of gas wants to tell me what's an insult to reason. 
> 
> You continue to insist that greenhouse effects are either determined solely and primarily by mass or volume, or refuse to accept the simple (easily verifiable) evidence that water, with phase changes, makes for a less effective long term heat trap compared to CO2.
> 
> All that aside, you wanna play the "I got the silver bullet, I win" game? Here we go.
> 
> We can ignore the comparisons of water and CO2 in volume and mass
> we can ignore the heat absorption ability of both
> 
> ...


That is the most stupidest thing I heard from anybody who fancies himself to understand science.

Heat transfer by water is indeed faster. But the point of greenhouse gas is that it TRAPS the heat on the planet, and does not allow infrared or heat radiation to escape into space. 

Thus, water accumulates the heat and keeps it trapped whether in a liquid or gas state. Therefore, your point about water changing states is irrelevant. The heat trapped by it stays on the planet. And water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 on pound for pound comparison. Thus, it is water (the 97% of all greenhouse gasses present) that contributes almost all greenhouse effect to the planet, and CO2's contribution to it, especially human produced CO2 which is but a fraction of the total (less than 1%), is NEGLIGIBLE. Even if ALL human produced CO2 disappeared, it would practically make no difference to the planet's temperature.

You have lost the debate, and been shown lacking. Try trolling somewhere else, since you apparently get paid per post.

----------


## PRB

> That is the most stupidest thing I heard from anybody who fancies himself to understand science.
> 
> Heat transfer by water is indeed faster. But the point of greenhouse gas is that it TRAPS the heat on the planet, and does not allow infrared or heat radiation to escape into space.


Heat transfer is faster? Where did you get that from? 

You are correct that GHG is defined by ability to trap heat in an atmosphere by absorbing infra red radiation.




> Thus, water accumulates the heat and keeps it trapped weather in a liquid or gas state.


No, it doesn't, not when it hits the ocean. Let me guess, you'll tell me next that CO2 gets absorbed into the ocean. Somehow absorption only happens when you say it does, and water never transfers heat away, because you said so. Got ANY evidence to back this up? 




> Therefore, your point about water changing states is irrelevant.


No, it's not. Or else snow would not cause temperatures to drop and tropical rains wouldn't exist. You can't say snow is proof that global warming is false, but then tell me phase changes don't matter when it comes to heat accumulation, climate change, comparing effects of greenhouse gases. You're running out of ways to lie.




> The heat trapped by it stays on the planet.


Energy is conserved, but heat, specifically, free heat, is not.




> And water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 on pound for pound comparison.


Which is only half the story, because phase changes matter. 




> Thus, it is water (the 97% of all greenhouse gasses present) that contributes almost all greenhouse effect to the planet


Citation please. First cite how 97% is measured. 





> , and CO2's contribution to it, especially human produced CO2 which is but a fraction of the total (less than 1%), is NEGLIGIBLE.


It's not negligible if it's ever increasing.




> Even if ALL human produced CO2 disappeared, it would practically make no difference to the planet's temperature.


That's because all human produced CO2 gone, doesn't take away all the other naturally occurring CO2. Again, if CO2 is a GHG, and it is, it doesn't matter what source it's from, and concentration matters. You seem to be so sure that humans don't produce enough, but you can't tell me what WOULD be enough. you're the same guy who will tell me any concentration of cyanide, fluoride, HFCS, thimerisol are all poisonous and fatal. You're the same guy who will tell me that 0.01% or less of the population can and have conspired to control 99.99% of the rest. 




> You have lost the debate, and been shown lacking. Try trolling somewhere else, since you apparently get paid per post.


I'm not paid to post, and if you want to tell yourself you won, go ahead.

Answer these questions when you can
1. Where did you get water vapor being 97% of GHG from?
2. On what basis is water vapor a more effective GHG or heat retention mechanism?
3. What amount of CO2 concentration would be suffice for it be driving force of global warming?

For the rest of the people reading, this guy thinks opaque clouds are water vapor, doesn't know that phase changes effect heat trapping capacity, thinks that relative concentration of gases (whether by mass or volume) is the primary determinant of greenhouse effect contribution, that we use water in radiators because CO2 is less effective, then points to a heat capacity index to back up his claim that water is better at heat retention (until I corrected him). *This is why he looks at a picture of 2013 ice and says global warming isn't true, or thinks that we've had 15 years of cooling.*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Thus, water accumulates the heat and keeps it trapped whether in a liquid or gas state.



> No, it doesn't, not when it hits the ocean.


Are you saying when heated vapor or liquid hits the ocean the heat leaves the planet? It does not. It transfers to the ocean and to the air. Once on earth, the heat cannot vanish, unless it is radiated into space.
Therefore, your point about water changing states is irrelevant. 



> No, it's not. Or else snow would not cause temperatures to drop and tropical rains wouldn't exist. You can't say snow is proof that global warming is false, but then tell me phase changes don't matter when it comes to heat accumulation, climate change, comparing effects of greenhouse gases.


We are talking about average global temperature of the planet. Do we not? Once heat gets to the earth, it stays here in one form or another, until and unless it is radiated back into space. Water is about hundred fold more effective in trapping heat on earth than CO2.
The heat trapped by it stays on the planet. 



> Energy is conserved, but heat, specifically, free heat, is not.


How so? How can the heat trapped by the atmosphere not contribute to the average temperature of the world?
And water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 on pound for pound comparison. 



> Which is only half the story, because phase changes matter.


Irrelevant. Whether the water is liquid or a vapor, it keeps the energy imparted to it in the form of heat. That heat, that energy determines the worlds average temperature. The energy as heat stays on the planet because, as you pointed out water changes states all the time thus equalizing and spreading the heat energy through the system. Bottom line, once trapped in the water, the heat contributes to the average world temperature because water constantly changes states and spreads that heat into the atmosphere, and that to much greater extent than CO2.
and CO2's contribution to it, especially human produced CO2 which is but a fraction of the total (less than 1%), is NEGLIGIBLE. 



> It's not negligible if it's ever increasing.


I hope you understand that ever increasing does not contradict negligible. You can pee into the ocean every morning, and the amount of your urine in it will be ever increasing but will still be negligible in terms of temperature impact upon the ocean, unless you have a bladder the size  of Africa.
Even if ALL human produced CO2 disappeared, it would practically make no difference to the planet's temperature. 



> That's because all human produced CO2 gone, doesn't take away all the other naturally occurring CO2. Again, if CO2 is a GHG, and it is, it doesn't matter what source it's from, and concentration matters. You seem to be so sure that humans don't produce enough, but you can't tell me what WOULD be enough.


Enough would be that which would clearly establish a causality link between the amount of CO2 and the temperature.  Such causality link has not been established, because the effects of CO2 are so insignificant as to be drowned by the other 99% of greenhouse gases that are NOT CO2. It is truly like a tennis ball bouncing in a trunk of a car. It is insignificant compared to other MASSIVE factors, that exceed CO2 100 to 1 or more.



> then points to a heat capacity index to back up his claim that water is better at heat retention (until I corrected him).


Yes, water holds more heat per unit of mass than CO2. You do not need to correct what is already correct.

----------


## PRB

> “Thus, water accumulates the heat and keeps it trapped whether in a liquid or gas state.”
> 
> Are you saying when heated vapor or liquid hits the ocean the heat leaves the planet?


are you saying when snow falls, and temperature drops, heat has left the planet?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> are you saying when snow falls, and temperature drops, heat has left the planet?


Again, we are talking about the average temperature of the world, or about total heat energy trapped in its atmosphere and surface. Do we not?

----------


## PRB

> Yes, water holds more heat per unit of mass than CO2. You do not need to “correct” what is already correct.


What I corrected you on, was that heat capacity is not the same as heat retention, you're conflating them again.

----------


## PRB

> Again, we are talking about the average temperature of the world, or about total energy trapped in its atmosphere and surface. Do we not?


If we're talking about average temperature of the world, don't show me pictures of arctic ice increasing, or North America Polar Vortex, mmmkay?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> What I corrected you on, was that heat capacity is not the same as heat retention, you're conflating them again.


Water can hold and retain MORE heat units per unit of mass than CO2. That is a scientific fact not subject to debate.

----------


## PRB

> Bottom line, once trapped in the water, the heat contributes to the average world temperature because water constantly changes states and spreads that heat into the atmosphere, and that to much greater extent than CO2.


Congratulations, you just dug yourself a new hole. So according to you then, global warming should be WORSE than those predicted based on CO2. Since water is a better warmer, and once heat is trapped, it never leaves the planet. 

Regulations and taxes aside, are you predicting greater warming? You must, unless you can demonstrate that heat leaves the planet or somehow water leaves the planet......right?! This is what your bull$#@! logic gets you to.

----------


## PRB

> Water can hold and retain MORE heat units per unit of mass than CO2. That is a scientific fact not subject to debate.


and heat is released when water changes phase from condensation and freezing. CO2 cannot do that. facts are useless without context.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> If we're talking about average temperature of the world, don't show me pictures of arctic ice increasing, or North America Polar Vortex, mmmkay?


Arctic ocean is huge. I was showing to you a huge chunk of the world's surface covered with ice. It is very relevant to the world's average temperature because the area in question is very large, and constitutes significant portion of the total. 

Now, I invite you to produce data where the heat energy of the earth's surface have correspondingly increased to offset the massive drop I demonstrated. If you cannot do so you will have to admit that I have compelling evidence that the average temperature on earth did NOT increase, but actually DECREASED in the time period specified.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Congratulations, you just dug yourself a new hole. So according to you then, global warming should be WORSE than those predicted based on CO2. Since water is a better warmer, and once heat is trapped, it never leaves the planet. 
> 
> Regulations and taxes aside, are you predicting greater warming? You must, unless you can demonstrate that heat leaves the planet or somehow water leaves the planet......right?! This is what your bull$#@! logic gets you to.


I merely point out that water vapor has about 100 times more effect on heat retention in the atmosphere than CO2. That is the point, and you failed to refute it. So it is your logic that is severely lacking.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

"Water can hold and retain MORE heat units per unit of mass than CO2. That is a scientific fact not subject to debate."



> and heat is released when water changes phase from condensation and freezing. CO2 cannot do that. facts are useless without context.


"Heat is released" to what? To the atmosphere. The point is, the heat is still here. That is the context. And it is correct context. The heat once trapped by water vapor is kept on earth until it is radiated into space. This proves again that water has at least 100 times more to do with heat retention on earth than human produced CO2, which constitutes less than 1% of all greenhouse gases, and water vapor constitutes 97%.

----------


## PRB

> If you cannot do so you will have to admit that I have compelling evidence that the average temperature on earth did NOT increase, but actually DECREASED in the time period specified.


Which is a year. Yeah, I'll concede a year, as if anybody said it'll never happen. 

Here it is though

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> If Sandy and Katrina could have been predicted even one month in advance,...


You can predict these things eons in advance just by their location.  These phenomena are quite predictable, but people continue to ignore them.  If you want to live in New Orleans or Long Island, then--by all means--go ahead and live there.  Don't however, insist that I pay for your catastrophe just because you insisted that you must live in a place with a good view.





> the Earth is 4 billions years old, our modern lifestyle is not.


People have always lived in harm's way.  What is different today is that people insist on their location, while also insisting that someone else pay when things go awry.  People who can't even understand why it's bad to live on a river bank--with its immediate and local consequences--are the same clueless who insist on understanding how this perceived global phenomenon works.  They can't figure out that the a river a couple hundred feet away might engulf them and their house, but they somehow understand how this supposed rise in the earth's temperature is going to be catastrophic to their local well-being.

----------


## PRB

> "Water can hold and retain MORE heat units per unit of mass than CO2. That is a scientific fact not subject to debate."
> 
> "Heat is released" to what? To the atmosphere. The point is, the heat is still here. That is the context. And it is correct context.


which is then following by rain, or snow, which does what? absorb heat when it evaporates or melts. Again, the cycle is much faster, since CO2 does not have phase changes to exchange heat in cycle lasting days.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> which is then following by rain, or snow, which does what? absorb heat when it evaporates or melts. Again, the cycle is much faster, since CO2 does not have phase changes to exchange heat in cycle lasting days.


Whatever the changes the water experiences does not change the total energy in the system. It remains constant unless radiated into space. Do you understand that? The heat once trapped, does not leave the planet unless it is radiated into space.

----------


## PRB

> You can predict these things eons in advance just by their location.  These phenomena are quite predictable, but people continue to ignore them.  If you want to live in New Orleans or Long Island, then--by all means--go ahead and live there.  Don't however, insist that I pay for your catastrophe just because you insisted that you must live in a place with a good view.
> 
> 
> 
> People have always lived in harm's way.  What is different today is that people insist on their location, while also insisting that someone else pay when things go awry.  People who can't even understand why it's bad to live on a river bank--with its immediate and local consequences--are the same clueless who insist on understanding how this perceived global phenomenon works.  They can't figure out that the a river a couple hundred feet away might engulf them and their house, but they somehow understand how this supposed rise in the earth's temperature is going to be catastrophic to their local well-being.



If you're saying victims of hurricanes, earthquakes and floods deserve no sympathy because it's their own fault they chose where to live, and nobody should feel obligated to help them, I'm totally with you, especially if they ignored specific warning signs.

----------


## PRB

> Whatever the changes the water experiences does not change the total energy in the system. It remains constant unless radiated into space. Do you understand that? The heat once trapped, does not leave the planet unless it is radiated into space.


Do you understand the concept of "not all energy are equal"? Why do we have radiators, coolants and why do we have heaters? Isn't energy just always stuck in the universe? Not all heat (let along energy) is forever utilizable, that's the point. 

Heat does not need to leave the planet for temperature to cool down, again, do the pictures of 2013 in arctic circle show that heat has left the planet?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Which is a year. Yeah, I'll concede a year, as if anybody said it'll never happen. 
> 
> Here it is though


What you gave is the "average" temperature garbage compiled by we do not know who (and we have solid evidence that average temperature data are being lied about, including the infamous email scandal "the climate gate" where the scientists have been caught fabricating false average temperature data for money).

I showed you pictures of ice increase by 920,000 square miles in one year. Now show me credible data of compatible surface temperature of comparable energy increase. 

You have not done so. My evidence is better than yours, because we can see the ice with our own eyes.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Heat does not need to leave the planet for temperature to cool down,


That is a bizarre assertion. For a planet to cool down, the heat HAS to leave it. That is a fact. 




> again, do the pictures of 2013 in arctic circle show that heat has left the planet?


Yes they do. If the heat did not leave, the ice would not have formed.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> If you're saying victims of hurricanes, earthquakes and floods deserve no sympathy because it's their own fault they chose where to live, and nobody should feel obligated to help them, I'm totally with you, especially if they ignored specific warning signs.


I'm not saying that people don't deserve sympathy.  People get into all kinds of situations for all kinds of reasons.  It can happen to you, or it can happen to me.

What I'm saying is that paradigms get built because of people's insistence on claiming more and more rights.  I have only visited New Orleans, but did live in New York.  People will practically tell you that they somehow have the right to live in places like New Orleans or New York because it's their culture and they could never leave. 

You talked about how people handled catastrophe years ago.  I'm sure their friends and family had sympathy.  What is different today is that people insist on creating this contrived sympathy in government.  They think that laws change hearts and that laws create the good hearts of their neighbors years ago or even neighbors/family today.  They insist that all kinds of things are their right and they'll get government to back them up.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Fat people made up global warming to justify their weight.  It's pretty much a given that rotund people can't take anything over 80 degrees.  The fat people will look for any excuse to justify their weight.  They even blame it on the so-called skinny people, whose current weight was average when this global warming thing started.

Hey man, it's my right to shovel it ALL in.  You shut down your factory because God made pork rinds just for me.

----------


## Zack

> What you gave is the "average" temperature garbage compiled by we do not know who (and we have solid evidence that average temperature data are being lied about, including the infamous email scandal "the climate gate" where the scientists have been caught fabricating false average temperature data for money).


Here are a couple interesting videos on the "climategate" e-mails:

----------


## pcosmar

> , or thinks that we've had 15 years of cooling. [/B]


17 years.
I suspect he had an older article.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/



> Global warming is nowhere to be found. The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States.
> 
> At the end of the first week in January, a brutal spell of cold weather settled over most of the country. Multiple cold-temperature records were shattered across the country. Some sites experienced frigid conditions not seen since the 19th century. Chicago and New York City broke temperature records set in 1894 and 1896, respectively. These extremes were not singular, but exemplary of conditions throughout much of the continent.


http://www.c3headlines.com/global-co...videncetrends/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/...ing-away-from/

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Thanks,  pcosmar!

----------


## PRB

> 17 years.
> I suspect he had an older article.
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/



This article has no source.





> http://www.c3headlines.com/global-co...videncetrends/



This one only looks at local (US & UK)





> http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/...ing-away-from/



Looks like the source is from here, but feel free to show me better data if there is any 
wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/no-significant-warming-for-17-years-4-months/


But no, warming hasn't stopped. Not when 2005 and 2010 are the hottest recorded years.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...1998-basic.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...2008-basic.htm

----------


## pcosmar

> This article has no source.
> .
> .skepticalscience.com/[/url]
> .skepticalscience.com/


And yet you keep posting the same questionable source..
A single site* dedicated* to pushing the Global Warming myth.

I can post many sources,, just picked a couple of the many.

----------


## PRB

> And yet you keep posting the same questionable source..
> A single site* dedicated* to pushing the Global Warming myth.
> 
> I can post many sources,, just picked a couple of the many.


Why is this source questionable? Is it not backed by both data and scientists? 

Yes, please do post any sources you have, and please check that it's directly supportive of the point you wish to make.

Whether it be 17 year non-warming or water being a greater concern for greenhouse gas effects.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

"Global warming" will be ancient history in about a generation.  Even journalistic masterpieces like Time magazine will have covers that read, "Whatever happened to global warming?"

----------


## Dr.3D

> "Global warming" will be ancient history in about a generation.  Even journalistic masterpieces like Time magazine will have covers that read, "Whatever happened to global warming?"


It already is.   They realized it wasn't going to pan out so they changed the name to Climate Change.   Now they can blame everything that happens on Climate Change.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> It already is.   They realized it wasn't going to pan out so they changed the name to Climate Change.   Now they can blame everything that happens on Climate Change.


I am so out of the loop Doc, that I did not even know that.  I've heard both terms, of course, but did not know one replaced the other.  Maybe somebody hired a marketing firm to repackage the whole thing, eh?

----------


## Dr.3D

> I am so out of the loop Doc, that I did not even know that.  I've heard both terms, of course, but did not know one replaced the other.  Maybe somebody hired a marketing firm to repackage the whole thing, eh?


I suspect it's just that politicians were involved and you know what happens when they get mixed up in things.    Any time science is funded by politicians, you can expect the science to stop being scientific.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

The U.S. is pretty shrewd.  We built our fortunes on polluting countless areas.  Now, all this pollution becomes a problem since China and others are replicating and we're falling apart.  Same thing with other issues.  Genocide was not a problem when we slaughtered the Injun, but now we're some kind of human rights guru.  AIDS was going to be this catastrophe until the drug companies realized that their drugs were actually the real AIDS.  People wised up to the game, the real science showed its head, and the drug companies had to export their dope to Africa.  

Global warming, climate changes, or whatever the fuq you call it is the classic cart before the horse.  Establish your stance and create the science behind it.  The new paradigm that dovetailed perfectly with media like cable TV.

----------


## PRB

> It already is.   They realized it wasn't going to pan out so they changed the name to Climate Change.   Now they can blame everything that happens on Climate Change.


they didn't change the name to climate change. IPCC started in 1988, CC  stood for climate change back then, so the phrase was used at least as long as that.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> they didn't change the name to climate change. IPCC started in 1988, CC  stood for climate change back then, so the phrase was used at least as long as that.


Yes and in the 1970's they cried about global cooling and new ice age. These liars use any excuse to blame human produced CO2 either for global cooling or global warming, as long as they can dupe enough people, but truth is truth. The record shows them for the liars that they are. Human produced CO2 was never a deciding or controlling factor in natural global changes in temperature.

----------


## Dr.3D

> they didn't change the name to climate change. IPCC started in 1988, CC  stood for climate change back then, so the phrase was used at least as long as that.


Well, you don't hear jack crap about "Global Warming" anymore, it's all "Climate Change" now if you hear anything about it at all.   Mostly people have figured out it's all a bunch of political bologna and are ignoring it.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Climate change will happen as it happened for thousands of years. But it will NOT be driven by human produced CO2.

----------


## PRB

> Yes and in the 1970's they cried about global cooling and new ice age. These liars use any excuse to blame human produced CO2 either for global cooling or global warming, as long as they can dupe enough people, but truth is truth. The record shows them for the liars that they are. Human produced CO2 was never a deciding or controlling factor in natural global changes in temperature.


No, scientists did not as a whole, the media picked the stories.

----------


## pcosmar

> No, scientists did not as a whole, the media picked the stories.


Scientists have rejected this bull$#@! all along.

Grant chasing researchers and dishonest politicians have pushed a lot of this. Not Scientists.

But then the thoroughly debunked 'second Hand Smoke study" is still repeated and used to push laws and propaganda.

It is not science.

----------


## PRB

> Scientists have rejected this bull$#@! all along.


source? or is your definition of scientist "a person who does not publish studies & speaks in favor of less government"?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Video: Climate Change, The Trillion Dollar Heist*

----------


## Danke

*The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science*


http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...imate-science/

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Good one! Thanks.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Terrestrial Atmosphere*
> Surface pressure: 1014 mb
> Surface density: 1.217 kg/m3
> Scale height: 8.5 kmTotal mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 1018 kg
> Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 1021 kg
> Average temperature: 288 K (15 C)
> Diurnal temperature range: 283 K to 293 K (10 to 20 C)
> Wind speeds: 0 to 100 m/s
> Mean molecular weight: 28.97 g/mole 
> ...


http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...earthfact.html

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

And your point is? Water vapor is still 97% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and man-made CO2 is still less than 1%. Therefore, even if ALL human-produced CO2 were eliminated, it would not have significant effect upon the greenhouse gasses.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> And your point is? Water vapor is still 97% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and man-made CO2 is still less than 1%. Therefore, even if ALL human-produced CO2 were eliminated, it would not have significant effect upon the greenhouse gasses.


 One percent is about 10,000 ppm. It's probably a really hard  sell for a world tax on water vapor. I'm particularly keeping my eye on that killer Argon at 9,340 ppm.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> And your point is? Water vapor is still 97% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and man-made CO2 is still less than 1%. Therefore, even if ALL human-produced CO2 were eliminated, it would not have significant effect upon the greenhouse gasses.


there's poisons that even if they only make up 1% of your glass of water, they can kill you, so I don't understand the point here.

----------


## PRB

> And your point is? Water vapor is still 97% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.


Have you cited a single source to support and explain this claim? Or do you even know what it means?

----------


## PRB

> there's poisons that even if they only make up 1% of your glass of water, they can kill you, so I don't understand the point here.


Exactly, the same people will tell you how little tolerance they have for water chlorination or fluoridation.

----------


## PRB

> One percent is about 10,000 ppm. It's probably a really hard  sell for a world tax on water vapor. I'm particularly keeping my eye on that killer Argon at 9,340 ppm.


first of all, is there a net increase in water vapor from industrialization that compares to CO2 increase? Something which can account for and predict future warming and cooling trends? that would be a start if you want to tax a gas emission.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> It already is.   They realized it wasn't going to pan out so they changed the name to Climate Change.   Now they can blame everything that happens on Climate Change.


Republicans (especially FU Frank Luntz) are most responsible for the name change.  Rather slick on their part may I add, cause now they can make it look like Democrats/warmists changed the name.

----------


## PRB

> Republicans (especially FU Frank Luntz) are most responsible for the name change.  Rather slick on their part may I add, cause now they can make it look like Democrats/warmists changed the name.


that's just the words used differently in media and politics, the phrase has been used since IPCC was founded, what does CC in IPCC stand for?

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> that's just the words used differently in media and politics, the phrase has been used since IPCC was founded, what does CC in IPCC stand for?


I should've been more specific - Republicans/FU Frank are mainly behind the shift in *popular usage*.  I am aware that both terms have been used in the scientific community for a long time.

Back to my point - the reason you hear "climate change" rather than "global warming" is not because "global warming" has been disproven.  That's a whole bunch of hogwash.  Regardless of your stance on climate change/global warming, it's best not to repeat disinfo.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

I have no idea why it is that libertarianism seems to foster a belief that anthropogenic climate change is nonexistent or insignificant. When it comes to philosophy, I make my own decisions. When it comes to cars, I trust a mechanic. When it comes to climate science, I trust the _communis opinio_. I realize that there are scientists who question the extent of anthropogenic climate change, and I feel the tension between the need to protect the environment and my libertarian leanings. But I'm concerned that part of the tendency towards disbelief in ACC may stem from a desire to solve the tension between liberty and the protection of things one doesn't own from emissions and their consequences. I'm sure there are other reasons. 

As for "global warming" vs. "climate change," my understanding is that global warming _does_ describe the average increase over the past 100 years in temperature, but fails to embrace a broader set of ecological consequences associated with GHG buildup. Therefore the phenomenon is better described as "climate change." Obviously, year to year, temperatures are not identical. But the term refers to a distinct increase in volatility, rather than the general statement that temperatures fluctuate.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> first of all, is there a net increase in water vapor from industrialization that compares to CO2 increase? Something which can account for and predict future warming and cooling trends? that would be a start if you want to tax a gas emission.


You probably need to ask NASA. It's their data. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...earthfact.html  I have no interest in taxing anything. Reading for comprehension often works wonders.

----------


## Weston White

Please now, “climate change” or “anthropogenic global warming” is an unscrupulous hoax. Climate change scientists are the new Oracles of Delphi; they’re the Mayan priesthood incarnate, societies evolved shamans.

Why is it though that they consistently lie about their data and bully their cause?  Because their agenda is pure and complete junk science; and they are all very well of this.  Do they care though, certainly not!  Further, explaining away as to why they chose a shyster, pervert to be their primary mouthpiece.

Climate change is what is has always been and always will be; an evolutionary cycle occurring four-times a year at approximate intervals, bringing about expected—not to be confused with exact or precise—weather patterns (or changes) with relation to the alignment of geography and the sun. These cycles are properly known as: spring, summer, fall, and winter.  Label this process whatever you will, but do not place its credit upon humankind.  Humans may be technologically capable, but controlling the internal-workings of earth and its solar system are things yet within our grasp.

Regardless, they, these “scientists”, cannot even get their own premise correct. Carbon dioxide (CO2)—a barely toxic gas and which plants convert into sugar during their Calvin cycle, after first extracting oxygen (O2) from water (H2O); and that the ocean absorbs in large quantities, converting it into a weak form of carbonic acid?  Try carbon monoxide (CO)—a highly toxic gas that is generated en masse by volcanic activity and which is far beyond the control of humankind as it just so happens, no matter how much you love carbon taxes or how many carbon taxes you desire to levy.  Pin-headed nitwits!

----------


## PRB

> I should've been more specific - Republicans/FU Frank are mainly behind the shift in *popular usage*.  I am aware that both terms have been used in the scientific community for a long time.
> 
> *Back to my point - the reason you hear "climate change" rather than "global warming" is not because "global warming" has been disproven.  That's a whole bunch of hogwash.  Regardless of your stance on climate change/global warming, it's best not to repeat disinfo*.


Luckily YOU are aware, I believe most conspiracy theorists and global warming deniers are still under the delusion that the phrase was invented to reduce burden of proof while continuing to push the same agenda, the same people who say that in the 1970s, scientists said there was going to be an ice age. 

Indeed, it's NOT because global warming has been disproven. I'm glad somebody here is able to see through the noise and actually know a bit of facts. Thanks for helping correct this kind of nonsense so hopefully, less people are repeating it. 

I'm totally OK with people who say "I don't care if there's global warming, I just don't want carbon taxes", I actually agree, but it's not productive to conflate climate science with policy, when you've already decided your policy (or lack thereof) when having such discussions.

----------


## PRB

> I have no idea why it is that libertarianism seems to foster a belief that anthropogenic climate change is nonexistent or insignificant.


I know why, because they, like the alarmists and environmentalists, are no more creative in thinking of ways to prepare and remedy, so they are left with 2 choices, global warming is real and therefore let liberals set carbon tax policy, or global warming is not real, therefore no carbon tax. They fail to consider there's 3rd and 4th option, global warming is real but still don't want new taxes, or global warming is not real, and liberals can still think up new ways to tax. 

so the proper response should be, making it clear that you only care about policy, unless you actually don't.

----------


## PRB

> Why is it though that they consistently lie about their data and bully their cause?


They don't, you're thinking about deniers who cherry pick.

----------


## PRB

> Regardless, they, these “scientists”, cannot even get their own premise correct.


Can you?

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> I know why, because they, like the alarmists and environmentalists, are no more creative in thinking of ways to prepare and remedy, so they are left with 2 choices, global warming is real and therefore let liberals set carbon tax policy, or global warming is not real, therefore no carbon tax. They fail to consider there's 3rd and 4th option, global warming is real but still don't want new taxes, or global warming is not real, and liberals can still think up new ways to tax. 
> 
> so the proper response should be, making it clear that you only care about policy, unless you actually don't.


Yeah. I am uncomfortable proposing taxes myself, but view the carbon tax as an exception (thus my avatar). Seems to me it's just like paying damages. Private ownership certainly protects a rainforest better than government ownership from littering, illegal lumbering, waste dumping, etc. But if I'm driving my Hummer hundreds of miles away on the I-95, I'm not depositing a chunk of something on one person's property in a traceable manner, but aggressing against many, many, many people. See the blackened architecture in old European cities, for example? Much of that is automobile emissions. Or, a better example, the Gulf oil spill. Yes, perhaps tort reform deals with the latter case. But we probably don't want to haul people into court whenever they put their key in the ignition.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yeah. I am uncomfortable proposing taxes myself, but view the carbon tax as an exception (thus my avatar). Seems to me it's just like paying damages. Private ownership certainly protects a rainforest better than government ownership from littering, illegal lumbering, waste dumping, etc. But if I'm driving my Hummer hundreds of miles away on the I-95, I'm not depositing a chunk of something on one person's property in a traceable manner, but aggressing against many, many, many people. See the blackened architecture in old European cities, for example? Much of that is automobile emissions. Or, a better example, the Gulf oil spill. Yes, perhaps tort reform deals with the latter case. But we probably don't want to haul people into court whenever they put their key in the ignition.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/b...believers.html

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/b...believers.html


What I find here is: 1) Politicians have gone on record with claims regarding climate change that may or may not be well-supported (though the article doesn't really engage with those claims). I'm sure that's true.

2) Climate change theory is rooted in guilt about wealth inequality, opposition to corporations, love of nature, opposition to population growth, and desire for world government. I disagree, although a belief in climate change will probably prompt more action among those who do love the environment. The others seem to reflect concerns that, if climate change IS true, it will have disproportionate impact on the poor and on developing nations.

3) That there's a double standard, in that developed nations must be more sustainable, while poor countries can go on as before. I disagree. The developing world is on track to raise its emissions profile as these states industrialize, and they no less than the U.S. commit aggression by polluting.

4) Proper science does not guess about the future. I agree that speculative studies are of little use. But I would in fact be suspicious of most academic and scientific papers that make absolute claims outside of, say, low-level mathematics. As for the scrap about 5% forever, presumably the paper itself specifies a time range. Or, perhaps the percentage is really quite static for a long time. This quotation is a press release, not the actual conclusion.

5) Climate scientists keep changing their story. Well, this is how we move forward. At this point, if climate change of some magnitude is inevitable, then it seems logical that we should combine minimization with adaptation.

6) Simple, sustainable living is a yuppie fad: Maybe. This is not an objection to climate change.

----------


## PRB

> Yeah. I am uncomfortable proposing taxes myself, but view the carbon tax as an exception (thus my avatar). Seems to me it's just like paying damages. Private ownership certainly protects a rainforest better than government ownership from littering, illegal lumbering, waste dumping, etc. But if I'm driving my Hummer hundreds of miles away on the I-95, I'm not depositing a chunk of something on one person's property in a traceable manner, but aggressing against many, many, many people. See the blackened architecture in old European cities, for example? Much of that is automobile emissions. Or, a better example, the Gulf oil spill. Yes, perhaps tort reform deals with the latter case. But we probably don't want to haul people into court whenever they put their key in the ignition.


You're ok with carbon taxes, that's you. I'm not, and I believe there are better ways, or at least, preparing for climate change and climate instability, is the least we can , but that won't happen if people think it's not happening. The fact you can't stop an earthquake or hurricane doesn't mean you should act like it'll never happen, this is something deniers hopefully understand sooner.

----------


## PRB

> 5) Climate scientists keep changing their story. Well, this is how we move forward. At this point, if climate change of some magnitude is inevitable, then it seems logical that we should combine minimization with adaptation.
> 
> 6) Simple, sustainable living is a yuppie fad: Maybe. This is not an objection to climate change.


Climate scientists can only change their story and expect to be taken seriously if they have evidence. Adaption and preparation are the most logical steps, even if there's no reversible effect. 

I don't care for fads, and I don't want taxes, but you're right, that doesn't mean climate change isn't real.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What I find here is: 1) Politicians have gone on record with claims regarding climate change that may or may not be well-supported (though the article doesn't really engage with those claims). I'm sure that's true.
> 
> 2) Climate change theory is rooted in guilt about wealth inequality, opposition to corporations, love of nature, opposition to population growth, and desire for world government. I disagree, although a belief in climate change will probably prompt more action among those who do love the environment. The others seem to reflect concerns that, if climate change IS true, it will have disproportionate impact on the poor and on developing nations.
> 
> 3) That there's a double standard, in that developed nations must be more sustainable, while poor countries can go on as before. I disagree. The developing world is on track to raise its emissions profile as these states industrialize, and they no less than the U.S. commit aggression by polluting.
> 
> 4) Proper science does not guess about the future. I agree that speculative studies are of little use. But I would in fact be suspicious of most academic and scientific papers that make absolute claims outside of, say, low-level mathematics. As for the scrap about 5% forever, presumably the paper itself specifies a time range. Or, perhaps the percentage is really quite static for a long time. This quotation is a press release, not the actual conclusion.
> 
> 5) Climate scientists keep changing their story. Well, this is how we move forward. At this point, if climate change of some magnitude is inevitable, then it seems logical that we should combine minimization with adaptation.
> ...


 With the UN and Al Gore both involved, you just kinda gotta know it's a scam.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Yeah. I am uncomfortable proposing taxes myself, but view the carbon tax as an exception (thus my avatar). Seems to me it's just like paying damages. Private ownership certainly protects a rainforest better than government ownership from littering, illegal lumbering, waste dumping, etc. But if I'm driving my Hummer hundreds of miles away on the I-95, I'm not depositing a chunk of something on one person's property in a traceable manner,* but aggressing against many, many, many people*. See the blackened architecture in old European cities, for example? Much of that is automobile emissions. Or, a better example, the Gulf oil spill. Yes, perhaps tort reform deals with the latter case. But we probably don't want to haul people into court whenever they put their key in the ignition.


Where is a carbon tax going?  I mean, is it paying the people that are being aggressed against?

----------


## PRB

> With the UN and Al Gore both involved, you just kinda gotta know it's a scam.


they're not involved in research science, so no, the studies are not scams.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> they're not involved in research science, so no, the studies are not scams.


  Who is funding the bulk of the "research science" (so called)?

----------


## green73

78% of the US has been below normal temperature since October 1
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...to-california/

----------


## PRB

> 78% of the US has been below normal temperature since October 1
> http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...to-california/


and which global warming alarmist told you that's not possible?

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> With the UN and Al Gore both involved, you just kinda gotta know it's a scam.


No, I don't. Al Gore is a man who has used fame in order to disseminate information about climate change, and his presentation of it has been challenged on some points. The UN seems completely out of left field.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> Where is a carbon tax going?  I mean, is it paying the people that are being aggressed against?


Actually, that's something with which I've been wrestling. I'd love to hear what others think. On paper, I guess you'd split it up and award damages to people based on the things they own (land, lakes, what have you) that is being polluted. That would be unbelievably, immensely difficult. Impossible, even. So, some options:

1) Revenue-neutral carbon taxation. Cut other taxes.
2) Use of taxes for defense of property--i.e., environmental law enforcement.
3) Build nuclear power plants, then privatize. (probably the least libertarian answer).
4) Pay down the debt.

There are many options, and I'm not certain what my answer would be yet.

What do you guys think? If you're in favor of a carbon tax--or opposed, but can come up with a least-bad use of the revenue (other than, you know, returning the exact amount that each person paid in tax/damages)--I'd be really interested in hearing it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No, I don't. Al Gore is a man who has used fame in order to disseminate information about climate change, and his presentation of it has been challenged on some points. The UN seems completely out of left field.


I'm kinda curious about Al's net worth in 2000 vs. today.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> I'm kinda curious about Al's net worth in 2000 vs. today.


Oh, yeah, he's become very wealthy. A lot of his wealth is from investments in Apple. Then there are his books, which I guess were your point. Again--what Al Gore does is rather irrelevant.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> there's poisons that even if they only make up 1% of your glass of water, they can kill you, so I don't understand the point here.


The point is a simple one. We are talking about greenhouse gasses. Of all greenhouse gases 97% is water vapor, and less than 1% human produced CO2. BOTH are greenhouse gasses, but which one do you think effects the climate more the 97% or the 1%? That is the point.  

  So in your analogy, the whole glass 97% of it, has to be filled with arsenic, and 1% with cyanide. Which of the poisons will be more harmful, the one that filled the whole glass, or the one drop? The answer is the whole glass. And even if you remove the 1% it will make NO discernible difference on the outcome, because BOTH are deadly poisons, and the one which outnumbers the other 97 to 1 will have prevalent effect, rendering the 1% IRRELEVANT.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Actually, that's something with which I've been wrestling. I'd love to hear what others think. On paper, I guess you'd split it up and award damages to people based on the things they own (land, lakes, what have you) that is being polluted. That would be unbelievably, immensely difficult. Impossible, even. So, some options:
> 
> 1) Revenue-neutral carbon taxation. Cut other taxes.
> 2) Use of taxes for defense of property--i.e., environmental law enforcement.
> 3) Build nuclear power plants, then privatize. (probably the least libertarian answer).
> 4) Pay down the debt.
> 
> There are many options, and I'm not certain what my answer would be yet.
> 
> What do you guys think? If you're in favor of a carbon tax--or opposed, but can come up with a least-bad use of the revenue (other than, you know, returning the exact amount that each person paid in tax/damages)--I'd be really interested in hearing it.


You are asking the wrong questions. You are saying, "If unicorns and pigs can fly, should we rob everyone at 15% or 20%?" or "Should we have rape on Tuesdays only or should we add Thursday and Friday too?"

These are wrong questions. There is massive evidence that human produced CO2 which constitutes less than 1% of all greenhouse gases, (the other 97% being water vapor), has NO discernible or significant effect on climate AT ALL! So no aggression has been committed by the producers of CO2, therefore you are NOT justified in using the violence of taxation against them. Thus you are asking WRONG questions.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> You are asking the wrong questions. You are saying, "If unicorns and pigs can fly, should we rob everyone at 15% or 20%?" or "Should we have rape on Tuesdays only or should we add Thursday and Friday too?"
> 
> These are wrong questions. There is massive evidence that human procured CO2 which constitutes less than 1% of all greenhouse gases, (the other 97% being water vapor), has NO discernible or significant effect on climate AT ALL! So no aggression has been committed by the producers of CO2, therefore you are NOT justified in using the violence of taxation against them. Thus you are asking WRONG questions.


I understand. What I hoped to know was, out of curiousity, if there _were_ a tax, would any of those options be more abominable than the others? Any less abominable, even if deeply unjust? Example: rape and speed limits, in theory, are both violations of liberty. But the two are so different in extent as to be incomparable.

If you see literally no difference among the options, that's a valid answer, too. But I'd love to know what people think.

----------


## green73

hehehehe I've been brainwashed since forever $#@! you

----------


## PRB

> I'm kinda curious about Al's net worth in 2000 vs. today.


so how much money does a Holocaust survivor need to make for the Holocaust to be false? How much money does Alex Jones need to have for his conspiracy theory to be bull$#@!? Somehow being rich means you're a liar, right?

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> so how much money does a Holocaust survivor need to make for the Holocaust to be false? How much money does Alex Jones need to have for his conspiracy theory to be bull$#@!? Somehow being rich means you're a liar, right?


Good thing Ron Paul isn't rich, or we'd all be wrong about stuff.

----------


## PRB

> The point is a simple one. We are talking about greenhouse gasses. Of all greenhouse gases 97% is water vapor, and less than 1% human produced CO2. BOTH are greenhouse gasses, but which one do you think effects the climate more the 97% or the 1%? That is the point.  
> 
>   So in your analogy, the whole glass 97% of it, has to be filled with arsenic, and 1% with cyanide. Which of the poisons will be more harmful, the one that filled the whole glass, or the one drop? The answer is the whole glass. And even if you remove the 1% it will make NO discernible difference on the outcome, *because BOTH are deadly poisons,* and the one which outnumbers the other 97 to 1 will have prevalent effect, rendering the 1% IRRELEVANT.


even deadly poisons differ in their toxicity, just as greenhouse gases differ in their greenhouse effect. but all that aside, what's your source that 97% of greenhouse gas is water? and 1% or less is CO2?

----------


## PRB

> Good thing Ron Paul isn't rich, or we'd all be wrong about stuff.


but Peter Schiff is!

----------


## PRB

> You are asking the wrong questions. You are saying, "If unicorns and pigs can fly, should we rob everyone at 15% or 20%?" or "Should we have rape on Tuesdays only or should we add Thursday and Friday too?"
> 
> These are wrong questions. *There is massive evidence that human produced CO2 which constitutes less than 1% of all greenhouse gases,*


Really? Where? Other than your video?




> (the other 97% being water vapor), has NO discernible or significant effect on climate AT ALL! So no aggression has been committed by the producers of CO2, therefore you are NOT justified in using the violence of taxation against them. Thus you are asking WRONG questions.


What is discernible effect?

----------


## parocks

We need water sequestration.  Everybody run a dehumidifier, and grab the water from the air, then fill containers with the water and bury them.

Or, just give money to Goldman Sachs, and they can set up a marketplace where I can say I buried a gallon of water and someone pays me money, and Goldman Sachs takes a cut.  Or, whatever the speicifics, Goldman Sachs gets a cut.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> We need water sequestration.  Everybody run a dehumidifier, and grab the water from the air, then fill containers with the water and bury them.
> 
> Or, just give money to Goldman Sachs, and they can set up a marketplace where I can say I buried a gallon of water and someone pays me money, and Goldman Sachs takes a cut.  Or, whatever the speicifics, Goldman Sachs gets a cut.


While I realize that this was facetious, the latter suggestion illustrates why it would be effectively impossible to perfectly compensate damages on a targeted basis. Hence, my four other ideas.

----------


## parocks

> I know why, because they, like the alarmists and environmentalists, are no more creative in thinking of ways to prepare and remedy, so they are left with 2 choices, global warming is real and therefore let liberals set carbon tax policy, or global warming is not real, therefore no carbon tax. They fail to consider there's 3rd and 4th option, global warming is real but still don't want new taxes, or global warming is not real, and liberals can still think up new ways to tax. 
> 
> so the proper response should be, making it clear that you only care about policy, unless you actually don't.


I'm in the Continental US right now.  20,000 years ago, where I am right now was completely covered by a sheet of ice.  The climate changes all the time,  we didn't cause the glaciers to come or go or come back or leave again.  At all.  If the sea level rises a foot, you move a foot.  If NYC is covered with a sheet of ice, as was the case only 20K years ago, we have much much more severe problems.  Yet, you just move somewhere else.

----------


## parocks

> While I realize that this was facetious, the latter suggestion illustrates why it would be effectively impossible to perfectly compensate damages on a targeted basis. Hence, my four other ideas.


Oh, well I entirely disagree with you.  Being poisoned to solve a fictional problem is something I don't like one bit.  Look at Gore-Tex.  Gore-tex is teflon, it stays in your body for years.  But Gore-tex argues that even though this man-made chemical stays in your body for years, it's actually good for the environment, because you don't have to use as much water to wash it.   I don't want to have man-made chemicals in my body.  Period.  No one knows anything about climate science, but what we do know is that glaciers came and went, right here in the US, with no help from man.  The climate just changes some time.  Adapt to the new climate, whatever it may be.  If it gets cold, Mexico will benefit.  If it gets warm, Canada will benefit.  Just like always.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> Oh, well I entirely disagree with you.  Being poisoned to solve a fictional problem is something I don't like one bit.  Look at Gore-Tex.  Gore-tex is teflon, it stays in your body for years.  But Gore-tex argues that even though this man-made chemical stays in your body for years, it's actually good for the environment, because you don't have to use as much water to wash it.   I don't want to have man-made chemicals in my body.  Period.  No one knows anything about climate science, but what we do know is that glaciers came and went, right here in the US, with no help from man.  The climate just changes some time.  Adapt to the new climate, whatever it may be.  If it gets cold, Mexico will benefit.  If it gets warm, Canada will benefit.  Just like always.


I'm a bit confused. What man-made chemicals are you referring to?

----------


## Weston White

> They don't, you're thinking about deniers who cherry pick.


Climategates I and II.; Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” has been banned in UK schools’; polar bears cannot swim; the polar ice caps are melting (yea just as they have always done and come winter they will again increase); the temperatures are at record highs (yea only because they are surveying temperatures from airport tarmacs, highways, and building rooftops); and the list goes on and on and on.




> Can you?


If they, themselves, cannot, then how would I be able to; let alone you or others for that matter?

The issue to be concerned with is smog pollution and toxic air particulates, neither of which has anything to do with taxing bovines breaking wind or humans exhaling.

This is simply one of the many cogs involved in forging ahead Maurice Strong’s epic scam dubbed “Agenda 21” (now: “sustainable development”, from his  beginnings in 1971), just as is “Common Core” (a scheme largely devised by Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground) another of its cogs addressing education.  The entirety of this program is intended to provide a polite cover while devising the social reengineering of nations into an era of global governance through the sole control of a U.N. like structure.  For such a scam to work the status of first-world nations need to be forcefully descended, while third-world nations are subsequently elevated.


Maurice Strong:




> “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. *It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful.* The global community must be assured of environmental security.”

----------


## green73

I dunno, I could possibly align with the ProIndividual types in wanting to stick a spear through the heart of the $#@!s who display misanthropic $#@! such as this.

----------


## green73

Ok, not really.

----------


## parocks

> I'm a bit confused. What man-made chemicals are you referring to?


http://www.motherjones.com/environme...teflon-forever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

gore tex apparently doesn't use pfoa any more
http://newsroom.gore-tex.eu/en/en_in...ional-fabrics/

----------


## Weston White

> I'm a bit confused. What man-made chemicals are you referring to?


Gore-Tex and Teflon.  By the by, the fumes released from heated Teflon is capable of killing birds, their respiratory system cannot handle the toxins.

----------


## parocks

> Gore-Tex and Teflon.  By the by, the fumes released from heated Teflon is capable of killing birds, their respiratory system cannot handle the toxins.


Is it fairly common for people to be pretty pissed off about all the poisoning that's going on, but thinking that all the talk about global warming or climate change is complete BS?

I'm one of those. 

We know for a fact that the climate has changed massively, recently, and humans have nothing to do with it.  If it's a problem, or not a problem, real, or not real, it's something that we can't do anything about.  How would we have stopped the glaciers?  We didn't cause the glaciers to come and we didn't cause the glaciers to go.

But this poisoning of everything is new.  And I don't like it one bit.  But we aren't talking about whether we want to be poisoned by PFOA, or GMOs, etc etc etc.  That's the problem.  I don't like that one bit, and there's really no Libertarian solution to these problems.  Who can afford to do research to determine which of these bad things are causing your specific harm?  All of this awful crap that we're forced to consume, but what exactly is causing what specific ailment?

----------


## Weston White

> Yeah. I am uncomfortable proposing taxes myself, but view the carbon tax as an exception (thus my avatar). Seems to me it's just like paying damages. Private ownership certainly protects a rainforest better than government ownership from littering, illegal lumbering, waste dumping, etc. But if I'm driving my Hummer hundreds of miles away on the I-95, I'm not depositing a chunk of something on one person's property in a traceable manner, but aggressing against many, many, many people. See the blackened architecture in old European cities, for example? Much of that is automobile emissions. Or, a better example, the Gulf oil spill. Yes, perhaps tort reform deals with the latter case. But we probably don't want to haul people into court whenever they put their key in the ignition.


Carbon taxes are not going to put an end to mishaps, such as tanker spills or prevent another Deepwater Horizon from taking place, if anything they would likely increase such incidents, due to being taxed more and thus compelling companies to cut corners anywhere they can to remain competitive and profitable.

Also you should realize that per the U.S. Constitutionand further substantiated through common law, the government may not impose taxes as a method of punishment or to compel behaviors; ergo, its power of taxation is obliged to generate necessary revenue and no more.

Curiously enough, nobody in this environmental movement is jazzed to address the beneficial aspects of manufacturing and buying locally as a means to reducing the so-called carbon footprint, as opposed to having most of their products and staples shipped in from other nations.  And nobody is calling for federal, state, and local governments to exercise more energy efficiency in their daily activities, work practices, or building and equipment configurations, etc.

----------


## PRB

> Climategates I and II.;


That's exactly what cherry picking is.




> Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth has been banned in UK schools;


A film being allegedly banned in schools means it's untrue? Huh?




> polar bears cannot swim; the polar ice caps are melting (yea just as they have always done and come winter they will again increase);


You can swim too (i'm sure the whole MH370 could too), doesn't mean you can be thrown in water and never rest, not to mention sleep. Yes, come winter it'll increase, but does it always increase at the same rate?




> the temperatures are at record highs (yea only because they are surveying temperatures from airport tarmacs, highways, and building rooftops); and the list goes on and on and on.


Hypocrisy, because you'll use the same temperatures when somebody says temperatures are at some record low. The temperature stations don't move around from season to season to prove a point, they're taken at the same place every day, year, and so on so that differences can be accounted for, and baselines can be drawn.




> If they, themselves, cannot, then how would I be able to; let alone you or others for that matter?


How do you know they can't?

----------


## PRB

> The issue to be concerned with is smog pollution and toxic air particulates, neither of which has anything to do with taxing bovines breaking wind or humans exhaling.


Who's disagreeing with you?

----------


## PRB

> I'm in the Continental US right now.  20,000 years ago, where I am right now was completely covered by a sheet of ice.


Forget 20,000 years ago, forget even 10 years ago. 

How many Katrina and Sandys can you survive? How many would you do nothing in preparation for if you could know about it in advance? How many people died in both hurricanes combined? 




> The climate changes all the time,  we didn't cause the glaciers to come or go or come back or leave again.  At all.  If the sea level rises a foot, you move a foot.  If NYC is covered with a sheet of ice, as was the case only 20K years ago, we have much much more severe problems.  Yet, you just move somewhere else.


What's the more severe problems? Obviously Katrina & Sandy victims mean nothing to you. Hell, I'm sure people died in plane crashes before Malaysia 370 and 9/11 too, what's the point of caring?

----------


## PRB

> Oh, well I entirely disagree with you.  Being poisoned to solve a fictional problem is something I don't like one bit.  Look at Gore-Tex.  Gore-tex is teflon, it stays in your body for years.  But Gore-tex argues that even though this man-made chemical stays in your body for years, it's actually good for the environment, because you don't have to use as much water to wash it.   I don't want to have man-made chemicals in my body.  Period.  No one knows anything about climate science, but what we do know is that glaciers came and went, right here in the US, with no help from man.  The climate just changes some time.  *Adapt to the new climate, whatever it may be.  If it gets cold, Mexico will benefit.  If it gets warm, Canada will benefit.  Just like always.*


Not all first world countries are equipped to deal with climate instability, third world countires will have an even harder time. Adapting to the new climate is great, but denying it's happening won't help you adapt. You want to only react? Are you not the same person who thinks you must have stock piles of canned food and guns because the apocalypse is coming?

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> Carbon taxes are not going to put an end to mishaps, such as tanker spills or prevent another Deepwater Horizon from taking place, if anything they would likely increase such incidents, due to being taxed more and thus compelling companies to cut corners anywhere they can to remain competitive and profitable.
> 
> Also you should realize that per the U.S. Constitution—and further substantiated through common law, the government may not impose taxes as a method of punishment or to compel behaviors; ergo, its power of taxation is obliged to generate necessary revenue and no more.
> 
> Curiously enough, nobody in this environmental movement is jazzed to address the beneficial aspects of manufacturing and buying locally as a means to reducing the so-called “carbon footprint”, as opposed to having most of their products and staples shipped in from other nations.  And nobody is calling for federal, state, and local governments to exercise more energy efficiency in their daily activities, work practices, or building and equipment configurations, etc.


I personally would not imagine more emissions if companies pay damages for their emissions. If you raise the minimum wage, a firm can afford to hire fewer workers. If you make emitters pay for damages, business becomes more expensive, so less production. _But_--and this is an important "but"--it means that cutting emissions _is_
cutting corners. So goes my thinking.

Thank you for addressing the constitutionality of carbon taxation. I suppose, then, if it were to be done, it would have to be "carbon damages," to be paid to those on the receiving end of the pollution--allocated, I suppose, at some rate per hectare. It might be argued that changing the name is irrelevant, but the concept, to begin with, seems more akin to damages than taxation.

On your other observation, I don't know about your neck of the woods, but those sustainability-oriented people I know are very much into local consumption. Shipping and transportation really takes its toll. I don't know if there is a lot of outcry about government energy efficiency, but I agree, on both environmental and fiscal grounds. Problem is...efficiency renovations cost money. Having said that, it seems the federal government has a program to cut their emissions, signed into law by George W. Bush. https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...or-renovations

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Thank you for addressing the constitutionality of carbon taxation. I suppose, then, if it were to be done, it would have to be "carbon damages," to be paid to those on the receiving end of the pollution--allocated, I suppose, at some rate per hectare. It might be argued that changing the name is irrelevant, but the concept, to begin with, seems more akin to damages than taxation.


What damages? You are still asking wrong questions, then acknowledge and agree that you are asking the wrong questions, and then turn around and say "but if I went ahead and asked the wrong question what...." and then proceed to ask the wrong question again.

It is the WRONG question. There is no proof of ANY damage whatsoever. Therefore there is no basis for using violence AT ALL.


Stop promoting Rothchild's fraud! Are you getting paid for this Mr. "I love Carbon Tax?" Even your avatar says it all!

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> What damages? You are still asking wrong questions, then acknowledge and agree that you are asking the wrong questions, and then turn around and say "but if I went ahead and asked the wrong question what...." and then proceed to ask the wrong question again.
> 
> It is the WRONG question. There is no proof of ANY damage whatsoever. Therefore there is no basis for using violence AT ALL.
> 
> 
> Stop promoting Rothchild's fraud! Are you getting paid for this Mr. "I love Carbon Tax?" Even your avatar says it all!


Oh, yeah. I'm making the big bucks on this. That last post alone netted me a $25,000 from the Illuminati. In seriousness, though, by damages, I refer to the cost of removing or counteracting carbon emissions (like spilling wine on someone's shirt, and paying for the cost of dry-cleaning or a new shirt). I understand how someone could be opposed to a carbon tax. But to argue that the great business interests of the world are in favor of such taxes seems much less likely than the contrary. As for whether it is damaging, I am not a climate scientist, and so I defer to the broad consensus (not to say unanimity) of the climate science community.

On a side note, I feel that it is rather unhealthy to reject differences of opinion as indications that posters somehow on the take from conspiratorial actors. I certainly don't believe that you're being paid by a coal company.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Actually, that's something with which I've been wrestling. I'd love to hear what others think. On paper, I guess you'd split it up and award damages to people based on the things they own (land, lakes, what have you) that is being polluted. That would be unbelievably, immensely difficult. Impossible, even. So, some options:
> 
> 1) Revenue-neutral carbon taxation. Cut other taxes.
> 2) Use of taxes for defense of property--i.e., environmental law enforcement.
> 3) Build nuclear power plants, then privatize. (probably the least libertarian answer).
> 4) Pay down the debt.
> 
> There are many options, and I'm not certain what my answer would be yet.
> 
> What do you guys think? If you're in favor of a carbon tax--or opposed, but can come up with a least-bad use of the revenue (other than, you know, returning the exact amount that each person paid in tax/damages)--I'd be really interested in hearing it.

----------


## Danke

> But to argue that the great business interests of the world are in favor of such taxes seems much less likely than the contrary.


Big business lobbies for regulations and taxes to hurt small business and to get others from getting into competing business in the first place.  They can then pass alone any costs to the consumer and don't have the competition eating into they profits.  An incompetent manager (which we have a surplus of these days) loves taxes and regulations, doesn't need to be efficient in a laissez faire market place.

----------


## parocks

> Forget 20,000 years ago, forget even 10 years ago. 
> 
> How many Katrina and Sandys can you survive? How many would you do nothing in preparation for if you could know about it in advance? How many people died in both hurricanes combined? 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the more severe problems? Obviously Katrina & Sandy victims mean nothing to you. Hell, I'm sure people died in plane crashes before Malaysia 370 and 9/11 too, what's the point of caring?


If you could shoot an arrow that's attached to a long wire up in the air and break the thing that's making the weather, you might have a point, sorta, but the weather doesn't work like that.

Pretty sure that there are destructive hurricanes every single year, and there always have been.  There is weather.  Weather exists.

----------


## parocks

> Not all first world countries are equipped to deal with climate instability, third world countires will have an even harder time. Adapting to the new climate is great, but denying it's happening won't help you adapt. You want to only react? Are you not the same person who thinks you must have stock piles of canned food and guns because the apocalypse is coming?


You haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying on this matter.  "Are you not the same person ..."?  You haven't read me saying anything like that here.  You have me confused with someone else.

Glaciers come, glaciers go, we have nothing to do with that.  Weather changes all the time, everybody knows this.  For the people who live in the Northeast US, it's helpful to property values that their land isn't covered by a thick sheet of ice, like it was before, than it wasn't, than it was again, then not again.

Yup, there are always winners and losers when the glaciers come, but we didn't cause the glaciers to come and go, and we can't do anything about them.  Warmer is better than colder for those folks who would be covered by ice when it's colder.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Oh, yeah. I'm making the big bucks on this. That last post alone netted me a $25,000 from the Illuminati.


Maybe not directly from Illuminati but from their lackeys, and maybe not $25k per post but an addition to your paycheck. At least you admitted that you sold out. You are on the wrong side.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> Maybe not directly from Illuminati but from their lackeys, and maybe not $25k per post but an addition to your paycheck. At least you admitted that you sold out. You are on the wrong side.


Yeah, my real job is posting "FIRST!!" comments on YouTube.

----------


## PRB

> Yup, there are always winners and losers when the glaciers come, but we didn't cause the glaciers to come and go, and we can't do anything about them.  Warmer is better than colder for those folks who would be covered by ice when it's colder.


do you know who will be the winners and losers? are you prepared to be a loser in any situation? there's a difference between stopping the effect and preparing for it.

----------


## parocks

> do you know who will be the winners and losers? are you prepared to be a loser in any situation? there's a difference between stopping the effect and preparing for it.


Yeah, if colder - Mexico, if warmer, Canada.  

There isn't any way to stop the effect.  Remember.  GLACIERS.  It just happened.

----------


## PRB

> Yeah, if colder - Mexico, if warmer, Canada.  
> 
> There isn't any way to stop the effect.  Remember.  GLACIERS.  It just happened.


you assume it's only and always that simple, never droughts, floods, hurricanes...let's tell Sandy and Katrina people to just move. What's so hard about that?

----------


## parocks



----------


## parocks

> you assume it's only and always that simple, never droughts, floods, hurricanes...let's tell Sandy and Katrina people to just move. What's so hard about that?


There have ALWAYS been Hurricanes.  There has always been weather.  But people are smart enough to figure out where the dangerous places are.  They're smart enough to figure out that places below sea level are dangerous, that you aren't in the safest possible place of your property is being hit by waves.  Etc., etc.

----------


## PRB

> There have ALWAYS been Hurricanes.  There has always been weather.  But people are smart enough to figure out where the dangerous places are.  *They're smart enough to figure out that places below sea level are dangerous, that you aren't in the safest possible place of your property is being hit by waves.  Etc., etc.*


and people have always been murdered, therefore we should act like it never happens or do nothing to prepare and respond?

Meaning, people who live near oceans just deserve what came to them, because they're too stupid to know it's dangerous, right?

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

> All of the planets in the solar system were experiencing global warming. It's because of solar flare activity.


Sources?

----------


## Dr.3D

> The fact we're having one of our worst droughts in history doesn't at least make some of think maybe something IS wrong?

----------


## PRB

> Sources?


evidence is for Fascists, freedom lovers are immune to facts. you DO notice that you can't spell FAsCisT without FACT, right?

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

> evidence is for Fascists, freedom lovers are immune to facts. you DO notice that you can't spell FAsCisT without FACT, right?


I find it hard to believe any of the claims from either side.

----------


## PRB

> I find it hard to believe any of the claims from either side.


I don't, I'm a slave to evidence.

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

> I don't, I'm a slave to evidence.


Where do you get your evidence (legitimately curious)

----------


## PRB

> Where do you get your evidence (legitimately curious)


Among other means: Scientists who carry out studies and are not afraid of people who will check their work, prove them wrong, and disagree with them by producing better studies. 

Also : direct observation and repeated testing (personally).

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Among other means: Scientists who carry out studies and are not afraid of people who will check their work, prove them wrong, and disagree with them by producing better studies. 
> 
> Also : direct observation and repeated testing (personally).


PRB's goal is to sow "cognitive dissonance" as mandated by Cass Sunstein, Obama’s propaganda czar. He has no logical or scientific facts supporting him, he just uses pure half-baked verbiage volume to create the illusion of vigorous and reasonable support for globalist’s carbon tax scheme.

He cannot address key evidence because he cannot disprove them, so he avoids them. He cannot answer how less than 1% of greenhouse gases in the form of human produced CO2 can be MORE important in effecting the climate than the other 99% percent of which 97% is water vapor.

And yes, the population of polar bears is exploding. (Polar bear populations have increased roughly five-fold in the last 50 years.)

I guess your handle stands for Payed Rothchild Bamboozler (PRB). Time to get a new one... Remember, you get paid for this...

----------


## PRB

> PRB's goal is to sow "cognitive dissonance" as mandated by Cass Sunstein, Obama’s propaganda czar. He has no logical or scientific facts supporting him, he just uses pure half-baked verbiage volume to create the illusion of vigorous and reasonable support for globalist’s carbon tax scheme


I never said I wanted any tax scheme, and I'm not the one who can't even back up the claim that water vapor is 97% of all greenhouse gases.




> He cannot answer how less than 1% of greenhouse gases in the form of human produced CO2 can be MORE important in effecting the climate than the other 99% percent of which 97% is water vapor.


I can't answer something I've not accepted yet, so how about we first establish that as being true. Starting with you?

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

Well, this is why CO2 is important:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/wate...nhouse-gas.htm
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/24/...reenhouse-gas/

Scientists recognize that water vapor is by far the most abundant "greenhouse gas". But scientists focus on CO2 because increases in CO2 will have a warming effect, and the warming effect then causes more water vapor to be in the atmosphere, causing even further warming. Controlling CO2 levels can indirectly control water vapor levels.

----------


## PRB

> Well, this is why CO2 is important:
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/wate...nhouse-gas.htm
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/24/...reenhouse-gas/
> 
> Scientists recognize that water vapor is by far the most abundant "greenhouse gas". But scientists focus on CO2 because increases in CO2 will have a warming effect, and the warming effect then causes more water vapor to be in the atmosphere, causing even further warming. Controlling CO2 levels can indirectly control water vapor levels.


1. abundance by weight, mass or effect?
2. not to mention phase changes for water greatly reduce the amount of heat retention time
3. that doesn't answer the question "so why don't we tax water?" wouldn't it make sense that if we tax and reduce water vapor, we'd have a greater effect on controlling climate? (NOT)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I never said I wanted any tax scheme, and I'm not the one who can't even back up the claim that water vapor is 97% of all greenhouse gases.
> 
> I can't answer something I've not accepted yet, so how about we first establish that as being true. Starting with you?


*TABLE 4a.* *Anthropogenic (*man-made*) Contribution to the "Greenhouse*
*Effect," expressed as % of Total (water   vapor INCLUDED)*  Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention   characteristics
   % of Greenhouse Effect
  % Natural
  % Man-made

   Water vapor
  95.000%
   94.999%
 *0.001%*

   Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
  3.618%
   3.502%
 *0.117%*

   Methane (CH4)
  0.360%
   0.294%
 *0.066%* 

   Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
  0.950%
   0.903%
 *0.047%*

   Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)
  0.072%
   0.025%
 *0.047%*

   Total
  100.00%
 *99.72*
 *0.28%*



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Pay close attention to the detailed sources for the numbers at the end of the page.


“*Water vapor accounts for about 97 percent of the  total (natural plus man-emitted) greenhouse warming of the planet.* See,  e.g., John Houghton's ‘_The Physics of Atmospheres_, 3rd edition,’  Cambridge University Press, 2002.”


*Why is Water Vapour, the Most Important Greenhouse Gas, Ignored?*
by Dr. Tim Ball on May 4, 2011

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Well, this is why CO2 is important:
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/wate...nhouse-gas.htm
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/24/...reenhouse-gas/
> 
> Scientists recognize that water vapor is by far the most abundant "greenhouse gas". But scientists focus on CO2 because increases in CO2 will have a warming effect, and the warming effect then causes more water vapor to be in the atmosphere, causing even further warming. Controlling CO2 levels can indirectly control water vapor levels.


That is a mistake. Water vapor is more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and as water vapor outnumbers CO2 50 to 1, it (water vapor) is the controlling factor in this equation, and not CO2, just like tennis ball bouncing in a trunk of a car is NOT controlling and decisive factor in the speed and direction of the vehicle, so is human produced CO2, even if it was COMPLETELY eliminated, is NOT the controlling and decisive factor for global climate. In other words, the positive feedback loop of water vapor, you described, is much more effected by water vapor.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> "Scientists recognize that water vapor is by far the most abundant 'greenhouse gas'."
> 1. abundance by weight, mass or effect?


Both.



> 2. not to mention phase changes for water greatly reduce the amount of heat retention time


Irrelevant and false. Heat is "retained" in the Earth atmosphere REGARDLESS of any phase changes of water, as long as this heat is not radiated away from the planet. That is the law of preservation of energy, a fundamental law of physics. 




> 3. that doesn't answer the question "so why don't we tax water?" wouldn't it make sense that if we tax and reduce water vapor, we'd have a greater effect on controlling climate? (NOT)


You have ZERO right to tax anyone's property but your own, just like you have ZERO right to rape or to rob anyone. Learn that.

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

> That is a mistake. Water vapor is more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and as water vapor outnumbers CO2 50 to 1, it (water vapor) is the controlling factor in this equation, and not CO2, just like tennis ball bouncing in a trunk of a car is NOT controlling and decisive factor in the speed and direction of the vehicle, so is human produced CO2, even if it was COMPLETELY eliminated, is NOT the controlling and decisive factor for global climate. In other words, the positive feedback loop of water vapor, you described, is much more effected by water vapor.


Sources?

Here's mine http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Sources?
> 
> Here's mine http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142


The source is irrelevant. The conclusion is demonstrably false no matter the source.

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

> The source is irrelevant. The conclusion is demonstrably false no matter the source.


Sorry but I refuse to believe what someone says about something as complicated as climate science on an internet forum if they don't have some evidence for their claims.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Sorry but I refuse to believe what someone says about something as complicated as climate science on an internet forum if they don't have some evidence for their claims.


The evidence and proof was given in detail in preceding posts. If you cannot find the proof on the previous page let me know, but I don't feel like repeating the same thing every 2 posts.

Start here.

Thanks.

----------


## PRB

> Both.


I meant to ask weight, or volume, which you clearly don't understand and are wrong on

If your table is anything to go by, it's your answer. 

As it states, of water vapor, 0.001% is man made vs CO2 0.117%

----------


## PRB

> *TABLE 4a.* *Anthropogenic (*man-made*) Contribution to the "Greenhouse*
> *Effect," expressed as % of Total (water   vapor INCLUDED)* 
> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
> Pay close attention to the detailed sources for the numbers at the end of the page.
> 
> 
> “*Water vapor accounts for about 97 percent of the  total (natural plus man-emitted) greenhouse warming of the planet.* See,  e.g., John Houghton's ‘_The Physics of Atmospheres_, 3rd edition,’  Cambridge University Press, 2002.”
> 
> 
> ...



then I realized you cited Ball & Singer, while better than nothing, try to follow their argument. 


If water vapor is almost all natural, where as CO2 is NOT. 


What does that mean? Either global warming has always been the result of naturally occurring water vapor, or it's a recent phenomena.


It can't be a recent phenomena, which would defy the definition of "natural" and always abundant, and global warming has been established as a fact. 


Therefore, if global warming is an established fact, and is a recent phenomena, it can only be due to other factors. That's for starters. 


Water vapor, not droplets, are measured in contribution to greenhouse effect, but why is it "ignored"? because water vapor not only doesn't increase from human activity, but also cycles through condensation, a phase change you and so called "skeptics" seem to always ignore.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

CO2 is a very heavy gas, and is therefore found mostly hugging close to the surface of the Earth, enriching plant growth and feeding the biological life cycle, rather than in the upper atmosphere causing greenhouse warming. CO2 makes up less than .05% of the atmosphere, it is a "trace gas". In fact all current theories posed by global warming alarmists necessitate CO2 stimulating an increase in water vapor (somehow) or else catastrophic warming is not achieved. This sort of effect would indicate that the Earth is not homeostatic, and instead is susceptible to "runaway warming". 

This claim is not backed up by the facts however, since we know that during the Mesozoic Era (dino times) CO2 levels were 6 times higher than today, and the planet was a lush tropical paradise teeming with biodiversity. Life LOVES warm, and wet, it is no coincidence that the Rainforest is flourishing with life and thousands of different species, whereas the polar regions are barren wastelands with only a few species scratching a subsistence survival on ice. 

Also, keep in mind that the amount of life which is possible, is constrained by the amount of Carbon in the system (we are made of Carbon). The more Carbon there is on the surface of the planet, the more Carbon is available for biomass. Over time, much of the Carbon in the environment has been trapped underground by geologic forces. Humans are now starting to release some of that "trapped" Carbon (in the form of HydroCarbons; oil) back into the environment. What we will see then is that Carbon will be absorbed by plants and injected into the ecosystem where it will again be held as biomass. This will lead to more densely packed biological systems (more life per square meter).

----------


## PRB

> This claim is not backed up by the facts however, since we know that during the Mesozoic Era (dino times) CO2 levels were 6 times higher than today


irrelevant, since you wouldn't live in that era, nor did humans, assuming the Bible isn't true and the world isn't 6000 years old.

----------


## PRB

> Life LOVES warm, and wet, it is no coincidence that the Rainforest is flourishing with life and thousands of different species, whereas the polar regions are barren wastelands with only a few species scratching a subsistence survival on ice.


rather than dry desert or completely in water. It's nice of you to care about life, but I believe we're talking about humans, which is a fraction of the Earth's life, the only topic that matters now, and only suitable to live in limited areas of the Earth.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I meant to ask weight, or volume, which you clearly don't understand and are wrong on


It is you who clearly do not understand. And if you understand then you are intentionally spinning wheels, going over the same things I have already specifically answered to you no less.

But I understand, your trolling gets paid by the post.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Either global warming has always been the result of naturally occurring water vapor, or it's a recent phenomena.
> 
> *It can't be a recent phenomena*, which would defy the definition of "natural" and always abundant, and global warming has been established as a fact. Therefore, if global warming is an established fact, and *is a recent  phenomena*, it can only be due to other factors. That's for starters.


You have just contradicted yourself. Global climate change cannot be both recent and non-recent phenomena. These are mutually exclusive. It is either one or the other. 

The fact that it is NOT a recent phenomena (as you yourself agreed in the first part of your self-contradictory statement) but is a cycle observed over thousands of years, does NOT defy the definition of "natural."  Learn English for starters. You are getting paid for it after all (troll).




> Water vapor... cycles through condensation, a phase change you and so called "skeptics" seem to always ignore.


You do not understand the law of preservation of energy, a fundamental law of physics. Once energy is trapped in the atmosphere it remains on the earth, regardless of phase changes, until it is radiated into outer space. So learn physics. That would be for "seconds."

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> CO2 is a very heavy gas, and is therefore found mostly hugging close to the surface of the Earth, enriching plant growth and feeding the biological life cycle, rather than in the upper atmosphere causing greenhouse warming. CO2 makes up less than .05% of the atmosphere, it is a "trace gas". In fact all current theories posed by global warming alarmists necessitate CO2 stimulating an increase in water vapor (somehow) or else catastrophic warming is not achieved. This sort of effect would indicate that the Earth is not homeostatic, and instead is susceptible to "runaway warming". 
> 
> This claim is not backed up by the facts however, since we know that during the Mesozoic Era (dino times) CO2 levels were 6 times higher than today, and the planet was a lush tropical paradise teeming with biodiversity. Life LOVES warm, and wet, it is no coincidence that the Rainforest is flourishing with life and thousands of different species, whereas the polar regions are barren wastelands with only a few species scratching a subsistence survival on ice. 
> 
> Also, keep in mind that the amount of life which is possible, is constrained by the amount of Carbon in the system (we are made of Carbon). The more Carbon there is on the surface of the planet, the more Carbon is available for biomass. Over time, much of the Carbon in the environment has been trapped underground by geologic forces. Humans are now starting to release some of that "trapped" Carbon (in the form of HydroCarbons; oil) back into the environment. What we will see then is that Carbon will be absorbed by plants and injected into the ecosystem where it will again be held as biomass. This will lead to more densely packed biological systems (more life per square meter).


Brilliant.

----------


## PRB

> You have just contradicted yourself. Global climate change cannot be both recent and non-recent phenomena. These are mutually exclusive. It is either one or the other.


I was referring to 2 different things, one being global warming and the other being water vapor's abundance.

----------


## PRB

> You do not understand the law of preservation of energy, a fundamental law of physics. Once energy is trapped in the atmosphere it remains on the earth, regardless of phase changes, until it is radiated into outer space. So learn physics. That would be for "seconds."


So what happens when snow or rain falls? Does heat radiate into outer space? or is there another explanation for why temperatures drop on Earth's surface? Atmosphere isn't the only part of the earth which changes temperature. Not all heat (or energy for the matter) is trapped and transferred the same way.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> So what happens when snow or rain falls? Does heat radiate into outer space? or is there another explanation for why temperatures drop on Earth's surface? Atmosphere isn't the only part of the earth which changes temperature. Not all heat (or energy for the matter) is trapped and transferred the same way.


Whichever way it is trapped, it is trapped, regardless of phase changes. It remains on the earth until it is radiated off the planet.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

After some research, it does seem that Foundation_Of Liberty is partially correct, but may be drawing the wrong conclusions. Water vapor does indeed constitute all but a sliver of GHGs in the atmosphere by mass. Water vapor is also responsible for something like 60% of the greenhouse effect. Of course, then, we should be most concerned about reducing water vapor in the atmosphere, but we're not emitting it.

Sort of.

We don't emit water vapor from our tailpipes, but the emissions that humans do produce have a lesser effect upon the composition of the atmosphere. That effect tends toward trapping more heat, although from what I've read the relationship is not necessarily perfectly linear. Warmer air will hold more water vapor, which means that water vapor has a very important "multiplier effect" of sorts that make the environment quite sensitive to carbon emissions that might represent a tiny sliver of GHGs in the atmosphere. Determining the precise magnitude of that effect is a challenge that the scientific community appears to still be working on.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-sensitivity/
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2...fect-works.php
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...han-predicted/

----------


## PRB

> Whichever way it is trapped, it is trapped, regardless of phase changes. It remains on the earth until it is radiated off the planet.


energy doesn't behave like humans, escaping doesn't always happen the way it was trapped.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> After some research, it does seem that Foundation_Of Liberty is partially correct, but may be drawing the wrong conclusions. Water vapor does indeed constitute all but a sliver of GHGs in the atmosphere by mass. Water vapor is also responsible for something like 60% of the greenhouse effect. Of course, then, we should be most concerned about reducing water vapor in the atmosphere, but we're not emitting it.
> 
> Sort of.
> 
> We don't emit water vapor from our tailpipes, but the emissions that humans do produce have a lesser effect upon the composition of the atmosphere. That effect tends toward trapping more heat, although from what I've read the relationship is not necessarily perfectly linear. Warmer air will hold more water vapor, which means that water vapor has a very important "multiplier effect" of sorts that make the environment quite sensitive to carbon emissions that might represent a tiny sliver of GHGs in the atmosphere. Determining the precise magnitude of that effect is a challenge that the scientific community appears to still be working on.
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-sensitivity/
> http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2...fect-works.php
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...han-predicted/


First of all if "the scientific community appears to still be working on" how much human CO2 impacts the water vapor, what gives them right to point gun at everybody demanding a carbon tax, which you even put into your avatar: "I <3 Carbon Tax."

Secondly, the environment is MUCH more sensitive to water vapor emissions than to human produced CO2 emissions, because water vapor (a more potent greenhouse gas) outnumbers human produced CO2 about 100 to 1 in quantity. So water vapor drives the production of water vapor 100 times more, than the CO2 drives the production of water vapor. Thus, water vapor has 100 times greater "multiplier effect" on water vapor, and therefore on overall greenhouse gasses, than human produced CO2. 

I say it again: even if *ALL* human produced CO2 was COMPLETELY removed, it would not have any substantial effect on global climate, because global climate is driven by much more powerful factors such as water vapor and the Sun.

The human-produced-CO2-driving-global-climate-scam is just that, a fraud perpetrated by Rothchild's and the globalists to deceive the population into a world wide taxation scheme, and tyranny. 

It is a blatant FRAUD, and you are promoting it.

----------


## PRB

> After some research, it does seem that Foundation_Of Liberty is partially correct, but may be drawing the wrong conclusions. Water vapor does indeed constitute all but a sliver of GHGs in the atmosphere by mass. Water vapor is also responsible for something like 60% of the greenhouse effect. Of course, then, we should be most concerned about reducing water vapor in the atmosphere, but we're not emitting it.


Not so fast, not unless we first establish that we're responsible for increasing it, to the point of where we're increasing GHG effect, which is exactly what's established for CO2.

----------


## PRB

> First of all if "the scientific community appears to still be working on" how much human CO2 impacts the water vapor, what gives them right to point gun at everybody demanding a carbon tax, which you even put into your avatar: "I <3 Carbon Tax."


You want my answer, here you go : *NOBODY HAS ANY RIGHT TO TAX ANYBODY FOR ANYTHING FOR ANY REASON.* Happy now? 

So can we go back to talking about actual science or are you still obsessed with taxes as if without taxes you wouldn't care?

----------


## PRB

> Secondly, the environment is MUCH more sensitive to water vapor emissions than to human produced CO2 emissions, because water vapor (a more potent greenhouse gas) outnumbers human produced CO2 about 100 to 1 in quantity.


No, that's exactly why it NOT as sensitive to water vapor. *facepalm* What is quantity? Mass or volume or molecular concentration?

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> First of all if "the scientific community appears to still be working on" how much human CO2 impacts the water vapor, what gives them right to point gun at everybody demanding a carbon tax, which you even put into your avatar: "I <3 Carbon Tax."
> 
> Secondly, the environment is MUCH more sensitive to water vapor emissions than to human produced CO2 emissions, because water vapor (a more potent greenhouse gas) outnumbers human produced CO2 about 100 to 1 in quantity. So water vapor drives the production of water vapor 100 times more, than the CO2 drives the production of water vapor. Thus, water vapor has 100 times greater "multiplier effect" on water vapor, and therefore on overall greenhouse gasses, than human produced CO2. 
> 
> I say it again: even if *ALL* human produced CO2 was COMPLETELY removed, it would not have any substantial effect on global climate, because global climate is driven by much more powerful factors such as water vapor and the Sun.
> 
> The human-produced-CO2-driving-global-climate-scam is just that, a fraud perpetrated by Rothchild's and the globalists to deceive the population into a world wide taxation scheme, and tyranny. 
> 
> It is a blatant FRAUD, and you are promoting it.


To answer the first question, the pricing of carbon emissions is a question that would require some estimation of the damage done per unit of emission. I'm not sure how to weigh the damage of, say, tailpipe emissions to the Pantheon, versus the burning of charcoal briquettes. I think that the owners of a property such as the Pantheon (the Roman municipal government, I suppose) should receive recompense for the damage done to their property. I feel that this is on much firmer ground than, say, income taxation, which is simply confiscatory rather than compensatory.

It doesn't seem to be the _production_ of water vapor that is at issue so much as the retention of it in the atmosphere for longer periods of time, and greater cloud formation. As you say, water vapor probably has a great deal of momentum as a GHG--that is to say, it both pushes up heat retention, and can be held in greater quantities by warm air. Of course, we aren't acting in a vacuum, and our behavior interacts with natural processes to shape the environment. But I'm not sure what to make of the argument that water vapor is a greater multiplier on water vapor retention, as the statement that there is more water vapor in the atmosphere because there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, and do not see how this answer can be satisfactory.

Global climate may be determined in greater part by the energy input of the Sun, or by the heat-trapping effect of water vapor, but anthropogenic input does not need to be in the majority here. It only has to be enough to throw something into a complex system.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> To answer the first question, the pricing of carbon emissions is a question that would require some estimation of the damage done per unit of emission. I'm not sure how to weigh the damage of, say, tailpipe emissions to the  Pantheon, versus the burning of charcoal briquettes. I think that the  owners of a property such as the Pantheon (the Roman municipal  government, I suppose) should receive recompense for the damage done to  their property. I feel that this is on much firmer ground than, say,  income taxation, which is simply confiscatory rather than compensatory.


Damage as a function of human produced CO2 via climate change is unprovable and therefore seeking compensation for these "damages" is unjust. In fact there is massive evidence that plant and animal life blossoms when there is 10 times MORE CO2 in the atmosphere. In any event, if "damage" via climate change cannot be directly linked to human CO2, because as we demonstrated it is MASSIVELY outweighed into negligibility by water vapor, no force is justified against CO2 producers on this basis. Period. You might as well say that by singing certain songs in his house, your neighbor is causing crop failures and then precede to use violence against him without any proof. You should first obtain an irrefutable proof of damages caused by your neighbor, and only then contemplate the punishment. You put the whole thing on its head, and you are not justified in it, as you promote a very dangerous and damnable fraud, that may lead to deaths of millions of people and to world tyranny, seeing that you still have in your avatar "I <3 Carbon Tax." You might as well put "I <3 rape" or "I <3 plunder", or "I <3 robbing people because they sing songs I don't like" or anything to this effect.

Again, there is exactly ZERO conclusive proof that human produced CO2 is causing ANY damage via climate change. It is a LIE. Deal with the LIE first, then there will be no need to discuss the reparations for non-existing damages that your neighbor did not cause. You are doing the reverse. It is immoral and wrong.




> But I'm not sure what to make of the argument that water vapor is a greater multiplier on water vapor retention, as the statement that there is more water vapor in the atmosphere because there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, and do not see how this answer can be satisfactory.


It is very simple. Water vapor is a potent GHG. Because it outnumbers human produce CO2 about 100 to 1, it is 100 times more potent in the positive feedback loop then CO2. In fact, even if ALL human produce CO2 was taken out of equation, it would produce no significant effect at all on global temperature changes. So yes, since we are talking about positive feedback loops where some quantity of GHG causes more GHG, water is 100 times more powerful player in such a feedback than human produced CO2.




> Global climate may be determined in greater part by the energy input of the Sun, or by the heat-trapping effect of water vapor, but anthropogenic input does not need to be in the majority here. It only has to be enough to throw something into a complex system.


What is more important in a stability of a van: 300 pound box, or a 3 pound box?

----------


## PRB

> Damage as a function of human produced CO2 via climate change is unprovable


Unproven or unprovable? Unprovable means you admit you're close minded to the possibility.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> "Damage as a function of human produced CO2 via climate change is unprovable"
> 
> Unproven or unprovable? Unprovable means you admit you're close minded to the possibility.


It is both unproven and unprovable, because you cannot prove a lie.

----------


## PRB

> It is both unproven and unprovable, because you cannot prove a lie.


Actually you can prove a lie, what you can't prove is a physical or logical impossibility.

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> Damage as a function of human produced CO2 via climate change is unprovable and therefore seeking compensation for these "damages" is unjust. In fact there is massive evidence that plant and animal life blossoms when there is 10 times MORE CO2 in the atmosphere. In any event, if "damage" via climate change cannot be directly linked to human CO2, because as we demonstrated it is MASSIVELY outweighed into negligibility by water vapor, no force is justified against CO2 producers on this basis. Period. You might as well say that by singing certain songs in his house, your neighbor is causing crop failures and then precede to use violence against him without any proof. You should first obtain an irrefutable proof of damages caused by your neighbor, and only then contemplate the punishment. You put the whole thing on its head, and you are not justified in it, as you promote a very dangerous and damnable fraud, that may lead to deaths of millions of people and to world tyranny, seeing that you still have in your avatar "I <3 Carbon Tax." You might as well put "I <3 rape" or "I <3 plunder", or "I <3 robbing people because they sing songs I don't like" or anything to this effect.
> 
> Again, there is exactly ZERO conclusive proof that human produced CO2 is causing ANY damage via climate change. It is a LIE. Deal with the LIE first, then there will be no need to discuss the reparations for non-existing damages that your neighbor did not cause. You are doing the reverse. It is immoral and wrong.
> 
> It is very simple. Water vapor is a potent GHG. Because it outnumbers human produce CO2 about 100 to 1, it is 100 times more potent in the positive feedback loop then CO2. In fact, even if ALL human produce CO2 was taken out of equation, it would produce no significant effect at all on global temperature changes. So yes, since we are talking about positive feedback loops where some quantity of GHG causes more GHG, water is 100 times more powerful player in such a feedback than human produced CO2.
> 
> What is more important in a stability of a van: 300 pound box, or a 3 pound box?


First of all, I feel that I am trying to speak courteously, and would ask the same courtesy from you. 

I am not arguing about the relative significance of the effects of CO2 and water vapor, because what I am suggesting is that there is positive feedback between them. That is to say that there is considerable support for a causal link between CO2 emissions and the concentration of other gasses, principally water vapor, in the atmosphere. No, there is not yet irrefutable proof. Often, theories are proposed to explain associations, and time passes before a theory can be empirically confirmed or refuted. My personal inclination is to trust the prevailing opinion among climate scientists. I trust that they, as individuals and as a community, are far better acquainted with the merits of different positions. For example, I am not certain as to whether one greenhouse gas is the same as another, once in the atmosphere, with respect to the greenhouse effect. (Certainly, it is quite different when it rains back down again, but acid rain is another matter.)

As to the final question, the three-hundred pounder. But I don't feel that that analogy is appropriate. I would suggest thinking about an orchestra. The violin is probably more important than the metal triangle. But if the triangle player starts going nuts, he/she can still screw up a performance. To put it another way, let's say a theoretical lever is perfectly balanced, with a three-hundred pound block in each pan. If I throw a small weight in either pan, it represents little of the material on the lever. But the equilibrium is upset, and the blocks will fall out of balance.

----------


## PRB

> First of all, I feel that I am trying to speak courteously, and would ask the same courtesy from you.


He's already decided man made global warming is a hoax and "unprovable". So don't expect him to be courteous, a conspiracy already decided you're either too stupid to think for yourself, or are paid to do the enemy's work.

----------


## PRB

> I am not arguing about the relative significance of the effects of CO2 and water vapor, because what I am suggesting is that there is positive feedback between them.


Doesn't matter, because he'll either not understand it or pretend not to understand it. He's already made up his mind that he's right and you're wrong and you can never change his mind.

----------


## PRB

> It is both unproven and unprovable, because you cannot prove a lie.


1. It's natural variation!
2. It can't be caused by man
3. Computer models don't work
4. It's cooling

Sorry, all dead here
http://link.springer.com/article/10....382-014-2128-2
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0411153453.htm

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Actually you can prove a lie, what you can't prove is a physical or logical impossibility.


Is proving a lie your mission here? You cannot prove that which is false to be true.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> First of all, I feel that I am trying to speak courteously, and would ask the same courtesy from you. 
> 
> I am not arguing about the relative significance of the effects of CO2 and water vapor, because what I am suggesting is that there is positive feedback between them. That is to say that there is considerable support for a causal link between CO2 emissions and the concentration of other gasses, principally water vapor, in the atmosphere. No, there is not yet irrefutable proof. Often, theories are proposed to explain associations, and time passes before a theory can be empirically confirmed or refuted. My personal inclination is to trust the prevailing opinion among climate scientists. I trust that they, as individuals and as a community, are far better acquainted with the merits of different positions. For example, I am not certain as to whether one greenhouse gas is the same as another, once in the atmosphere, with respect to the greenhouse effect. (Certainly, it is quite different when it rains back down again, but acid rain is another matter.)
> 
> As to the final question, the three-hundred pounder. But I don't feel that that analogy is appropriate. I would suggest thinking about an orchestra. The violin is probably more important than the metal triangle. But if the triangle player starts going nuts, he/she can still screw up a performance. To put it another way, let's say a theoretical lever is perfectly balanced, with a three-hundred pound block in each pan. If I throw a small weight in either pan, it represents little of the material on the lever. But the equilibrium is upset, and the blocks will fall out of balance.


The problem is that you are trying to use theories with obvious and significant logical problems in them, indeed glaring holes in them, as a justification for aggressive violence of taxation, since your avatar says "I <3 Carbon Tax." So in other words, you advocate VIOLENCE with flimsiest, in fact, fraudulent "justification." 

And yes, water vapor IS a GHG, and yes it effects the production of other water vapor 100 times more than human produced CO2.

You need irrefutable PROOF before you have the right to initiate violence. You first advocate violence, then you seek a proof to justify it. That is backwards, and wrong.

I say it again: Even if ALL human produced CO2 was removed from the atmosphere it would NOT have any significant effect on global temperature. Besides, when CO2 levels were TEN times what they are today, the Earth enjoyed greater animal and plant growth than today.

To base your proposed VIOLENCE on these things is IMMORAL and unjust.

----------


## PRB

> Is proving a lie your mission here? You cannot prove that which is false to be true.


But how do you know something is false to begin with? No, proving a lie is not my mission, but denying a possibility without first ruling it out as a physical or logical impossibility, is not logical to say the least.

----------


## PRB

> You need irrefutable PROOF before you have the right to initiate violence. You first advocate violence, then you seek a proof to justify it. That is backwards, and wrong.


I disagree, you never have a right to initiate violence.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> But how do you know something is false to begin with? No, proving a lie is not my mission, but denying a possibility without first ruling it out as a physical or logical impossibility, is not logical to say the least.


I gave strong logical reasons that even if ALL human produced CO2 was removed from the earth it would not have significant effect on global temperature. A claim you are powerless to refute, because it is true and supported by massive evidence, not the least of which is that human produced CO2 is outnumbered 100 to 1 by a more potent green house gas, water vapor.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I disagree, you never have a right to initiate violence.


In the context in which I used the phrase, it is clear that it meant initiation of RETALIATORY/defensive violence. To rephrase, it meant: You have to have an absolute proof of aggression before you have a right to use violence.

----------


## PRB

> I gave strong logical reasons that even if ALL human produced CO2 was removed from the earth it would not have significant effect on global temperature.


Easy for you to say when you can redefine significant to mean anything you want. but all you've said was "water vapor is 99% of all greenhouse gases"




> A claim you are powerless to refute


more like, I can refute it but you'll just never admit you're wrong.




> , because it is true and supported by massive evidence


No, it isn't. You're literally blowing up ONE piece of information to refute the mountains of data available to the contrary. Your whole argument depends on water vapor being the dominant greenhouse gas, which supposedly means CO2 can never be a contributor. 




> , not the least of which is that human produced CO2 is outnumbered 100 to 1 by a more potent green house gas, water vapor.


no, it IS the least, that's ALL you have.

----------


## PRB

> In the context in which I used the phrase, it is clear that it meant initiation of RETALIATORY/defensive violence. To rephrase, it meant: You have to have an absolute proof of aggression before you have a right to use violence.


I still disagree. Adding words of context doesn't mean you're right.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Easy for you to say when you can redefine significant to mean anything you want. but all you've said was "water vapor is 99% of all greenhouse gases"
> 
> more like, I can refute it but you'll just never admit you're wrong.
> 
> No, it isn't. You're literally blowing up ONE piece of information to refute the mountains of data available to the contrary. Your whole argument depends on water vapor being the dominant greenhouse gas, which supposedly means CO2 can never be a contributor. 
> 
> no, it IS the least, that's ALL you have.


That's all I need. Keep it simple. All the "mountains of evidence" cannot refute the simple fact that 2+2=4.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I still disagree. Adding words of context doesn't mean you're right.


You disagree that you must have an absolute proof of aggression before you are justified in using defensive violence? Or do you really get paid by the post?

----------


## Ecolibertarian

Hey, I don't have anything more to add, but I need $5 more to buy a PS4, so I'm posting this for the money.

----------


## PRB

> You disagree that you must have an absolute proof of aggression before you are justified in using defensive violence? Or do you really get paid by the post?


I get paid to tell you you are never justified in using violence.

----------


## PRB

> That's all I need. Keep it simple. All the "mountains of evidence" cannot refute the simple fact that 2+2=4.


you admitted your mind is simple and decided nothing will change it. you assume that your simple fact is either relevant or in contradiction to the overall conclusion from the entirety of evidence. 

for the simplest example, you made the claim "energy is trapped until it's radiated into outer space again", sounds good, can you tell us when, how and how we can test this claim? You can't. This is why you have no idea whether rain or snow increases or decrease the rate of which energy escapes the earth allowing the earth to cool down, yet observation evidence clearly shows snowing and raining decreases earth's local surface temperature. so either local temperature can decrease without losing heat to outer space, or raining and snowing doesn't decrease local temperature, which one is it? facts alone say nothing.

----------


## BucksforPaul

These climatologists can't even predict the correct weather ten days out but the trolls expect us to believe that they are good with their estimates of what will happen 1, 5 or even 10 years down the line.  Laughable at best.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Hey, I don't have anything more to add, but I need $5 more to buy a PS4, so I'm posting this for the money.


You'll need at least a couple dozen more posts to reach that lofty amount.  That's about the going rate of pay-to-troll.

----------


## PRB

> These climatologists can't even predict the correct weather ten days out but the trolls expect us to believe that they are good with their estimates of what will happen 1, 5 or even 10 years down the line.  Laughable at best.


so because I can't predict 10 coin flips, I can't predict a million?

According to you then, what happens with climate 5-10 years from now is completely unpredictable?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I get paid to tell you you are never justified in using violence.


a) You are getting paid, and 
b) Defensive violence is justified (by definition).
c) Aggressive violence is NEVER justified, and is the definition of EVIL.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> you admitted your mind is simple and decided nothing will change it. you assume that your simple fact is either relevant or in contradiction to the overall conclusion from the entirety of evidence. 
> 
> for the simplest example, you made the claim "energy is trapped until it's radiated into outer space again", sounds good, can you tell us when, how and how we can test this claim? You can't.


It is only the fundamental law of physics. Google "the law of preservation of energy."




> This is why you have no idea whether rain or snow increases or decrease the rate of which energy escapes the earth allowing the earth to cool down, yet observation evidence clearly shows snowing and raining decreases earth's local surface temperature. so either local temperature can decrease without losing heat to outer space, or raining and snowing doesn't decrease local temperature, which one is it? facts alone say nothing.


Proper facts say everything. But to answer your question: When snow falls it absorbs the heat in the local environment, that's why the environment cools down. But the heat is not lost. It is in the snow, and in the water. So total energy in the system remains the same, unless it is radiated into outer space.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> You'll need at least a couple dozen more posts to reach that lofty amount.  That's about the going rate of pay-to-troll.


Good one! This explains why PRB uses a separate post to respond to each of my sentences. 

Good catch!

----------


## Ecolibertarian

I think FOL and NCL are just mad because PRB and I are stackin' the Benjamins.

In all honesty, though: yes, I do support the use of force to extract damages from those who produce emissions. I am satisfied with the scientific community's general consensus that those who do so inflict damage diffusely, and that lawsuits would not be a practical forum within which to claim compensation except in some extraordinary cases. As such, I think that a carbon tax is libertarian, in that it provides a security for property that seems to me to be lacking.

And it strikes me as unfortunate that this difference of opinion is not simply argued against, but dismissed as evidence of corruption and subversion by enemies. I do not believe that FOL is being paid by coal companies, or by Exxon Mobil, or the Illuminati, or what have you. He/she just feels differently, and holds strong and passionate opinions on this subject. That's all.

----------


## PRB

> I think FOL and NCL are just mad because PRB and I are stackin' the Benjamins.


Yeah, it's easy to hate the rich. Jealous kills.




> In all honesty, though: yes, I do support the use of force to extract damages from those who produce emissions. I am satisfied with the scientific community's general consensus that those who do so inflict damage diffusely, and that lawsuits would not be a practical forum within which to claim compensation except in some extraordinary cases. As such, I think that a carbon tax is libertarian, in that it provides a security for property that seems to me to be lacking.


So your idea of libertarian is equal protection of opportunity?




> And it strikes me as unfortunate that this difference of opinion is not simply argued against, but dismissed as evidence of corruption and subversion by enemies. I do not believe that FOL is being paid by coal companies, or by Exxon Mobil, or the Illuminati, or what have you. He/she just feels differently, and is holds strong and passionate opinions on this subject. That's all.


Sadly, the same benefit of doubt just isn't returned. That's conspiracy theory for you, if you disagree with them, you're a bad guy and nothing will change their minds.

----------


## PRB

> It is only the fundamental law of physics. Google "the law of preservation of energy."


Preservation of energy doesn't mean it's preserved in an arbitrary space as you claim, such as "the earth until it's radiated out" nor does being confined in the earth from atmosphere and downward mean there can't be local cooling/heating, uneven distribution. So again, you're taking elementary school factoids and blowing them up into conclusions when you can't even answer the next most basic question.




> Proper facts say everything. But to answer your question: When snow falls it absorbs the heat in the local environment, that's why the environment cools down. But the heat is not lost. It is in the snow, and in the water. So total energy in the system remains the same, unless it is radiated into outer space.


Aha! so you admit there can be cooling without decrease in total energy, which means there can also be heating without increase in total energy. This effectively makes "total energy" irrelevant to the discussion, since factors such as snowing and cooling CAN AND DO as you admit, cool down the local environment. Facts are useless without context.

You are correct, it's absorbed in snow, or water, or ocean, or other things, or even free flowing air, it can be anywhere, and local environment can cool or heat depending on other factors, regardless of whether heat radiates out to outer space. You went from "heat is trapped until it's radiated into outer space" to "total energy remains the same" (nobody disputed this).

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> So your idea of libertarian is equal protection of opportunity?


No, not equal protection of opportunity. I don't think that opportunity _per se_ is a right. "Don't damage what isn't yours," on the other hand, is extremely important to me.

----------


## PRB

> a) You are getting paid, and 
> b) Defensive violence is justified (by definition).
> c) Aggressive violence is NEVER justified, and is the definition of EVIL.


Violence is not justified just because you say so. Defining words to make your argument is childish. By my definition you're retarded and wrong.

----------


## PRB

> No, not equal protection of opportunity. I don't think that opportunity _per se_ is a right. "Don't damage what isn't yours," on the other hand, is extremely important to me.


but who has the authority to punish what isn't owned by themselves?

----------


## Ecolibertarian

> but who has the authority to punish what isn't owned by themselves?


In my vision, that is what a state is for. Bastiat's view was that the purpose of the state was to organize individual exercise of force to defend property against threats beyond the ability of an individual to oppose them. This works against, say, mobs of armed raiders. Pollution is more difficult, because it is diffuse and quiet. As such, my personal inclination is to broaden Bastiat's idea of the state in order to fill this impunity gap.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> In all honesty, though: yes, I do support the use of force to extract damages from those who produce emissions. I am satisfied with the scientific community's general consensus that those who do so inflict damage diffusely, and that lawsuits would not be a practical forum within which to claim compensation except in some extraordinary cases. As such, I think that a carbon tax is libertarian, in that it provides a security for property that seems to me to be lacking.


Your statement is full of self-contradictions, Orwellian double-speak and distortion. You cannot be Libertarian and support aggressive violence of taxation. You cannot justly collect "damages" from people without proving aggression. There is no consensus in the scientific community, and there is irrefutable logic showing your "damage" claims to be lies. You are a tyrant masquerading as "libertarian" and environmentalist. You are a disgrace. You are a violent and lying thug at heart. Hope that was polite enough for you. Cheers.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> No, not equal protection of opportunity. I don't think that opportunity _per se_ is a right. "Don't damage what isn't yours," on the other hand, is extremely important to me.


Don't lie to collect "damages." That is important to me.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Violence is not justified just because you say so. Defining words to make your argument is childish. By my definition you're retarded and wrong.


By my definition you are a lying paid troll.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> In my vision, that is what a state is for. Bastiat's view was that the purpose of the state was to organize individual exercise of force to defend property against threats beyond the ability of an individual to oppose them. This works against, say, mobs of armed raiders. Pollution is more difficult, because it is diffuse and quiet. As such, my personal inclination is to broaden Bastiat's idea of the state in order to fill this impunity gap.


You are statists. Both of you. Stealthy promoters of aggressive violence of the state. From your own words.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Both the IPCC and Nature say there is no link between climate change  aka global warming and severe weather, and so it follows about Gore’s  “dirty energy” claim.
 From Chapter 4 of the IPCC SREX report ( IPCC Special Report on Extremes PDF):

“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends  in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or  anthropogenic climate change”“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable  to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and  extratropical storms and tornados”“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses” 
_Nature’s_ editorial last year dashing alarmist hopes of linking extreme weather events to global warming saying:Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/a...ple-in-hawaii/

----------


## PRB

> You are statists. Both of you. Stealthy promoters of aggressive violence of the state. From your own words.


I said from the beginning I am anti-carbon tax and anti-violence and I'm a statist because I don't deny global warming like you do?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I said from the beginning I am anti-carbon tax and anti-violence and I'm a statist because I don't deny global warming like you do?


Your point is "human produce CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change." That is false. This fraud is used by the banksters to promote world wide taxation and tyranny. 

Whether or not you personally "support taxation" you are certainly helping them to advance this fraud.

----------


## PRB

> Your point is "human produce CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change." That is false. This fraud is used by the banksters to promote world wide taxation and tyranny. 
> 
> Whether or not you personally "support taxation" you are certainly helping them to advance this fraud.


Catastrophic is a subjective word which I avoid using. I'm not helping advance any fraud.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I think FOL and NCL are just mad because PRB and I are stackin' the Benjamins.


Forum owners pay pennies on the post.  If you're lucky, then you break double digits.

Looks to me like you're sitting home on a Saturday night stacking the Lincolns.  And I'm not talking green paper with the number 5 on it.  







> Yeah, it's easy to hate the rich. Jealous kills.


If you're lucky, then you've  stacked one or two Andrew Jacksons.  







> Good one! This explains why PRB uses a separate post to respond to each of my sentences. 
> 
> Good catch!


The paid posters usually give themselves away pretty fast.  I was on a forum where this paid poster's green light was always on.  He was one of the most boring posters I ever encountered, but that's usually the case with these dime-a-dozen dipshits.  

Well, I guess they got the job done because we're responding.  Hey EcoLiberal, give me a nickel.  I contributed to half your earnings on that post.  LOL.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Catastrophic is a subjective word which I avoid using. I'm not helping advance any fraud.


Of course. Your job description to create "reasonable doubt" on the forum. That's what you are paid for. But your "doubts" are not reasonable. They are contrived lies, and everyone with a bit of integrity can see it. Truth speaks for itself, but the stink of your lies, if you persist in them, will follow you for the rest of your life. Think about that.

----------


## PRB

> Of course. Your job description to create "reasonable doubt" on the forum. That's what you are paid for. But your "doubts" are not reasonable. They are contrived lies, and everyone with a bit of integrity can see it. Truth speaks for itself, but the stink of your lies, if you persist in them, will follow you for the rest of your life. Think about that.


Reasonable doubt is already what scientists regularly do. It's denial that requires paid posters, and only on political forums, not any scientific ones. What are my doubts and what am I doubting? I don't knowing persist lies, I change my views when more information becomes available, are you as open as I am?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Reasonable doubt is already what scientists regularly do. It's denial that requires paid posters, and only on political forums, not any scientific ones. What are my doubts and what am I doubting? I don't knowing persist lies, I change my views when more information becomes available, are you as open as I am?


I am open to truth and reason, not paid trolls who lie for a living.

----------


## PRB

> I am open to truth and reason, not paid trolls who lie for a living.


You admitted you've decided it's a lie and it's unprovable to you. If you were open, you'd have a goalpost for which you'd be willing to admit you're possibly wrong or change your mind. Which one is it?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> You admitted you've decided it's a lie and it's unprovable to you.


You cannot fault a man for deciding that 2+2=100 is a lie and that it's unprovable to him.




> If you were open, you'd have a goalpost for which you'd be willing to admit you're possibly wrong or change your mind. Which one is it?


I cannot change my mind on an obvious error. That would be unwise.

----------


## PRB

> You cannot fault a man for deciding that 2+2=100 is a lie and that it's unprovable to him.
> 
>  I cannot change my mind on an obvious error. That would be unwise.


2+2 = 4 has nothing to do with what we're talking about. 

If you can show me how 2+2= anything but 4, I am open to hearing it. So there's the difference, I am open to the most absurd conclusions as long as you can support it by evidence or demonstration, I've not decided it's a lie and it's unprovable. What's unwise is your childish analogy that what you believe is as simple as 2+2=4, which is why you can only think of such things to compare it with, therefore decided anybody who disagrees with you or knows more than you must believe in a lie.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> 2+2 = 4 has nothing to do with what we're talking about. 
> 
> If you can show me how 2+2= anything but 4, I am open to hearing it. So there's the difference, I am open to the most absurd conclusions as long as you can support it by evidence or demonstration, I've not decided it's a lie and it's unprovable. What's unwise is your childish analogy that what you believe is as simple as 2+2=4, which is why you can only think of such things to compare it with, therefore decided anybody who disagrees with you or knows more than you must believe in a lie.


I am not open to the possibility that 2+2=100 because I have a proof that it is false, not because I am narrow-minded. A conniving enough professor can heap up an incomprehensible "proof" that 2+2=100, which "proof" you will not be able to comprehend for its complexity and subtlety. It will not, however change the fact that his "proof" will be a lie. Why? Because we have a simple, irrefutable proof that 2+2=4. 

It is not broad-mindedness to refuse provable truth for an obvious lie. It is stupidity. 

The problem with being devil's advocate is that you will always be proven wrong in the end (even if you get paid in the interim for lying and trolling).

----------


## PRB

> I am not open to the possibility that 2+2=100 because I have a proof that it is false, not because I am narrow-minded. A conniving enough professor can heap up an incomprehensible "proof" that 2+2=100, which "proof" you will not be able to comprehend for its complexity and subtlety. It will not, however change the fact that his "proof" will be a lie. Why? Because we have a simple, irrefutable proof that 2+2=4.


Can 1+1 = 10?
Can 10+10= 100?

How do you know it's "irrefutable" short of your circular reasoning and advanced decision that you are right?




> It is not broad-mindedness to refuse provable truth for an obvious lie. It is stupidity. 
> 
> The problem with being devil's advocate is that you will always be proven wrong in the end (even if you get paid in the interim for lying and trolling).


open to being proven wrong is far from actually being wrong, but I guess you're so insecure about your beliefs you're willing to deny you can be wrong from the start.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Can 1+1 = 10?
> Can 10+10= 100?
> 
> How do you know it's "irrefutable" short of your circular reasoning and advanced decision that you are right?


Spoken like a true troll who gets paid by the post (no matter what garbage he posts).

And by the way, all truth is ultimately circular, but non-self-contradictory. Lie and error are self-contradictory, by definition.




> open to being proven wrong is far from actually being wrong, but I guess you're so insecure about your beliefs you're willing to deny you can be wrong from the start.


My logic is right. You are powerless to disprove it.

----------


## Lord Xar

Truth, usually, doesn't need paid trolls to sow doubt to promote its righteousness. To me, the fact that one has to continually troll is a sign that the endeavor is dishonest, and serves something other than truth.

Even if one was simple minded, they could draw the conclusion that if a corrupt government, ruled by oligarchs, is promoting/spewing the righteousness of man made global warming, that alone - is enough to fathom that it is a crock of $#@!.

----------


## PRB

> Spoken like a true troll who gets paid by the post (no matter what garbage he posts).
> 
> And by the way, all truth is ultimately circular, but non-self-contradictory. Lie and error are self-contradictory, by definition.
> 
> My logic is right. You are powerless to disprove it.


answer my question

can 1+1 = 10? yes or no? (without anybody lying, that is)
can 10+10 = 100? yes or no?

----------


## PRB

> Truth, usually, doesn't need paid trolls to sow doubt to promote its righteousness. To me, the fact that one has to continually troll is a sign that the endeavor is dishonest, and serves something other than truth.
> 
> Even if one was simple minded, they could draw the conclusion that if a corrupt government, ruled by oligarchs, is promoting/spewing the righteousness of man made global warming, that alone - is enough to fathom that it is a crock of $#@!.


Agreed. What makes what I say trolling? Just because the other guy says I am?

Corrupt government and oligarchs have nothing to do with the science behind climate change. I've specifically said I am opposed to carbon tax, so you can't say I'm promoting it to promote taxes.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Agreed. What makes what I say trolling? Just because the other guy says I am?
> 
> Corrupt government and oligarchs have nothing to do with the science behind climate change. I've specifically said I am opposed to carbon tax, so you can't say I'm promoting it to promote taxes.


You are promoting it because you are getting paid for it. Your logic is flawed; your motives are insincere. Your assignment is to rack up post count to give the illusion of healthy support for the utter illogical nonsense and garbage you, UN, and the banksters are promoting.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Truth, usually, doesn't need paid trolls to sow doubt to promote its righteousness. To me, the fact that one has to continually troll is a sign that the endeavor is dishonest, and serves something other than truth.
> 
> Even if one was simple minded, they could draw the conclusion that if a corrupt government, ruled by oligarchs, is promoting/spewing the righteousness of man made global warming, that alone - is enough to fathom that it is a crock of ....


Good point!

----------


## HVACTech

> Truth, usually, doesn't need paid trolls to sow doubt to promote its righteousness. To me, the fact that one has to continually troll is a sign that the endeavor is dishonest, and serves something other than truth.
> 
> Even if one was simple minded, they could draw the conclusion that if a corrupt government, ruled by oligarchs, is promoting/spewing the righteousness of man made global warming, that alone - is enough to fathom that it is a crock of $#@!.


technically, the earth does not really produce very much heat itself. (unless of course you think that it is on fire) (like I do)
the heat comes from that shiny thing up there. and is delivered radiantly. 
it is very fun and interesting to learn about the thermodynamic properties of water. 

I am a cooling specialist who lives in the south. I write that as a warning to the trolls. 
that we are not in an ice age, is proof enough that "global warming" has occurred. 
that we were responsible for it, is probably BS. 

AND, IF we are aggravating it.... shouldn't oxygen levels be getting lower?

----------


## liberty2897

> technically, the earth does not really produce very much heat itself.


Actually, according to these guys it does produce quite a bit of heat...

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...of-earths-heat




> About 50% of the heat given off by the Earth is generated by the radioactive decay of elements such as uranium and thorium, and their decay products. That is the conclusion of an international team of physicists that has used the KamLAND detector in Japan to measure the flux of antineutrinos emanating from deep within the Earth. The result, which agrees with previous calculations of the radioactive heating, should help physicists to improve models of how heat is generated in the Earth.


More at link.

----------


## PRB

> AND, IF we are aggravating it.... shouldn't oxygen levels be getting lower?


what do you mean? that production of CO2 reduces O2 to begin with?

----------


## HVACTech

> Actually, according to these guys it does produce quite a bit of heat...
> 
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...of-earths-heat
> 
> 
> 
> More at link.


yes, I believe the earth is on fire. not just cooling off.  it is obviously very old, covered in water... 
and it is still spewing out molten lava. 
I acknowledged that the earth does generate SOME heat. 

personally, I like the idea, that plasma is what is heating it.

but that amount is minuscule. the earth is heated by the sun.

radiantly. radiant heat transfer... is not easy to understand.

----------


## HVACTech

> what do you mean? that production of CO2 reduces O2 to begin with?


that is how the process works. combustion and metabolism both require oxygen. 
or the co2 could not be produced.
if one is increasing... should not the other decrease?

----------


## PRB

> that is how the process works. combustion and metabolism both require oxygen. 
> or the co2 could not be produced.
> if one is increasing... should not the other decrease?


you assume 
1. CO2 can only be produced by burning carbon and consuming oxygen in the air
2. CO2 increase in the atmosphere is only newly produced CO2 (rather than released from deposits such as oceans and stones)

Also, are you sure oxygen concentrations haven't decreased?

----------


## HVACTech

> you assume 
> 1. CO2 can only be produced by burning carbon and consuming oxygen in the air
> 2. CO2 increase in the atmosphere is only newly produced CO2 (rather than released from deposits such as oceans and stones)
> 
> Also, are you sure oxygen concentrations haven't decreased?


I assume nothing friend. 
I have discovered, that I have been lied to. 
therefore, I question everything. 

my preposition makes sense. 
that does not mean that it is correct.
peace.

----------


## PRB

> I assume nothing friend. 
> I have discovered, that I have been lied to. 
> therefore, I question everything. 
> 
> my preposition makes sense. 
> that does not mean that it is correct.
> peace.


You are right, it may not be correct. 

Does what I say ring a bell to you at all?

Ever heard of CO2 being released from limestones and oceans without consuming oxygen?
Ever heard of CO2 concentration increasing without "producing new" CO2?

----------


## HVACTech

> You are right, it may not be correct. 
> 
> Does what I say ring a bell to you at all?
> 
> Ever heard of CO2 being released from limestones and oceans without consuming oxygen?
> Ever heard of CO2 concentration increasing without "producing new" CO2?


you seem to be asking me,  if there are natural sources of stored CO2.
yes, there are. 
I am not a chemist.
 methinks the climate has always been changing. if you are near the La brea tar pits. you should check it out.
I don't need any proof that the climate is, or has been changing. situation normal.
and yes, if we are going to purport that man made CO2, s the culprit. 
then it follows that O2 levels should also be dropping. 

I jumped into this thread to promote understanding of heat transfer and thermodynamics.

----------


## PRB

> you seem to be asking me,  if there are natural sources of stored CO2.
> yes, there are. 
> I am not a chemist.
>  methinks the climate has always been changing. if you are near the La brea tar pits. you should check it out.
> I don't need any proof that the climate is, or has been changing. situation normal.


climate always changing means that either no change will ever surprise you, or some changes are out of the predicted norm. So which is your view?

People always die, does that mean a person dying at 99 years old is as normal as a person dying at 9 years old? Is any person dying at any age in any situation ever not normal and worthy of suspicion?




> and yes, if we are going to purport that man made CO2, s the culprit. 
> then it follows that O2 levels should also be dropping. 
> 
> I jumped into this thread to promote understanding of heat transfer and thermodynamics.


Again, are you sure O2 hasn't dropped?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

The human caused global warming scam has Satanic origins in the Club of Rome:

*Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming.*


_It occurred to me Academic gowns show universities are medieval  institutions being dragged kicking and screaming into the 17th century._

 Global Warming was just one issue The Club of Rome (TCOR) targeted in  its campaign to reduce world population. In 1993 the Clubs  co-founder, Alexander King with Bertrand Schneider wrote _The First Global Revolution_ stating,
The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a  new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the  threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit  the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is  only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.  The real enemy then, is humanity itself.
*Read more:* http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/d...verpopulation/

----------


## PRB

> The human caused global warming scam has Satanic origins in the Club of Rome:
> 
> *Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming.*
> 
> 
> _“It occurred to me…” Academic gowns show universities are medieval  institutions being dragged kicking and screaming into the 17th century._
> 
>  Global Warming was just one issue The Club of Rome (TCOR) targeted in  its campaign to reduce world population. In 1993 the Club’s  co-founder, Alexander King with Bertrand Schneider wrote _The First Global Revolution_ stating,
> “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a  new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the  threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit  the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is  only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.  The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
> *Read more:* http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/d...verpopulation/


I'll keep asking, does Tim Ball have better predictions than IPCC? It's easy to say somebody's wrong, much harder to be better at it.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I'll keep asking, does Tim Ball have better predictions than IPCC? It's easy to say somebody's wrong, much harder to be better at it.


In either case it does not justify aggression of taxation. That is the point of this thread.

----------


## PRB

> In either case it does not justify aggression of taxation. That is the point of this thread.


When the hell did I ever say anything justifies taxation? EVER? Why do you keep saying that as if I disagree with you? 

How about you answer my question now? Or admit you don't know?

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> In either case it does not justify aggression of taxation. That is the point of this thread.


So now after countless posts saying that it's a hoax, you seem ready to give up the entire premise of it being one?

----------


## PRB

> So now after countless posts saying that it's a hoax, you seem ready to give up the entire premise of it being one?


he wants to cover his bases both ways, it's a hoax, but even if it's not a hoax, it still doesn't justify taxation. 

he can't settle for it's not a hoax but it doesn't justify taxation or, if it's not a hoax, then it would justify taxation. The NWO has to make up a hoax and then try to convince people it justifies taxation, LOL.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> When the hell did I ever say anything justifies taxation? EVER? Why do you keep saying that as if I disagree with you?


Because I think you work in tandem with Mr. "I <3 Carbon Tax." You see, your task is to make human-CO2-caused global warming scam seem reasonable, and his task is to push the tax based on the scam. And even though you publicly fain opposition to taxation, I think in reality it is a ploy to pacify people on this forum while setting up human-produced-CO2 excuses for Mr. "I <3 Carbon Tax" who is your most ardent supporter. 

In fact I think you are both paid to troll here and to work in tandem. And I think you are both liars.

Does that answer your question?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> So now after countless posts saying that it's a hoax, you seem ready to give up the entire premise of it being one?


I did no such thing. Learn to read at least. I always said that human-produced-CO2 caused global warming, is a hoax to push global taxation. In other words it is a lie used to "justify" injustice, and the whole thing is a Rothchild's fraud of a high order.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> he wants to cover his bases both ways, it's a hoax, but even if it's not a hoax, it still doesn't justify taxation. 
> 
> he can't settle for it's not a hoax but it doesn't justify taxation or, if it's not a hoax, then it would justify taxation. The NWO has to make up a hoax and then try to convince people it justifies taxation, LOL.


Let me spell it for you one more time. It is both:

A) A hoax, and it is also
B) does NOT justify taxation. 
In summary, it is a lie used to "justify" the injustice of plunder. And you are covertly supporting it.

----------


## PRB

> Let me spell it for you one more time. It is both:
> A) A hoax, and it is also
> B) does NOT justify taxation. 
> In summary, it is a lie used to "justify" the injustice of plunder. And you are covertly supporting it.


Your conspiracy theory alleges that the NWO is so busy at work they need to pull off not one, but TWO loads of work. Why not just take something that's true and say it justifies taxation? Why not just take something that justifies taxation and hoax that?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Your conspiracy theory alleges that the NWO is so busy at work they need to pull off not one, but TWO loads of work. Why not just take something that's true and say it justifies taxation? Why not just take something that justifies taxation and hoax that?


Nothing justifies taxation, just like nothing justifies plunder. It is wrong by definition.

Why do they double down on their fraud? Because the more fraud they can cram in, they consider the better, because they are evil. They hope at least one fraud sticks in the end. They are wrong. But you are supporting their fraud.

----------


## PRB

> Nothing justifies taxation, just like nothing justifies plunder. It is wrong by definition.


Agreed, which is why I don't care if global warming is a fraud, and it's not, by the way. 




> Why do they double down on their fraud? Because the more fraud they can cram in, they consider the better, because they are evil.


There's no point in cramming in 2 scams if one was suffice. They can't do more harm when 2 scams have to add up for the same goal, it's not like one would be less likely to pull off (quite the opposite)




> They hope at least one fraud sticks in the end. They are wrong. But you are supporting their fraud.


They don't need fraud if they can grab on something that's true and indisputable and use it to justify taxation, do you not get this? or are you so smart you can read their minds?

I am not supporting anybody's fraud, I said all along I oppose taxation.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Agreed, which is why I don't care if global warming is a fraud, and it's not, by the way. 
> 
> There's no point in cramming in 2 scams if one was suffice. They can't do more harm when 2 scams have to add up for the same goal, it's not like one would be less likely to pull off (quite the opposite)
> 
> They don't need fraud if they can grab on something that's true and indisputable and use it to justify taxation, do you not get this? or are you so smart you can read their minds?
> 
> I am not supporting anybody's fraud, I said all along I oppose taxation.


One fraud reinforces the other. They need an excuse to "justify" their plunder. That excuse is a fraud of human CO2 caused global warming, which human produced CO2 is less than 1% of all greenhouse gasses, 97% of which is natural water vapor.

And yes, you pretend to oppose taxation, but secretly work to "justify" it via human-produced-CO2 causes global warming scam. That's what you get paid for.

----------


## PRB

> One fraud reinforces the other.


No it doesn't. If nothing justifies taxes, no fraud would do it.

----------


## PRB

> That excuse is a fraud of human CO2 caused global warming, which human produced CO2 is less than 1% of all greenhouse gasses, 97% of which is natural water vapor.


You keep repeating this alleged factoid, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. 

Again, what is this % measured by? volume? concentration? mass?

Then, does each water vapor molecule contribute equally, or more, or less than its CO2 counterpart? 

Then, if water vapor is "natural" and not human increased, how does it, if at all, explain increase in global warming and greenhouse effect?

Until you answer these questions, your numbers mean nothing.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

I see you still seek to maximize your pay by breaking up your responses into multiple posts, even when responding to a single post of mine. Does your employer know that you are skimming him like that, since you are obviously get paid by the post, troll?

----------


## PRB

> I see you still seek to maximize your pay by breaking up your responses into multiple posts, even when responding to a single post of mine. Does your employer know that you are skimming him like that, since you are obviously get paid by the post, troll?


My employer is smarter than you think, he doesn't pay me by post count, that would incentivize spamming. He pays by substance and quality, which you clearly have none, which is why debunking your nonsense gets me nothing. It would be nice if you posted something other than your cliche, and I'd actually earn something worthy. You are helping nobody by reposting your old broken record. I split up posts sometimes when you make such a small (and obvious) one-liner that warrants a ridicule on its own (and I prefer to reply to it without the remaining post burying the essence).

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> My employer is smarter than you think, he doesn't pay me by post count, that would incentivize spamming. He pays by substance and quality, which you clearly have none, which is why debunking your nonsense gets me nothing. It would be nice if you posted something other than your cliche, and I'd actually earn something worthy. You are helping nobody by reposting your old broken record. I split up posts sometimes when you make such a small (and obvious) one-liner that warrants a ridicule on its own (and I prefer to reply to it without the remaining post burying the essence).


Well, at least you admitted you are a paid troll. That's a start.

----------


## PRB

> Well, at least you admitted you are a paid troll. That's a start.


Dude, either you're too stupid to tell I was sarcastic, or I am that you are. And I hope you are. Playing along with your ridiculous accusation is not an admission, but I suppose if I was a conspiracy theorist who thinks the powers that be need to first invent a hoax and then use it to justify what I don't believe justifies taxes, that's not a far stretch.

You're the same kind of person who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, but instead of blowing up buildings and blaming THAT on Muslims, or Iraq, they had to hire planes, blow up buildings, blame it on bin Laden, bomb Afghanistan, over a year later, make up another hoax that Iraq was behind 9/11, then attack Iraq. Some inside job!

----------


## pcosmar

> Dude, either you're too stupid to tell I was sarcastic,


No. you were being trollish.
It is all you have done since you started here..
So you are either being paid to troll or you do it for some perverse pleasure.

Either way,, No one here takes you seriously.. They just use you as a ridiculous example and an excuse to post the tons of refuting evidence.

How does it feel to be a ridiculous joke?

----------


## PRB

> No. you were being trollish.
> It is all you have done since you started here..
> So you are either being paid to troll or you do it for some perverse pleasure.
> 
> Either way,, No one here takes you seriously.. They just use you as a ridiculous example and an excuse to post the tons of refuting evidence.
> 
> How does it feel to be a ridiculous joke?


*
except no evidence was posted. I've asked this many times, repost if you think I missed it. 

Go ahead, let's pretend all the scientists and global warming promoters are wrong, find me who is a better predictor for future climate.*

After all "the climate is always changing" "they said it was going to be an ice age in the 1970s" "it's so cold I can't feel the warming" "it's all a hoax and computer models don't work" 

The mic and floor is yours, and my eyes and ears are here : tell me who has the best prediction of future climate, and why do you trust this person/organization/model. 

If your answer is "nobody can predict it" or "it's not predictable" , then you're essentially saying an all snow summer, or no snow winter would be of no surprise to you, in that case your argument might be everybody should be prepared for unpredictable extreme weather change, am I missing something?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> You're the same kind of person who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, but instead of blowing up buildings and blaming THAT on Muslims, or Iraq, they had to hire planes, blow up buildings, blame it on bin Laden, bomb Afghanistan, over a year later, make up another hoax that Iraq was behind 9/11, then attack Iraq. Some inside job!


Spoken like a true government paid troll. 
*The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud*You are like this guy from NIST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVFwkAMd2-k

You sir are a liar.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> *except no evidence was posted. I've asked this many times, repost if you think I missed it.*


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5493023

----------


## PRB

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5493023


this was the actual question, LOL
* Go ahead, let's pretend all the scientists and global warming promoters  are wrong, find me who is a better predictor for future climate.*

the post you made also was refuted by your own admission that phase changes change temperature.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> this was the actual question, LOL
> * Go ahead, let's pretend all the scientists and global warming promoters  are wrong, find me who is a better predictor for future climate.*
> 
> the post you made also was refuted by your own admission that phase changes change temperature.


You refuted nothing. You are a liar. Just like this NIST guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVFwkAMd2-k

----------


## PRB

> You refuted nothing. You are a liar. Just like this NIST guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVFwkAMd2-k


I don't need to refute it when you admitted yourself phase changes change temperature

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Water Is Replacing Climate As The Next False UN Environmental Resource Scare.*

By Dr. Tim Ball
Dr. Tim Ball.com
May 8, 2014



  

_It occurred to meYoung men have so lost direction that they have their caps on backwards._

  The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed  and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless  series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. *H.L.Mencken*

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) failed to prove  human CO2 is causing global warming as evidenced by their incorrect  projections. Their hypothesis said global temperature would rise as CO2  levels increased. It hasnt for 15+ years. It doesnt matter where the  heat went, their hypothesis that human CO2 is driving temperature and  climate is disproved. The null hypothesis that it isnt CO2, which they  ignore, is proved.

 CO2 was the premeditated IPCC target because it was the exhaust of  industrialized developed nations. Maurice Strong said those nations were  the problem for the planet and its our responsibility to get rid of  them? Show their  exhaust is causing runaway warming and you achieve the goal. The IPCC  failure means CO2 and climate lost their potential as the vehicle for  political change. Whats next?

 Exploitation of fear about environmental problems kept shifting from  ozone depletion, acid rain, desertification, rainforest destruction,  global warming, sea level rise, climate change, and climate crisis,  among others. In Farad Manjoos1 post-fact society, water, like all  previous environmental issues is used to push an ideology or political  agenda with experts providing the facts. A synopsis of his book wonders,Why has punditry lately overtaken news? Why do lies seem  to linger so long in the cultural subconscious even after theyve been  thoroughly discredited? And why, when more people than ever before are  documenting the truth with laptops and digital cameras, does fact-free  spin and propaganda seem to work so well?

Once the problem is falsely established, control is not far behind.  The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) needs a replacement. It  must be a natural global resource, little understood by most so they can  easily mislead transcend national boundaries and quickly raise passions  and concerns. The target, water, is already in play.

 _________________ 1 Manjoo, F., 2008, _True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-fact Society._

 Figure 1

 UNEP, the agency that brought you Agenda 21 and the IPCC established The International Decade for Action WATER FOR LIFE 2005-2015. On the 20th anniversary of World Water Day UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said,Water holds the key to sustainable development, We  must work together to protect and carefully manage this fragile finite  resource.

The UN established a base of declining water quality, not of  quantity, as shown in Figure 1. The focus is quality because there are  no water shortages. There are regions of deficit and surplus, which  change over time.

 Environment Canada (EC) produced the map information, but their  credibility is close to zero because of involvement in the IPCC from the  start. (Notice Insufficient data is the largest region.) EC Assistant  Deputy Minister Gordon McBean chaired the founding meeting of the IPCC  in Villach, Austria in 1985. He was also instrumental in creation of the  Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) that provided most of the IPCC  2007 Report on that region. It is a very inadequate Report.

 Recently Gregory showed on Watts Up With That how ECs climate model is  the worst of any used by the IPCC. EC display their failures on their  web page. Figure 2 shows their 12 month precipitation forecast on the  top half and a map of the accuracy of previous forecasts on the bottom.  Notice it is Not significantly better than chance for over 90 percent  of the map. Publishing these results shows either an incomprehensible  level of arrogance or knowledge they wont be held accountable.



 Figure 2

 As a climatologist I learned early that droughts are the most  devastating climate events. One list of the top 20 world weather  disasters of the 20th century illustrates the point. Two extremes  dominated, first drought and second flooding. This led to teaching a  Water Resources course at university for 20+ years. I served on the  Manitoba Water Commission for 17 years resolving water conflicts. I was  appointed Chair of the Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board  charged with developing a management strategy for an entire drainage  basin. The need was triggered by the severe drought of 1988/89 that  produced the lowest flow on the river in 90+ years of record.  Fortuitously, the rivers highest flow occurred just six years later,  providing the basis for planning for natural extremes.



 Figure 3

 Water is not lost, only taken out of the Water Cycle (Figure 3) in  one place and returned elsewhere. Like with the Carbon Cycle, we have  virtually no measures of any segment. I discussed the limitations of precipitation data previously. They are worse for river flows, lake volumes or any other water data.

 At the 2011 Heartland Institute Sixth International Conference on  Climate Change in Washington, DC somebody asked about the next major  environmental scare. I said, overpopulation would continue as the  underlying theme, as it has from Malthus to the Club of Rome (COR) to  Agenda 21, but water was the next target.

 Malthus argued population would outgrow food supply. The COR argued  it would outgrow all resources accelerated by industry, hence the  demonizing of CO2 to achieve Maurice Strongs goal. Paul Ehrlich linked  food and water in his completely flawed book_ The Population Bomb_. The COR listed water third after pollution and global warming as its target in the 1991 publication _The First Global Revolution_.The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a  new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the  threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit  the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is  only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.  The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

In UNs Agenda 21 its a separate category in Chapter 18  _The Water Page_.18.3. The widespread scarcity, gradual destruction and  aggravated pollution of freshwater resources in many world regions,  along with the progressive encroachment of incompatible activities,  demand integrated water resources planning and management.

Its a false claim, like most assumptions made when environment and  science are used for a political agenda. However, if the science doesnt  work theres the standard fall back of the precautionary principle  covered in Agenda 21, Principle 15.In order to protect the environment, the precautionary  approach shall be widely applied by States according to their  capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,  lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for  postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

*They* define_ lack of full scientific certainty_ and it becomes a conflict between genuine uncertainty and what is required to promote the political agenda.

 All the terminology familiar to the CO2 issue is now in use for water._ The Water Footprint  of a product is the volume of freshwater appropriated to produce the  product, taking into account the volumes of water consumed and polluted  in the different steps of the supply chain_. Like the Carbon Footprint it is a totally contrived and meaningless measure, but allows environmental guilt finger pointing.

 Peak Oil was created to imply we were running out of the resource  as the COR Limits to Growth predicted. _The term Peak Water has been put forward as a concept to help understand growing constraints on the availability, quality, and use of freshwater resources. Neither Peak is valid._

 World Water Day was established at Rio 1992 but implemented first on 22 March 1993. On Water Day June 2012 in  conjunction with Rio +20 they identified the following objectives as  they already knew climate change was not unfolding as they predicted.

  Demonstrate to the broad range of stakeholders, particularly  decision makers, that some of the major challenges facing humanity today  relate to water management; this will be based on findings of the major  UN-Water reports. Identify major water issues that connect with the  themes of the Rio+20 Conference, particularly its link with the notion  of green economy. Focus on the means of implementation, especially the  action areas where UN organizations and agencies can act together  through UN-Water.

 These are similar global policy directions and takeovers promoted by the IPCC through the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

 In the US recently the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began the process of control over water similar to the one they followed for CO2. One commentator says this is ongoing.

 Calling it carbon then defining it as a pollutant created deliberate  confusion over CO2. The Canadian government listed it as a toxic  substance  the terminology changes to suit the legal definitions in  place. The EPA defined it as a _harmful substance_ and arranged for the US Supreme Court to agree on that term thereby giving them control. The focus with water is quality under existing laws.According to senior EPA officials, the rule, crafted by  both the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, will provide greater  clarity about which waters are subject to Clean Water Act (CWA)  jurisdiction and greater certainty about which activities require CWA  permits.

Environmentalism was a necessary new paradigm hijacked by a few for a  political agenda. The goal was political control with subjugation of  individuals and their rights to a world government through the UN.  Elaine Dewar, author of _The Cloak of Green_ explained,Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.

Neil Hrab wrote,Whats truly alarming about Maurice Strong is his actual  record. Strongs persistent calls for an international mobilization to  combat environmental calamities, even when they are exaggerated  (population growth) or scientifically unproven (global warming), have  set the worlds environmental agenda.

Strong appeared to achieve his goal with CO2 through the UN,  particularly the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that gave the  IPCC effective control of national weather agencies and therefore  national policy. Global warming seemed like an easy control agenda until  nature took over. Instead of acknowledging their science was wrong the  UNEP, IPCC and national environment agencies simply moved the goalposts  to climate change and more recently to climate crisis. Now that is  failing a move to a new goalpost, water, is underway to pursue the real  objective  total control. As always it is cloaked in righteousness  (green). Who could oppose a desire for clean air or water?

_Reprinted with the permission from Dr. Tim Ball._

The Best of Dr. Tim Ball

                                                                                                               Copyright © 2014 Dr. Tim Ball.com

                             Previous article by Dr. Tim Ball:  What Overpopulation?

----------


## PRB

> *Water Is Replacing Climate As The Next False UN Environmental Resource Scare.*
> 
> By Dr. Tim Ball
> Dr. Tim Ball.com
> May 8, 2014
> 
> 
> 
>   
> ...


Nice conspiracy theory bro. Wrong, problem does not justify control. Establishing problem is FAR from control behind.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Nice conspiracy theory bro. Wrong, problem does not justify control. Establishing problem is FAR from control behind.


Except that the problems you try to "establish" closely follow the Satanic script of the Club of Rome, for the purpose of global taxation and global one world tyranny with humanity itself being the enemy:
"“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a  new enemy to  unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the  threat of global  warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit  the bill. All  these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is  only through  changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.  The real  enemy then, is humanity itself.”"
This is what you are getting paid for, troll.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Climate Change and Conquest 

By Alwin Lowi
May 14, 2014
 

                        ...

But why pick on CO2? Green plant life cannot get enough of the stuff.  After all, there are other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with  greater solar interaction and fewer environmental benefits to sacrifice  than CO2.

 The answer to this question is an example of the streetlight effect:
A policeman sees a drunk searching for something under a  streetlight. He asks the drunk, “What have you lost?” The drunk replies,  “I lost my keys.” They both proceed to look under the streetlight  together. After a few minutes the policeman asks the drunk if he is sure  he lost them here. The drunk replies, “No, I lost them in the park.”  The policeman asks, if that’s the case, why are you searching here?” The  drunk replies, “This is where the light is.”

Recall that legislation only works on people. People do things that put CO2 in the air. The other gases in the air are not as anthropogenic as CO2.  To compensate, government conjured up some studies to show a plausible  story connecting human industrial activity and atmospheric CO2. This story sufficed to justify legislation.

 As with most stories, this one begins with some facts. It seems some  atmospheric scientists recently discovered that the amount of CO2  in the atmosphere nowadays is almost twice what it was at the beginning  of the industrial age when the burning of fossil fuel began to expand  and man’s emission of CO2 into the atmosphere burgeoned. Scientists  found the CO2 had increased from roughly 250 parts per  million (ppm) in about 1800 to about 400 ppm presently, an increase of  about 60 per cent in a little over two hundred years. Sound the alarm.

 But hold on. Geologists and meteorologists have determined that,  quite coincidently as far as anyone knows, and having no apparent  connection with humans, the Earth was coming out of the Little Ice Age  during this same period. That’s when the Earth began returning to  thermal normality whereupon its great carbon reservoir, the ocean, began  to gain some heat and lose some of its vast store of carbon to the  atmosphere. This shifting equilibrium between the ocean and the  atmosphere at this time in history raises to question how much of the  supposedly offending CO2 in the atmosphere can be attributed  to human activity. Alas, only the human contribution is subject to human  control and that turns out to be minuscule in the face of nature. So  the case against humanity for climate alteration becomes debatable. If  it is debatable, it is not fit subject matter for legislation. But the  wheels of government grind on oblivious to the controversy.

 The government’s story got the jump on the public. Already, the “Chicken Little” effect has taken hold:
A chick called “Chicken Little” believes the sky is  falling when an acorn falls on its head. The chick decides to go tell  the King and on its journey meets other animals who join in the quest to  avoid disaster.

One of the most widely promoted ideas of all time asserts that more human-generated CO2  in the atmosphere means a stronger greenhouse effect and an  irreversibly warming climate. This idea is based on tacit assumptions:  (1) that the greenhouse effect is the principal determinant of the  Earth’s temperature, (2) that the strength of the greenhouse effect is  proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and (3) that humans are responsible for the presence offending gas (i.e., CO2  is a pollutant and humans are polluters). It is also assumed that the  audience is ignorant of physics and will accept the story as truth _ipse dixit_ (on the authority of the one in charge).

 Now riding on the bandwagon of an alleged world-wide consensus of  scientists, and impervious to or oblivious to or in denial of the  obvious questions raised by skeptics, many are convinced this story is  the gospel truth; that a monster heat wave and tidal inundation is  imminent unless a promiscuous humanity can be appropriately brought to  heel. No typical natural disaster, this public safety  crisis-in-the-making is Apocalyptic, and it is attributable to human  gluttony, a moral failing that naturally calls for paternalistic  government to rein in the offending behavior with broader and more  stringent emission regulation and selected life-style changes.

 So mankind is treated to yet another scheme for political conquest. Is this one any different from those anticipated by the master  whose “Prince” is the generic term for political government? What is  political government but the institutionalization of conquest?
“Of all the defining characteristics of government, the  most essential and least avoidable is the origin of government itself:  conquest. Conquest is “the action gained by force of arms; acquisition  by war; subjugation of a country … by vanquishing; gaining of victory.” _The Compact Oxford Dictionary_, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971. Theodore J. Lowi, _Incomplete Conquest: Governing America,_ Second Edition, Dryden Press, Holt, Reinhart, Winston, New York, 1981, p. 7.

Now we know what the carbon abatement program is all about.


Read more: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/a...-and-conquest/

----------


## PRB

> Climate Change and Conquest 
> 
> By Alwin Lowi
> May 14, 2014
>  
> 
>                         ...
> 
> But why pick on CO2? Green plant life cannot get enough of the stuff.  After all, there are other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with  greater solar interaction and fewer environmental benefits to sacrifice  than CO2.


I'm not a plant, and i'm not a tree hugger, I don't care about plants. what are those "other gases with more interaction and less benefits"?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information*

                                                                                                           By Dr. Tim Ball
Dr. Tim Ball.com
 

"Stomata data show higher readings and variability than the excessively smoothed ice core record. They align quantitatively with the 19th century measurements as Jaworowski and Beck assert. The average level for the ice core record shown is approximately 265 ppm while it is approximately 300 ppm for the stomata record. 

 The pre-industrial CO2 level was marginally lower than current levels and likely within the error factor. Neither they, nor the present IPCC claims of 400 ppm are high relative to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that pre-industrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combine this with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase, when all records show the opposite, it is not surprising IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.  

The IPCC deception was premeditated under Maurice Strongs guidance to prove CO2 was causing global warming as pretext for shutting down industrialized nations. They partially achieved their goal as alternate energies and green job economies attest. All this occurred as contradictory evidence mounts because Nature refused to play. CO2 increases as temperatures decline, which according to IPCC science cannot happen. Politicians must deal with facts and abandon all policies based on claims that CO2 is a problem, especially those already causing damage."

Read more: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/d...demonized-co2/

----------


## PRB

> Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.


How about somebody actually disproving this assumption, rather than just "removing the assumption and assume something else"?




> Combine this with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase, when all records show the opposite, it is not surprising IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.


What records show the opposite? I missed that one. IPCC predictions can be wrong, I'd be happy to see who made better predictions.




> The IPCC deception was premeditated under Maurice Strong’s guidance to prove CO2 was causing global warming as pretext for shutting down industrialized nations.


Nice conspiracy theory bro. 




> They partially achieved their goal as alternate energies and green job economies attest. All this occurred as contradictory evidence mounts because Nature refused to play. *CO2 increases as temperatures decline*


Where is that seen? I'm not saying it can't happen, I wasn't aware that it did. Source please.




> , which according to IPCC science cannot happen. Politicians must deal with facts and abandon all policies based on claims that CO2 is a problem, especially those already causing damage."
> 
> Read more: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/d...demonized-co2/


I'm against all policies, so that's not my problem.

----------


## PRB

//

----------


## PRB

///

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I'm against all policies, so that's not my problem.


You are not against the policies. You PRETEND to be agaisnt the polices to advance the agenda of your employers. The oldest trick in the book. Nobody's buying it here though. They see you for what you now are -- a paid shill. (i.e. Troll in the vernacular.)

----------


## PRB

> You are not against the policies. You PRETEND to be agaisnt the polices to advance the agenda of your employers.


Saying it a million times won't make it true.

I've said I'm against policies all along, but I can't force you to believe me, just like you can't force me to believe you're not a murderer.




> The oldest trick in the book. Nobody's buying it here though. They see you for what you now are -- a paid shill. (i.e. Troll in the vernacular.)


Would be nice if you had something better, like proof.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> My employer is smarter than you think, he doesn't pay me by post count, that would incentivize spamming. He pays by substance and quality,...


I know for a fact that this is how many forum owners operate.  They hire agitators to increase forum traffic.  Most owners do pay by the post, but there is a word count minimum.  The post also has to have substance.  The poster also needs to demonstrate some knowledge in at least two or three areas of the topics that are discussed before or upon hire.  I know this because I do web contract work and owners have asked me to do the same thing or find others to do it, but I have always declined that part of the job.

Sometimes the fake member is instructed to only post logical and factual posts.  He is instructed not to get into his beliefs and values.  Sometimes however, the poster gets carried away and eventually his beliefs start showing up here and there.  He couches those beliefs in seemingly sarcastic comments or devil's advocate type arguments.  He can, therefore, post his opinions on subjects with deniability, but it's still pretty easy to spot him.

There is one RPF member on here who fits the stoic mold very well.  He is smart enough to know when to abandon threads.  His discussions don't get much into his values.  There is also another RPF member who gets carried away and is not a shrewd as the very stoic RPF member.  I always thought the second, more emotional member might take some tips from the more stoic member.

Oh, don't worry PRB, I was not thinking of you at all, but just that your comment was a good time to interject.

Now who is that RPF member who does this....

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Would be nice if you had something better, like proof.


This quote was directed at someone else, but you also sent me a private message telling me to "prove it."  Why the private message, PRB?  Why not discuss it in the open?  Certainly, you're not getting bent out of shape over my post #528, are you?  I clearly stated in that post that I was not thinking of you at all.

----------


## PRB

> This quote was directed at someone else, but you also sent me a private message telling me to "prove it."  Why the private message, PRB?  Why not discuss it in the open?  Certainly, you're not getting bent out of shape over my post #528, are you?  I clearly stated in that post that I was not thinking of you at all.


Me asking you to prove something has nothing to do with whether it was directed at me, whether you were thinking of me, or whether I'm bent about it.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Me asking you to prove something has nothing to do with whether it was directed at me, whether you were thinking of me, or whether I'm bent about it.


Then why do you care?

----------


## PRB

> Then why do you care?


Because I like to believe things which have some evidence, and dismiss things which do not. In this case, I am curious if you're talking out of your ass, or actually have something to back it up on.

Why do I care? Let's say I find it entertaining to expose liars and slapping people who don't know what they're talking about.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Why do I care? Let's say I find it entertaining to expose liars and slapping people who don't know what they're talking about.



The irony is thick.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> In this case, I am curious if you're talking out of your ass, or actually have something to back it up on.



Getting a little nervous, huh?

----------


## PRB

> Getting a little nervous, huh?


Nope. Prove it, I know you can't.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Nope. Prove it, I know you can't.


So-- just for the record here--are you saying that you don't get paid for your posts?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> So-- just for the record here--are you saying that you don't get paid for your posts?



Sure is taking PRB a long time to answer a straightforward question.  Perhaps he is contacting counsel.

----------


## PRB

> So-- just for the record here--are you saying that you don't get paid for your posts?


Yes. I am saying I am not getting paid. Although I joked about it a few times to poke fun at people who are creative enough to think so. Sorry, I actually have free time every few days to post here for my own entertainment, I WISH I was paid to post here.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Sorry, I actually have free time every few days to post here...


You post here almost every day, around the clock.  Is this statement above going to later be another one of your, "I_ think_ I said..."

And no, I don't have to prove it because every post is time stamped.  






> I...post here for my own entertainment,


So you're a masochist?






> I WISH I was paid to post here.


It's also easy to believe that you wouldn't post anywhere for pay.  Frankly, you just don't have the material.  But then again, owners pay pennies or a few nickels on the post, so that would fit you.

----------


## PRB

> You post here almost every day, around the clock.  Is this statement above going to later be another one of your, "I_ think_ I said..."
> 
> And no, I don't have to prove it because every post is time stamped.  
> 
> So you're a masochist?
> 
> *It's also easy to believe that you wouldn't post anywhere for pay.  Frankly, you just don't have the material.*  But then again, owners pay pennies or a few nickels on the post, so that would fit you.


Not masochist, I don't know why you'd say that. 

The bolded part would be the easiest answer from Occam's razor, do you not think?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Not masochist, I don't know why you'd say that.


Well, you're a cut above the Guest Forum liberals who get used as mops, but not by much.  






> ...do you not think?


I think that every time you're busted in one of your inconsistencies or contradictions--you turn into a slippery little weasel.

----------


## PRB

> Well, you're a cut above the Guest Forum liberals who get used as mops, but not by much.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that every time you're busted in one of your inconsistencies or contradictions--you turn into a slippery little weasel.


example? I mean, I admit I don't have material, but if I am inconsistent, I try to correct myself or admit it (unless I think you're wrong, then I explain it and defend what I say)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Admit it, PRB, you are busted, Mr. toll.

----------


## PRB

> Admit it, PRB, you are busted, Mr. toll.


No, I'm not, but I can't stop you from believing absurd things without proof, which you clearly do. I can only point out where you are wrong, using evidence that I am aware of.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> example?...if I am inconsistent, I try to correct myself or admit it...


You take the cake, Holmes.  I just pointed one out only a few posts ago and you ignored it.  Every time I point one out--you reach in your grab bag of lame of excuses.  My favorite is when you say, "I _think_ I said..."

Sort of ironic in that other thread how you object to me using the word dip$#@! to describe certain people.

----------


## PRB

> Sort of ironic in that other thread how you object to me using the word dip$#@! to describe certain people.


See? here's an example of you misunderstanding me, I have no problem with you calling people dip$#@!, as long as you mean it and will stick to it.

----------


## KingNothing

Boy, this thread is embarrassing.

----------


## KingNothing

> No, I'm not, but I can't stop you from believing absurd things without proof, which you clearly do. I can only point out where you are wrong, using evidence that I am aware of.



A lot of the lunatic fringe around here arrived at conclusions long before they found any proof.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> See? here's an example of you misunderstanding me, I have no problem with you calling people dip$#@!, as long as you mean it and will stick to it.


Ah okay, you added two qualifiers now.  Pretty much what I'd expect.

So anyway, did I pass your test?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Boy, this thread is embarrassing.


But you can't look away, can you?

----------


## KingNothing

> But you can't look away, can you?



Eh, a lot of the conspiracy theorist lunatics around here are so annoying that I rarely frequent this site.  I'm guessing I won't be back to this thread.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Eh, a lot of the conspiracy theorist lunatics around here are so annoying that I rarely frequent this site.  I'm guessing I won't be back to this thread.


You know, the funny thing is that I'm not much in that camp.  I think conspiracies often happen on a much smaller scale and those are ignored.  PRB told me to admit global warming is not a hoax, but I never even discussed the issue.  I actually think Sept 11 was the work of towelheads.  And get this--I think JFK was killed only by Oswald!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How about somebody actually disproving this assumption, rather than just "removing the assumption and assume something else"?


That's not how it works.  You can't just assume whatever you want and ask us to disprove it.  We should rather assume the status quo, or the null hypothesis.  Whoever can refute the null hypothesis then has a case that can be argued, but not until you refute the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis being that nothing is happening and all is as it should be.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You know, the funny thing is that I'm not much in that camp.  I think conspiracies often happen on a much smaller scale and those are ignored.  PRB told me to admit global warming is not a hoax, but I never even discussed the issue.  I actually think Sept 11 was the work of towelheads.  And get this--I think JFK was killed only by Oswald!


If you ask me, that's actually pretty stupid.  The Kennedy assassination was clearly not the work of one man.

----------


## PRB

> That's not how it works.  You can't just assume whatever you want and ask us to disprove it.


Fair enough, and I don't. I rely on scientific research, repeatable testing, data subject to scrutiny, I didn't make up these assumptions myself, nor do I need to defend them persistently. 




> We should rather assume the status quo, or the null hypothesis.


Again, sure, why not. Now, tell us what the status quo is, and what it takes to refute the null hypothesis. Go ahead, tell me if you know.




> Whoever can refute the null hypothesis then has a case that can be argued, but not until you refute the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis being that nothing is happening and all is as it should be.


So you must be a great predictor using what you just said. Let's see if you predict the climate better than scientists have and will. How's that for a test of null hypothesis?

----------


## PRB

> If you ask me, that's actually pretty stupid.  The Kennedy assassination was clearly not the work of one man.


Conspiracy theorists always think they are smarter than other people.

----------


## Danke

> Conspiracy theorists always think they are smarter than other people.


Not smarter, maybe more open minded.  (back on ignore).

----------


## KingNothing

> Not smarter, maybe more open minded.  (back on ignore).



You aren't open minded if you disregard every shred of evidence that counters your claim and/or jump immediately to a conclusion that supports your worldview, as most conspiracy theorists do.

----------


## PRB

> You aren't open minded if you disregard every shred of evidence that counters your claim and/or jump immediately to a conclusion that supports your worldview, as most conspiracy theorists do.


And I'll bet you'd agree with me, that WE (as non-conspiracy theorists, skeptics) are open minded to evidence that can be tested, hold all evidence to the same standard of scrutiny, and on top of that, are willing to consider that SOME conspiracy theorists may in fact be open minded, but we'd like to see it.

----------


## KingNothing

> And I'll bet you'd agree with me, that WE (as non-conspiracy theorists, skeptics) are open minded to evidence that can be tested, hold all evidence to the same standard of scrutiny, and on top of that, are willing to consider that SOME conspiracy theorists may in fact be open minded, but we'd like to see it.



I will entertain absolutely every theory.  And then I'll analyze the evidence and draw an objective conclusion.  That's what separates me from people who believe in chemtrails and fluoridated water to create a dumb, docile, population.

----------


## Dr.3D

Detectives are conspiracy theorists.   If they weren't, they wouldn't detect conspiracies.

----------


## juleswin

> I will entertain absolutely every theory.  And then I'll analyze the evidence and draw an objective conclusion.  That's what separates me from people who believe in chemtrails and fluoridated water to create a dumb, docile, population.


Good for you, the other non conspiracy believer "skeptic" wouldn't look at anything from youtube because he think youtube evidence is icky. Btw, have you looked at any 911 documentaries? PRB talks about evidence that can be tested and hold all evidence to the same standards of scrutiny but yet he disregards evidence such as 




while believing the pseudo science that is anthropogenic climate change theories many of which cannot be tests and their prediction models have been shown to be virtually every time their predictions have caught up to reality.

----------


## PRB

> Detectives are conspiracy theorists.   If they weren't, they wouldn't detect conspiracies.


But even they have to hold a reasonable standard of evidence, from which, they're willing to give up and abandon a theory when either evidence proves them wrong or lack of evidence forces them to admit they need more to make a case. Otherwise, theories are just that, THEORIES.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

If there's any threat, it's Methane. A there's a $#@!load of it trapped within Earth, just waiting to be released. BTW, if these clowns want to propagandize, how 'bout addressing what the carbon footprint of the global Military Industrial Complex'?

Star Trek: First Contact


> Lieutenant Commander Data: _[We see a 24th century Earth. It looks shattered and broken-up] The atmosphere contains high concentrations of methane, carbon monoxide, and fluorine._ 
> 
> Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Life signs? 
> 
> Lieutenant Commander Data: _Population approximately nine billion... all Borg(Sheep)._

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

And then they are the conspiracies that actually turn out to be true.  But, alas, those don't happen any more because--well, because they just don't.

Behold today's new phenomenon.  The anti-conspiracy theorist.  His TV shows are even more entertaining.

Oh yeah.  In before the forum dumbass posting a "Penn & Teller" video.

----------


## PRB

> while believing the pseudo science that is anthropogenic climate change theories many of which cannot be tests and their prediction models have been shown to be virtually every time their predictions have caught up to reality.


AGW has been vindicated by virtually all evidence available
1. green house effect is proven
2. CO2 increase is undeniable
3. We can actually distinguish between man made CO2 and volcanic CO2, in case you wanted to say that
4. Predictions haven't always been perfect, but always more accurate than alternative predictions, certainly better than denier's predictions (I am willing to be wrong, show me data that somebody has made better predictions)
5. Go ahead and show me what "caught up with reality" and who predicted the reality better. That's me being OPEN MINDED.

----------


## PRB

> If there's any threat, it's Methane. A there's a $#@!load of it trapped within Earth, just waiting to be released. BTW, if these clowns want to propagandize, how 'bout addressing what the carbon footprint of the global Military Industrial Complex'?
> 
> Star Trek: First Contact


can you quantify "a $#@!load" in scientific terms please? The fact you can bring up other greenhouse gases does not either negate CO2 being one, nor dismiss the fact the globe continues to warm.

----------


## juleswin

> AGW has been vindicated by virtually all evidence available
> 1. green house effect is proven
> 2. CO2 increase is undeniable
> 3. We can actually distinguish between man made CO2 and volcanic CO2, in case you wanted to say that
> 4. Predictions haven't always been perfect, but always more accurate than alternative predictions, certainly better than denier's predictions (I am willing to be wrong, show me data that somebody has made better predictions)
> 5. Go ahead and show me what "caught up with reality" and who predicted the reality better. That's me being OPEN MINDED.



Item 1-3 on your list is something virtually all climate change skeptics agree on.  Green house effect is proven, duh if not earth would be uninhabitable, CO2 is increasing 250ppm in the 80s to 400ppm now, check for number 3. But how any of that is evidence of a catastrophic climate change caused by man is beyond me. By predictions haven't been perfect you must mean, virtually all predictions from the alarmists have predicted exaggerated temperature readings due to CO2.

----------


## PRB

> But how any of that is evidence of a catastrophic climate change caused by man is beyond me.


What is catastrophic climate change and who claimed it? Define that, and maybe we can talk about how anything is evidence of anything.




> By predictions haven't been perfect you must mean, virtually all predictions from the alarmists have predicted exaggerated temperature readings due to CO2.


No, that's not what I meant. But irrelevant until you give me better predictors.

----------


## PRB

> Item 1-3 on your list is something virtually all climate change skeptics agree on.


Except the ones who say it's the sun. Or that the globe is cooling.

----------


## juleswin

> Except the ones who say it's the sun. Or that the globe is cooling.


I think what they are trying to tell you is that yes CO2 affects temperature but the sun has a greater impact on climate than CO2. They are by in no way saying that CO2 has no effect whatsoever




> What is catastrophic climate change and who claimed it? Define that, and maybe we can talk about how anything is evidence of anything.
> 
> No, that's not what I meant. But irrelevant until you give me better predictors.


Lol, its on you to bring a better 8 ball to the table, not one that predicts catastrophe every time the ball is rolled.

----------


## PRB

> I think what they are trying to tell you is that yes CO2 affects temperature but the sun has a greater impact on climate than CO2.


And they'd be wrong. 




> They are by in no way saying that CO2 has no effect whatsoever


If they say it's less an effect than the sun, they're just as wrong.




> Lol, its on you to bring a better 8 ball to the table, not one that predicts catastrophe every time the ball is rolled.


Again, who claimed catastrophe? Do you admit you have no idea which 'non-alarmist' climatologist has made better predictions? You'd be right, I haven't found one either. If alarmists are always wrong, just find one that is less wrong, any person will do as long as he's willing to put his mouth up for slapping when he's proven wrong.

----------


## juleswin

> Again, who claimed catastrophe? Do you admit you have no idea which 'non-alarmist' climatologist has made better predictions? You'd be right, I haven't found one either. If alarmists are always wrong, just find one that is less wrong, any person will do as long as he's willing to put his mouth up for slapping when he's proven wrong.


If its not catastrophic then why is warming a problem? I have always thought that the whole underpinning of climate change alarmists is that they are trying to save the world from run away green house. Isnt that the whole reason why that fraud Neil DeGrass Tyson keeps making comparisons between earths climate and Venus ?

Climate skeptics are not in the business of making models, they are not the ones getting huge government grants to produce reasons to tax the world to death. They just sit and wait for the predictions to mature to show the world for the 1000th time how full of $#@! alarmists are.

----------


## ZENemy

> Conspiracy theorists always think they are smarter than other people.


Appeal to ridicule.

----------


## ZENemy

> And I'll bet you'd agree with me, that WE (as non-conspiracy theorists, skeptics) are open minded to evidence that can be tested, hold all evidence to the same standard of scrutiny, and on top of that, are willing to consider that SOME conspiracy theorists may in fact be open minded, but we'd like to see it.


Appeal to authority and once again you pass off your imagination as fact.

----------


## PRB

> If its not catastrophic then why is warming a problem?


Because anything that isn't catastrophic isn't a problem

----------


## PRB

> Appeal to authority and once again you pass off your imagination as fact.


Appeal to the scientific method is hardly an authority.

----------


## PRB

> Climate skeptics are not in the business of making models, they are not the ones getting huge government grants to produce reasons to tax the world to death. They just sit and wait for the predictions to mature to show the world for the 1000th time how full of $#@! alarmists are.


Saying a person is full of $#@! assumes you have to know what facts are, and make better predictions. If you can't make better ones, you have to admit even the worst ones are better than none (if you claim they're wrong or the 1000th time, you must at least be willing to make ONE prediction and be willing to be wrong, this is basic logic).

So you proved my point, deniers have no idea what they're talking about. They just deny, deny, deny and do not hold themselves to the same standard.

As for "just sit and wait for the predictions to mature to show the world for the 1000th time how full of $#@! alarmists are." that's usually a great strategy when you're not a conspiracy theorist, and most honest people won't mind sticking their head out to make a counter prediction, such as the status quo. We can call this out on anybody yelling Obama is coming for your guns, NWO, mark of the beast, dollar is going to be worthless, 9/11 will happen again, WW3...ironic and hypocritical that global warming deniers seem to know how to be skeptical and dismissive when it's not their own theory at test.

----------


## juleswin

> Saying a person is full of $#@! assumes you have to know what facts are, and make better predictions. If you can't make better ones, you have to admit even the worst ones are better than none (if you claim they're wrong or the 1000th time, you must at least be willing to make ONE prediction and be willing to be wrong, this is basic logic).
> 
> So you proved my point, deniers have no idea what they're talking about. They just deny, deny, deny and do not hold themselves to the same standard.
> 
> As for "just sit and wait for the predictions to mature to show the world for the 1000th time how full of $#@! alarmists are." that's usually a great strategy when you're not a conspiracy theorist, and most honest people won't mind sticking their head out to make a counter prediction, such as the status quo. We can call this out on anybody yelling Obama is coming for your guns, NWO, mark of the beast, dollar is going to be worthless, 9/11 will happen again, WW3...ironic and hypocritical that global warming deniers seem to know how to be skeptical and dismissive when it's not their own theory at test.


WTF are you talking about? Obama wants to your guns but he just hasn't be able to get it. Thank god the republicans have been able to shoot down every attempt by Harry Reid to legislate more gun control law. Don't take their failure to do so as a lack of resolve to pass more gun control laws. 

I am sure you also don't think Obama is disinterested in starting a war with Syria just because Putin tripped him off on his war to the front line, right? Ofc, there's no way you believe that, you are way smarter than that

----------


## PRB

> WTF are you talking about? Obama wants to your guns but he just hasn't be able to get it. Thank god the republicans have been able to shoot down every attempt by Harry Reid to legislate more gun control law. Don't take their failure to do so as a lack of resolve to pass more gun control laws.


Aha, this, boys and girls, is the classic conspiracy theorist response "Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't happen!"




> I am sure you also don't think Obama is disinterested in starting a war with Syria just because Putin tripped him off on his war to the front line, right?


I do think he's either careless or somewhat interested. But I am willing to be wrong.




> Ofc, there's no way you believe that, you are way smarter than that


Did I answer you?

----------


## juleswin

> Aha, this, boys and girls, is the classic conspiracy theorist response "Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't happen!"


I would understand if I didn't her him whine and complain how disappointed he is because congress hasn't brought a federal gun control bill for him to sign. I can pull up youtube videos for you to see what I am talking about. He really want to get something passed but he just hasn't been able to.





> I do think he's either careless or somewhat interested. But I am willing to be wrong.


So you wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory to say that he has been itching to get the US military/NATO involved in the Syrian conflict and the whole chemical weapon attack might have been part of his game plan to get us there?

----------


## PRB

> I would understand if I didn't her him whine and complain how disappointed he is because congress hasn't brought a federal gun control bill for him to sign. I can pull up youtube videos for you to see what I am talking about. He really want to get something passed but he just hasn't been able to.


Fair enough, please share.




> So you wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory to say that he has been itching to get the US military/NATO involved in the Syrian conflict and the whole chemical weapon attack might have been part of his game plan to get us there?


I honestly, at this point, am not informed enough to say whether there's enough evidence to make it a plausible theory vs pure cynical speculation. But I am willing to see the information available.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> We can call this out on anybody yelling Obama is coming for your guns,..


The idea that anybody attaches the word conspiracy to gun control really demonstrates the grasping of the anti-conspiracy theorist.  Gun control advocates are up front about their intentions, so the secrecy of a conspiracy is absent.  Another component of conspiracies is lawfulness.  Obama's introduction of orders and congressional proposals also fails this conspiracy criterion. 






> We can call this out on anybody yelling...NWO,


Bush Sr. unflinchingly used the term New World Order back in '91.  Others have used it before him.





> We can call this out on anybody yelling... 9/11 will happen again,


The people yelling this are government employees who want more funds to combat it.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Fair enough, please share.


Obama's stance on gun control is common knowledge for those who follow.  Easy enough to find if you don't.

----------


## PRB

> The idea that anybody attaches the word conspiracy to gun control really demonstrates the grasping of the anti-conspiracy theorist.  Gun control advocates are up front about their intentions, so the secrecy of a conspiracy is absent.  Another component of conspiracies is lawfulness.  Obama's introduction of orders and congressional proposals also fails this conspiracy criterion.


Here, is where you caught me in a mistake, or poor use of words, and I admit I am wrong.

I was conflating alarmists/fearmongers/doomsdayers with conspiracy theorists (people who have alternative explanations for events that have already happened). 

Obama's introduction of laws and proposals, would indeed be lacking conspiracy element, but who needs a CT when you have facts?




> Bush Sr. unflinchingly used the term New World Order back in '91.  Others have used it before him.


Did it mean what conspiracy theorists are using it to mean?




> The people yelling this are government employees who want more funds to combat it.


Not if they predict it'll be the government false flagging, see Alex Jones.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ... but who needs a CT [conspiracy theory]?



The anti-conspiracy theorist and the cable TV show producer.

----------


## PRB

> The anti-conspiracy theorist and the cable TV show producer.


so, rare, right?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> so, rare, right?


Not really.  Or, guess it depends on the magnitude of the conspiracy and it's entertainment value. 

Real conspiracies are discussed every day.  They happen all the time.  Maybe it's a half dozen or so guys at Tuesday's 10am meeting.  Maybe it's just an impromptu meeting.  Their importance is eclipsed in favor of more grandiose and entertaining propositions.  Pretty much like a lot of other things in the world.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> can you quantify "a $#@!load" in scientific terms please?


Yes. It's PRB.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Item 1-3 on your list is something virtually all climate change skeptics agree on.  Green house effect is proven, duh if not earth would be uninhabitable, CO2 is increasing 250ppm in the 80s to 400ppm now, check for number 3. But how any of that is evidence of a catastrophic climate change caused by man is beyond me. By predictions haven't been perfect you must mean, virtually all predictions from the alarmists have predicted exaggerated temperature readings due to CO2.


Right. They also forgot that CO2 levels used to be over 10 times what they are now, with temprature lower.

----------


## PRB

> Right. They also forgot that CO2 levels used to be over 10 times what they are now, with temprature lower.


Source please?

If this is true, this would be in contradiction with the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Source please?
> 
> If this is true, this would be in contradiction with the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.


Not really. It will simply point out that there are factors a hundred times more powerfull in determining climate than CO2 lelvels.

----------


## juleswin

> Source please?
> 
> If this is true, this would be in contradiction with the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.






> An argument used against the warming effect of carbon dioxide is that millions of years ago, CO2 levels were higher during periods where large glaciers formed over the Earth's poles. This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods. The combined effect of sun and CO2 show good correlation with climate (Royer 2006). The one period that until recently puzzled paleoclimatologists was the late Ordovician, around 444 million years ago. *At this time, CO2 levels were very high, around 5600 parts per million* (in contrast, current CO2 levels are 389 parts per million). However, glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician, it coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. How did glaciation occur with such high CO2 levels? Recent data has revealed CO2 levels at the time of the late Ordovician ice age were not that high after all.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-...Ordovician.htm

Source is from an alarmist website so that may explain how they spun the info.

----------


## PRB

> Not really. It will simply point out that there are factors a hundred times more powerfull in determining climate than CO2 lelvels.


same question : source please.

----------


## PRB

> http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-...Ordovician.htm
> 
> Source is from an alarmist website so that may explain how they spun the info.


*This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods.*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Thanks, juleswin!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> *This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods.*


Did you also miss that the earth has experienced global dimming in the past 50 years? Less solar light reaches the surface because the atmosphere is darker. 

 This goes to show, AGAIN, that CO2 never was the driving and determining climate change factor. There are other factors hundred times more important, including the Sun (dah), and not the least of which is also water vapor green house gas, which accounts for about 98% of all green house gases in the atmosphere. I gave you the sources earlier. Be a doll, scroll up.

----------


## PRB

> Did you also miss that the earth has experienced global dimming in the past 50 years?


Maybe. What do you mean by global dimming?




> Less solar light reaches the surface because the atmosphere is darker.


Source? 




> This goes to show, AGAIN, that CO2 never was the driving and determining climate change factor.


No, it doesn't. You managed to find ONE example in the past 500 million years of one case where CO2 was higher, but temperatures were lower due to solar output allegedly being lower (I am open to being wrong on this)




> There are other factors hundred times more important, not the least of which is water vapor green house gas


Other factors, nobody disputes, hundreds of times more important? back it up with evidence.




> , which accounts for about 98% of all green house gases in the atmosphere. I gave you the sources earlier. Be a doll, scroll up.


You don't even know how 98% is measured and how the alleged abundance is the sole factor

----------


## juleswin

> *This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods.*


But the sun doesn't matter, its all CO2 right?

----------


## PRB

> But the sun doesn't matter, its all CO2 right?


Nobody said that, greenhouse effect specifically requires there to be sun light.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

holes in the ozone layer are a 1000% worse problem that needs to be addressed

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

* The Geological Society of Australia has backed away from  taking an official position on the global-warming issue because there is no  consensus among its 2000 members.*  [This highlights the absurd claim  often made by global warmists that 97% of scientists agree that global waring is  caused by humans. On the pages of the journal of the Geological Society of  Australia, the consensus is less than one percent.] _Daily Caller_  posted 2014 Jun 6  (Cached)

http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> can you quantify "a $#@!load" in scientific terms please? The fact you can bring up other greenhouse gases does not either negate CO2 being one, nor dismiss the fact the globe continues to warm.


GOOGLE is your friend read the studies and measurements. CO2 is a nothingburger compared the Methane and Ozone Holes.

----------


## PRB

> * The Geological Society of Australia has backed away from  taking an official position on the global-warming issue because there is no  consensus among its 2000 members.*  [This highlights the absurd claim  often made by global warmists that 97% of scientists agree that global waring is  caused by humans. On the pages of the journal of the Geological Society of  Australia, the consensus is less than one percent.] _Daily Caller_  posted 2014 Jun 6  (Cached)
> 
> http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html


How many of those 2000 scientists published any studies, or are making any predictions they'd be willing to put to a test? A society or organization doesn't need to have a position, I'm more curious what each scientist says, and why.

----------


## PRB

> GOOGLE is your friend read the studies and measurements. CO2 is a nothingburger compared the Methane and Ozone Holes.


Source please.

----------


## PRB

> holes in the ozone layer are a 1000% worse problem that needs to be addressed


assuming true, how would you "address" this problem?

----------


## libertyjam



----------


## juleswin

> How many of those 2000 scientists published any studies, or are making any predictions they'd be willing to put to a test? A society or organization doesn't need to have a position, I'm more curious what each scientist says, and why.


All you have to do to beat the best alarmist prediction is to copy the most conservative of the alarmist predictions and take all the temperature reading down 5oC and voila, you have the most accurate prediction on record.

----------


## libertyjam



----------


## PRB

> All you have to do to beat the best alarmist prediction is to copy the most conservative of the alarmist predictions and take all the temperature reading down 5oC and voila, you have the most accurate prediction on record.


wrong. you're talking out of your ass.

If you actually did it you'd see how laughable your prediction is (or maybe you and I are looking at different data)

----------


## PRB

> 


putting something on a billboard doesn't make it true.

Earth to scale is in fact much smaller than the sun, but guess what's NOT to scale? DISTANCE.

The sun HASN'T been increasing in heating trend for at least 30 years, yet global warming has continued (even after El Nino/La Nina was factored in)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...ming-basic.htm

----------


## libertyjam

*Sun Activity Correlates with Temperature*
http://friendsofscience.org/assets/d...l#Sun_Activity

Numerous papers published in major peer-reviewed scientific journals  shows the Sun is the primary driver of climate change.  There is a very  strong correlation between the Sun activity and temperature.

Early in the nineteenth century, William Herschel (1738-1822),  discoverer of Uranus, found that five periods of low number of sunspots  corresponded to high wheat prices when the temperatures were cold. (Cold  climate reduces the supply of wheat causing its price to rise.) See here.

E. Friis-Christensen and K.Lassen have shown that the length of the mean  11 year Sunspot cycle correlates to the northern hemisphere temperature  during the past 130 years.  The length of the Sunspot cycle is known to  vary with solar activity, whereas high solar activity implies short  sunspot cycle length. See here for further information.

See here for an updated plot based on Friis-Christensen and Lassen's methodology.

Here is a correlation of the sunspot cycle length, global temperature and CO2 concentrations.
*Sunspot Cycle Length Temperature and CO2*










The red squares on the graph represent the sunspot cycle lengths. One  point is the cycle length from the time of the maximum number of  sunspots to the time of the maximum number of sunspots of the next  cycle, and the following point is the cycle length from the time of the  minimum number of sunspots to the time of the minimum number of sunspots  of the next cycle. The sunspot cycles are back filtered using weighting  1,2,3,4 applied to each cycle point, both min to min and max to max.  This assumes that the current cycle has the most effect on temperature  (weight 4), and previous half cycles affect current temperatures in  declining amounts, but future cycles have no effect on the current  temperature. The temperature curve in blue used the HadCRUT3 land and  sea data to 1978, the MSU satellite data from 1984 to 2006, and the  average of the datasets for 1979 to 1983. This eliminates much of the  urban heat island effects. The temperatures are unfiltered annual. The  CO2 concentrations (ppmv) from 1958 to 2007 are derived from air samples  collected at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. CO2 concentrations  prior to 1958 are uncertain.

Note that there is a correspondence between sunspot cycle length and  temperature. Both the temperature and the cycle length curves begin to  rise at 1910, and temperatures fall after 1945 to 1975 when the cycle  length curve falls, and both curves rise again after 1975.  Temperatures  have been increasing since 1980 faster than can be explained by the  sunspot cycle length, indicating a possible human CO2 contribution. The  recent increase of the cycle lengths explains why there has been no  warming since 2002. Temperature changes are expected to follow Sun  activity changes due to a time lag resulting from the large heat  capacity of the oceans.

N. Scafetta of Duke University, Durham, NC and B.J. West of the US Army  Research Office, NC studied the solar impact on 400 years of the  Northern Hemisphere temperatures since 1600. They find good  correspondence between temperature and solar irradiance proxy  reconstructions up until 1920 as shown on the graph below.

*                    Northern Hemisphere Temperature vs Solar Irradiance 400 years*











The temperature curve is derived from proxy records to 1850 by Moberg et  al. [2005], and from instrumental surface temperature data from 1850 to  about 1980. The surface temperature record includes the urban heat  island (UHI) and land use changes effects. The Northern Hemisphere MSU  lower troposphere record is shown from 1979 in blue, which eliminates  most of the UHI effects. Two different solar irradiance proxy  reconstructions are shown: Lean, 2000; Wang et al., 2005. Both curves  merge the ACRIM satellite data since 1980 with the proxy data. By  assuming ACRIM, the solar activity has an increasing trend during the  second half of the 20th century.  This graph is modified from the  version created by Scafetta and West, which uses the contaminated  instrument record after 1979 instead of the satellite data.  See the  original version here.

Note the low solar activity periods occurring during the Maunder Minimum  (16451715, the Little Ice Age) and during the Dalton Minimum  (17951825).

Note the excellent correlation from 1600 to 1900 when humans were  unlikely to effect climate. During the 20th century one continues to  observe a significant correlation between the solar and temperature  patterns:  both records show an increase from 1900 to 1950, a decrease  from 1950 to 1970, and again an increase from 1970 to 2000.

A divergence of the curves from the Scafetta and West original graph  indicates that the Sun is responsible for 56% using Lean 2000, and 69%  using Wang 2005, of the northern hemisphere warming from 1900 to 2005.  The authors estimate the error at 20%.

There are two solar composites available from satellite data. The ACRIM  is obtained directly from the satellite data, while the PMOD assumes  that Nimbus7/ERB satellite data covering the ACRIM gap (19891992) are  still significantly corrupted and require additional severe adjustments.  The ACRIM data shows higher solar irradiance during solar cycle 22 - 23  than the PMOD data.  Using the PMOD data and the original graph, the  Sun likely has contributed 50% of the surface warming from 1900 to 2005.

The authors did a similar analysis using the Mann and Jones 2003  temperature reconstruction. This temperature history shows little  variation before 1900 and shows a hockey stick shape. This  reconstruction has been severely criticized for several reasons. See The  IPCC Hockey Stick  section of this essay.  The authors found that the Mann and Jones 2003  reconstruction (when compared to the Lean 2000 data) results in an  unphysical zero response time to solar forcing. The ocean's large heat  capacity should result in a time lag of surface temperatures with  respect to long time solar changes of several years, so this  reconstruction cannot be correct.

The authors' analysis shows the Sun has contributed 50 to 69% of the  surface warming depending on the reconstructions utilized. The remainder  may be due to CO2, UHI and land use changes. The authors compare the  Sun's irradiance to the Northern Hemisphere land surface temperatures,  which are contaminated with the urban heat island effect. The global MSU  satellite temperatures, which are not contaminated by the UHI effect,  have increased by half as much as the North Hemisphere temperatures  since 1980. If the Scafetta and West analysis used the uncontaminated  satellite data since 1980, the results would show that the Sun has  contributed at least 75% of the global warming of the last century. See  more about the UHI effect later in this essay here. See here for the November 2007 article.

----------


## libertyjam

http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Sun_Activity

Coronal mass ejections from the sun cause a large  decrease in the cosmic ray count, which are called Forbush decrease.  These dramatic, short term cosmic ray decreases can be used to confirm  the cosmic ray effects on clouds. The magnetic plasma clouds from solar coronal mass ejections provide a temporary shield against galactic cosmic rays.

A study by Svensmark et al in 2009 shows that the  decrease in cosmic rays have a large effect on the amount of aerosols,  cloud cover and the liquid water content of clouds. The authors conclude  "From solar activity to cosmic ray ionization to  aerosols and liquid-water clouds, a causal chain appears to operate on a  global scale." 
The figure below shows the evolution of fine aerosols particles in the lower atmosphere (AERONET), cloud  water content (SSM/I), liquid water cloud fraction (MODIS), and low  IR-detected clouds (ISCCP), averaged for the 5 strongest Forbush  decreases in the period 1987-2007. The red dashed line shows the average  cosmic ray count percent change. The lowest aerosol count occurs 5 days  after the Forbush minimum, and the cloud water content minimum occurs 4  days later.  The response in cloud water content for the larger events is about 7%. The broken horizontal lines denote the mean for the first 15 days before the Forbush minimum of each of the four data sets. 
  See here.

Data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and the  Huancayo cosmic ray station shows a remarkable correlation between low  clouds (below 3 km) and cosmic rays. There are more than enough cosmic  rays at high altitudes, so changes in the cosmic rays do not effect high  clouds. But fewer cosmic rays penetrate to the lower clouds, so they  are sensitive to changes in cosmic rays. 

*Cosmic Rays and Low Clouds*







The blue line shows variations in global cloud cover collated by the  International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. The red line is the  record of monthly variations in cosmic-ray counts at the Huancayo  station.

Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth's surface and  exert a strong cooling effect on the surface. A 2% change in low clouds  during a solar cycle will change the heat input to the Earth's surface  by 1.2 watts per square metre (W/m2). This compares to the total warming of 1.4 W/m2  the IPCC cites in the 20th century. (The IPCC does not recognize the  effect of the Sun and Cosmic rays, and attributes the warming to CO2.)

Cosmic ray flux can be determined from radioactive isotopes such as  beryllium-10, or the Suns open coronal magnetic field. The two  independent cosmic ray proxies confirm that there has been a dramatic  reduction in the cosmic ray flux during the 20th century as the Sun has  gained intensity and the Sun's coronal magnetic field has doubled in  strength.

*Cosmic Ray Flux Since 1700
*










Changes in the flux of galactic cosmic rays since 1700 are here derived  from two independent proxies, 10Be (light blue) and open solar coronal  flux (dark blue) (Solanki and Fligge 1999). Low cloud amount (orange) is  scaled and normalized to observational cosmic-ray data from Climax  (red) for the period 1953 to 2005 (3 GeV cut-off). Both scales are  inverted to correspond with rising temperatures. Note that high cosmic  ray flux around 1700 is at the end of the Little Ice Age. Also note the  increase in cosmic ray flux after 1780 at the time of the Dicken's  Winters.





The graph below shows a correlation between the cosmic ray counts and  the global troposphere temperature radiosonde data. The cosmic ray scale  is inverted to correspond to increasing temperatures. High solar  activity corresponds to low cosmic ray counts, reduced low cloud cover,  and higher temperatures. The upper panel shows the troposphere  temperatures in blue and the cosmic ray count in red. The lower panel  shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic  Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend of 0.14  Celsius/decade.

The negative correlation between cosmic ray counts and troposphere  temperatures is very strong, indicating that the Sun is the primary  climate driver. H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen published the  above graph in a paper October 2007 in response to a paper by M.  Lockwood and C. Frohlich, in which they argue that the historical link  between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago. However,  the Lockwood paper had several deficiencies, including the problem that  they used surface temperature data that is contaminated by the urban  heat island effect (see below). They also fail to account for the large  time lag between long-term solar intensity changes to the climate  temperature response.

See the Svensmark rebuttal of the Lockwood paper here, and a critique by myself here.

Over the 20th century the Sun has increased activity and irradiance  intensity, directly providing some warming. The graph below from here shows the rising solar flux during most of the twentieth century.

*Open Solar Flux*

Dr. U.R. Rao of Bangalore, India, shows that galactic cosmic rays, using  10Be measurements in deep polar ice as the proxy, has decreased by 9%  during the last 150 years. The decrease in cosmic rays cause a 2.0%  decrease in low cloud cover resulting in a radiative forcing of 1.1  W/m2, which is about 60% of that due to the CO2 increase during the same  period. See here.

  In the top panel showing cosmic ray intensity, the continuous line  represents estimated Climax neutron monitor counting rate (1956-2000),  open circles denote ionization chamber measurements during (1933-1956)  and filled circles represent cosmic ray intensity derived from 10Be  (1801-1932). 10Be is a long-lived radioactive beryllium isotope produced  by cosmic rays. The middle panel shows the near-Earth helio-magnetic  field and the lower panel shows the sunspot number.
  A reconstruction of the near Earth heliospheric magnetic field strength from 1900 through 2009 from here by Svalgaard and Cliver (2010) is shown below.

The  red curve are satellite direct measurements of the near-Earth  heliospheric magnetic field (HMF) strength resulting from the solar  wind. The blue curve is the Inter-Diurnal Variability (IDV) index  calculated from the geomagnetic field observations one hour after  midnight. The IDV is highly correlated with the near-Earth HMF. The  green curve are estimates of HMF by Lockwood et al 2009.
  When the Sun is active it has a higher number of sun spots and emits  more solar wind - a continuous stream of very high-speed charged  particles. The increased solar wind and magnetic field repels cosmic  rays that otherwise would hit the Earth's atmosphere, resulting in less  aerosols in the lower atmosphere thereby reducing low cloud formation.  The low clouds have a high reflectivity and have a strong cooling effect  by reflecting sunlight back into space.

In summary, the process is:
More active Sun  -->  more Sunspots --> more solar wind -->  less cosmic ray --> less aerosols --> less low clouds --> more  sun light to the surface --> global warming.

The theory of CO2 warming implies that the arctic and Antarctica should  be warming about the same, and the polar regions should be warming more  that the rest of the Earth. However, Antarctica has not warmed since  1975, which is a big problem for the CO2 theory.  The ice covering  Antarctica has even higher reflectivity than low clouds, so fewer low  clouds cools Antarctica, while fewer low clouds warms the rest of the  planet. (Greenland's ice sheet is much smaller and is not so  reflective.) This Antarctica temperature trend is strong evidence that  the Sun, not CO2, is the primary climate driver.

*Antarctica and North America Temperature Trends*











The top curve is the North American surface temperature and the bottom  curve is the Antarctica (64 S - 90 S) surface temperature over the past  100 years. The Antarctic data have been averaged over 12 years to  minimize the temperature fluctuations. The blue and red lines are  fourth-order polynomial fits to the data. The curves are offset by 1 K  for clarity, otherwise they would cross and re-cross three times.




The cosmic ray flux is not only influenced by the solar wind, it also  varies with the position of the solar system in the galactic arms. The  solar system passes through the arms of the Milky Way galaxy roughly  every 140 million years. When the solar system is in the galactic arms  the intensity of cosmic rays increases, as we are closer to more  supernovas that give off powerful bursts of cosmic rays. The variations  of the cosmic ray flux due to the solar system passing through four arms  of the Milky Way galaxy during the last 550 million years is ten times  greater than that caused by the Sun. The correlation between cosmic rays  and temperatures over 520 million years by N. Shaviv and J. Veiser was  shown previously. Below is a similar graph based on their work, but with  the times of the galactic arm crossings shown.

*    Cosmic Ray Flux and Temperature Changes with Galactic Arm Crossings*



















Four switches from warm hothouse to cold icehouse conditions during the  Phanerozoic are shown in variations of several degrees K in tropical  sea-surface temperatures (red curve). They correspond with four  encounters with spiral arms of the Milky Way and the resulting increases  in the cosmic-ray flux (blue curve, scale inverted). (After Shaviv and  Veizer 2003)



Temperature changes over this time range can not be explain by the CO2 theory.

*CO2 Concentrations 500 Million Years*
**




The graph shows CO2 concentration over the last 500 million years. The  CO2 does not correlate with temperature. Note when CO2 concentrations  were more than 10 times present levels about 175 million years ago and  440 million years ago, the Earth was in two very cold ice ages.




See here for a paper on CosmoClimatology by Henrik Svensmark.
See here for a discussion of the Shaviv and Veizer 2003 paper by Tim Patterson. See here for their paper.

----------


## libertyjam

*Warming on Other Planets*

If the Sun is the primary driver of climate change, one should expect to  see evidence of recent warming on other planets. As the Earth has  warmed over the last 100 years, so too has Jupiter, Neptune, Mars and  Pluto.  Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system. Its  most distinctive feature is the great Red Spot, which is a huge storm  that has been raging for over 300 years. A new storm, called Red Spot  Jr. has recently formed from the merger of three oval-shaped storms  between 1998 and 2000. The latest images from the Hubble Space Telescope  suggests that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can  modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different  parts of the globe. The new storm has been rising in altitude above the  surrounding clouds, which signals a temperature increase. See here from Space.com.

  Neptune is the furthest planet from the Sun (Pluto is now a dwarf  planet) and orbits the Sun at 30 times the distance from the Sun to the  Earth.

*                                                   Neptune Warming*













In the recent article, Hammel and Lockwood, from the Space Science  Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory, show Neptune has been  getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements  of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily  from 1980 to 2004.

In the figure, (a) represents the corrected visible light from Neptune  from 1950 to 2006; (b) shows the temperature anomalies of the Earth; (c)  shows the total solar irradiance as a percent variation by year; (d)  shows the ultraviolet emission from the Sun. All data has been corrected  for the effects of Neptune's seasons, variations in its orbit, the  apparent tilt of the axis as viewed from the Earth, the varying distance  from Neptune to Earth, and changes in the atmosphere near the Lowell  Observatory.

See here for more information.

There is also strong evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest  moon, Triton, which has heated up significantly since the Voyager  spacecraft visited it in 1988. The warming trend is causing Triton's  frozen surface of Nitrogen gas to turn into gas, making its atmosphere  denser. See here.

A recent study shows that Mars is warming four times faster than the  Earth. Mars is warming due to increased Sun activity, which increases  dust storms. The study's authors led by Lori Fenton, a planetary scientist at NASA, says the  dust makes the atmosphere absorb more heat causing a positive feedback.  Surface air temperatures on Mars increased by 0.65 C (1.17 F) from the  1970s to the 1990s. Residual ice on the Martian south pole, they note,  has steadily retreated over the last four years.  Thermal spectrometer  images of Mars taken by NASA's Viking mission in the late 1970s were  compared with similar images gathered more than 20 years later by the  Global Surveyor.

Mars polar ice cap

See here or here or here for more information.

The demoted planet Pluto is also undergoing warming according to  astronomers. Pluto's atmosphere pressure has tripled over the last 14  years, indicating rising temperatures even as the planet moves further  from the Sun. See here for further information.

----------


## PRB

> See here for an updated plot based on Friis-Christensen and Lassen's methodology.


Updated? Using what year as the latest?

----------


## PRB

> *                    Northern Hemisphere Temperature vs Solar Irradiance 400 years*


Hemisphere = not the whole globe. Elementary school kids know this.

----------


## PRB

> *Warming on Other Planets*


http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

Secondly, the theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider the sun has shown little to no trend since the 1950s. A variety of independent measurements of solar activity including satellite data, sunspot numbers, UV levels and solar magnetograms all paint a consistent picture. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.

----------


## libertyjam

All PRB does is deny when given direct evidence of his and his $#@!ty second hand source lies, and then repeats the same lie again and again.  Typical troll.

----------


## Danke

> All PRB does is deny when given direct evidence of his and his $#@!ty second hand source lies, and then repeats the same lie again and again.  Typical troll.


"Typical?"  No, our best.

----------


## PRB

> All PRB does is deny when given direct evidence of his and his $#@!ty second hand source lies, and then repeats the same lie again and again.  Typical troll.


No. I actually consider the evidence with the same standard I hold all other evidence. 

When you tell me solar activity causes or is the primary driver of climate, I ask what data you are looking at.
When you say other planets are warming, I first examine if it's true, then see if there's explanations for it.
Telling me a hemisphere is cooling or heating is not the same as whether the globe as a whole is.

By what standard do you decide my sources are $#@!ty or lies?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*21st Century Snake Oil*

                                                                               Jeff Scribner on Algorism.
 
...
More importantly, the Earth has been around for a long time:
The *age of the Earth* is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
During  this period the earth has gone through some very significant climate  change dwarfing any that has happened since the advent of anatomically  modern man about 200,000 years ago.  These climate changes include the  changing of continents, movement of sea areas, heating far beyond  anything ever seen by man and cooling to the point where major portions  of the earth were covered with ice.  Climate change has accounted for  development and extinction of whole species like the dinosaurs, wooly  mammoth and countless others.  In short, the earth has sustained major  upheaval and changes in climate far greater than any observed since  records have been kept by man.  Yet man was not there to emit any heat  trapping gases or otherwise influence this climate change.  So why do  the authors of the Third National Climate Assessment have the temerity  to tell us that man is responsible, in any part, for the minor warming  observed in the past fifty years?  Are you seeing any snake oil here?

Of course, since the warming trend of the past fifty years has  apparently stopped for about 17 years, the snake oil salesmen are now  claiming that the problem is still climate change and man is  contributing to that via emissions of heat trapping gasses.  The  changes will cause melting of the ice caps, higher sea levels causing  coast line erosion and flooding in some coastal cities.  If we do not  act and act soon, all of these calamities will overtake us.

Not necessarily so.  Coast lines have been eroding for thousands or  millions of years, some cities built close to the sea (and sometimes  below sea level like parts of New Orleans) have exhibited flooding on  and off for as long as they have existed.  Ice near the poles moves  around, changes shape, accedes and recedes some times opens navigation  passages and sometimes chokes those passages with ice.   Man has learned  to deal with those things in the past and can deal with them in the  future.
 Moreover, The National Center for Policy Analysis published a study  in March of this year showing that the modest warming of the past 50  years may be helping the economics and standard of living of people  around the world.  http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba796

The snake oil salesmen want us to believe that our carbon dioxide  output is contributing to warming (or other climate change) and that  this is bad.  If we swallow this, then we could subscribe to some of  their cures like subsidizing alternative energy (does Solyndra come to  mind?), killing our coal industry, slowing down the development of our  oil industry and generally abandoning activities producing wealth and  contributing to GDP in favor of slower growth, more expensive energy,  fewer jobs, subsidies for alternative energy projects, additional taxes  and/or cap and trade and a generally weaker America.

There may in fact be climate change.  However, man did not cause it  and probably can do nothing about it.  If there is climate change, we  must learn to cope with it or benefit from it while we continue to  develop our economically viable resources and do other things to  increase our GDP.  We have to be smart enough to distinguish between the  claims of the snake oil salesmen and common sense.  Most of all we must  not give up any more growth to mitigate a problem that we did not cause  and might not even have!



Read more: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/j...ury-snake-oil/

----------


## PRB

> *21st Century Snake Oil*
> 
>                                                                                Jeff Scribner on Algorism.
>  
> ...


So it's happening, just not worth taxing?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> So it's happening, just not worth taxing?


Climate change is happening as it has for the last 4.5 Billion years, to degrees much larger than observed in the last 200 years. And No, it is NOT worth taxting. (Just like it is not worth raping, if you are wondering). Maybe you should consider taxing Sunrises too.

----------


## PRB

> Climate change is happening as it has for the last 4.5 Billion years, to degrees much larger than observed in the last 200 years. And No, it is NOT worth taxting. (Just like it is not worth raping, if you are wondering). Maybe you should consider taxing Sunrises too.


Saying "it's happening" alone doesn't help us predict droughts, floods, snow, rain, sea level rises, iceless artic...etc. 

So, are you willing to put any of these predictions to test? 

I've told you a million times I'm against taxing anything, so we don't disagree on that.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Saying "it's happening" alone doesn't help us predict droughts, floods, snow, rain, sea level rises, iceless artic...etc. 
> 
> So, are you willing to put any of these predictions to test? 
> 
> I've told you a million times I'm against taxing anything, so we don't disagree on that.


I am not interested in predictions. The point of the thread is to demonstrate that antropogenic-CO2-driven global warming and the taxation scheme based on it is a blatant FRAUD.

If you would like to discuss a different topic start a new thread, but quit trolling here.

----------


## NorfolkPCSolutions

PRB, Foundation_Of_Liberty, you two knock it off back there, or I'll stop this $#@!ing car and nobody's gonna get any ice cream!!!

Kidding.

----------


## PRB

> I am not interested in predictions.


Like I thought, you seem so confident that AGW is wrong, but you're not willing to put your own claims to the test. 




> The point of the thread is to demonstrate that antropogenic-CO2-driven global warming and the taxation scheme based on it is a blatant FRAUD.


No it's not.




> If you would like to discuss a different topic start a new thread, but quit trolling here.


You're the one who went from water vapor to taxation.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Like I thought, you seem so confident that AGW is wrong, but you're not willing to put your own claims to the test.


   The claims were put to the test by nature itself. CO2 levels used to be over 10 times what they are now, way before the industrial revolution, with temperatures much lower than now. In fact the whole glob used to be frozen practically from pole to pole, and has thawed out and warmed up, way before human produce CO2 had anything to do with it. So the claims that global warming is due to human produced CO2 is proven dramatically wrong by nature itself. So my claims have been put to the test and found correct. Your claims, on the other hand, where put to the test, including the predictions of IIPCC, as well as Pentagon predictions 10 years ago, and were proven dramatically wrong. Test complete. Case closed. You have been proven wrong, but you are either too stupid to see it, or it is simply your job to lie here. Either way you have been soundly defeated in the eyes of anyone who has basic integrity and rudimentary understanding of high-school physics. Let the people judge for themselves who has proven his case better.

----------


## PRB

> The claims were put to the test by nature itself. CO2 levels used to be over 10 times what they are now, way before the industrial revolution, with temperatures much lower than now.


There was ONE TIME this was true, and not all other factors were equal.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-...Ordovician.htm

You can't say that, and then tell me CO2 is actually a greenhouse gas and water is more abundant a greenhouse gas. Make up your mind and get your argument straight.




> In fact the whole glob used to be frozen practically from pole to pole, and has thawed out and warmed up, way before human produce CO2 had anything to do with it.


Nobody said CO2 is the only cause of warming. Nobody said CO2 can only cause warming.




> So the claims that global warming is due to human produced CO2 is proven dramatically wrong by nature itself.


Only if you cherry pick your data. So no, not "dramatically wrong".




> So my claims have been put to the test and found correct. Your claims, on the other hand, where put to the test, including the predictions of IIPCC, as well as Pentagon predictions 10 years ago, and were proven dramatically wrong.


*Then you should have zero problem giving predictions, but you admitted you can't and won't.
*



> Test complete. Case closed.


Not until you make a prediction different than "alarmists" and are vindicated. *Make one now, or point to any in the past 10 years where a "skeptic" made a prediction and was vindicated.* Case isn't closed and your case isn't made until you pass this.




> You have been proven wrong, but you are either too stupid to see it, or it is simply your job to lie here. Either way you have been soundly defeated in the eyes of anyone who has basic integrity and rudimentary understanding of high-school physics. Let the people judge for themselves who has proven his case better.


Except I didn't lie. Calling me a liar doesn't prove that I am. That's all you're capable of doing.

1. cherry pick
2. call somebody a liar
3. deny you can be wrong
4. fail to make predictions
5. when all else fails, cry "no taxes" as if I disagreed.

Whether you're talking to 9/11 truthers, global warming skeptics, creationists, anti-vaxxers or Holocaust revisionists, one question always kills the discussion : "Are you willing to make a prediction and hold yourself to the same scrutiny you do to your opponent". *The answer is ALWAYS NO.* They have a million excuses why they shouldn't have to follow the same rules of "Make a prediction, admit wrong, let somebody laugh at you" 

Point to me where and when in the past 10 if not 20 years, a climate "skeptic" made a more accurate prediction than an "alarmist". You won't find it, what you'll always find is "Haha, you didn't make a perfect prediction, therefore you're totally wrong, I don't know what'll happen next, I wasn't ballsy enough to make another prediction, but I know you're wrong, that's all that matters, climate keeps changing, and it'll change ,I don't know when and how,but I just know it won't be what you say it is"

----------


## Ranger29860

So just read through that wall of text and tried my hardest to find just one scientific paper that was sourced in all that  and I cant find it. If I missed it please point it out, if not why would you post all that with no sources and then try to stand on it like it is fact? BTW most of the links don't even work.

*edit* 
found one, time to get reading

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Whether you're talking to 9/11 truthers, global warming skeptics, creationists, anti-vaxxers or Holocaust revisionists, one question always kills the discussion : "Are you willing to make a prediction and hold yourself to the same scrutiny you do to your opponent". *The answer is ALWAYS NO.* They have a million excuses why they shouldn't have to follow the same rules of "Make a prediction, admit wrong, let somebody laugh at you" 
> 
> Point to me where and when in the past 10 if not 20 years, a climate "skeptic" made a more accurate prediction than an "alarmist". You won't find it, what you'll always find is "Haha, you didn't make a perfect prediction, therefore you're totally wrong, I don't know what'll happen next, I wasn't ballsy enough to make another prediction, but I know you're wrong, that's all that matters, climate keeps changing, and it'll change ,I don't know when and how,but I just know it won't be what you say it is"


You missing the point again. 

The point is that there is ZERO evidence that HUMAN produced CO2 is the driving factor in global warming. The point is also that this FRAUD is used to push for world wide taxation scheme. 

The UNPROVEN, actually DISPROVED theory is being used NOW to tax. Your job as a troll is to pretend you are opposed to the taxation but promote the lie on which the taxation is based. That is obvious.

But the point is that IT IS WRONG to rob people especially based on a flawed and fraudulent theory. THAT is the point of the thread. THAT is the point you failed to disprove. THAT is what I wish to talk about because it is of key importance. You made it clear you do not wish to talk about that.

If you wish to talk about something else, start a new thread and go troll there.

----------


## PRB

> But the point is that IT IS WRONG to rob people especially based on a flawed and fraudulent theory. THAT is the point of the thread. THAT is the point you failed to disprove.


No, I completely agree with it. It's wrong to rob people period. 




> THAT is what I wish to talk about because it is of key importance. You made it clear you do not wish to talk about that.
> 
> If you wish to talk about something else, start a new thread and go troll there.


I already said I agree taxation is wrong. I don't know how much more clear I can make it.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

dlt

----------


## PRB

> The point is that there is ZERO evidence that HUMAN produced CO2 is the driving factor in global warming. The point is also that this FRAUD is used to push for world wide taxation scheme.


Wrong, there's plenty of evidence

1. Global warming is established
2. Greenhouse effect is established
3. CO2 between man made vs natural/volcano can be distinguished
4. "Alarmists" make the most accurate predictions so far (until you can show better, everybody here has admitted they can't, they all just say "climate has always changed")
5. The primary voices against global warming being caused by humans are ALWAYS based on fear of taxation (not science)
6. You can be against taxation without being a denier of scientific claims (I sure am)
7. Calling every person who accepts the scientific consensus a taxation advocate only shows your own ignorance of the subject and reveals your own political agenda.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Wrong, there's plenty of evidence  1. Global warming is established 2. Greenhouse effect is established 3. CO2 between man made vs natural/volcano can be distinguished 4. "Alarmists" make the most accurate predictions so far (until you can show better, everybody here has admitted they can't, they all just say "climate has always changed") 5. The primary voices against global warming being caused by humans are ALWAYS based on fear of taxation (not science) 6. You can be against taxation without being a denier of scientific claims (I sure am) 7. Calling every person who accepts the scientific consensus a taxation advocate only shows your own ignorance of the subject and reveals your own political agenda.


With the same logic you can blame cow flatulence for global warming. Isn't methane greenhouse gas? Yes. Therefore, by your non-logic, cow flatulence is important, primary, and determining driver of global warming. Do you recognize your own argument here? Will you then say that cow flatulence is the determining and driving factor in global warming? I hope not, because it is clearly absurd. And I am using exactly the points you made in 1 through 7. What is the flaw in your arguments then? SCALE.     

Cow flatulence is negligibly small compared to the forces involved. It is like a spit in a hurricane. THE SAME factor of SCALE is at play with human produced CO2. Why? Because it accounts for less than 1% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere with water vapor occupying 97%. It also does not take into the account the role of the SUN, duh, which is by far the primary driver. Bottom line, even if ALL human produced CO2 was removed from the atmosphere, it would make no significant change to global climate as is proven by millions of years of record where MASSIVE weather changes took place without ANY human produced CO2, and with natural CO2 being over 10 times today's levels with global FREEZING taking place. So this disproves the erroneous theory that HUMAN produced CO2 has ANY significant role in global warming.    

And yes, publicly you oppose taxation, but you support the FRAUD that is used to justify it. So you are a perfect example of fake controlled opposition which pretends to oppose a measure but covertly helps to promote it.

----------


## PRB

> With the same logic you can blame cow flatulence for global warming. Isn't methane greenhouse gas? Yes. Therefore, by your non-logic, cow flatulence is important, primary, and determining driver of global warming.


No, you can't. Not unless you can quantify it, then at the very least, track correlation on increase. Let me know when that's done. 




> Do you recognize your own argument here? Will you then say that cow flatulence is the determining and driving factor in global warming?


I'm not stupid enough to make that claim without quantitative evidence to begin with, so you can save that strawman for yourself.




> I hope not, because it is clearly absurd. And I am using exactly the points you made in 1 through 7. What is the flaw in your arguments then? SCALE.


You're an idiot, or else you'd be able to follow.

1. Global warming is established (fact)
2. Greenhouse effect is established (fact)
3. CH4 man made or industrial age increase can be distinguished from "naturally occuring" (I am not aware of this)
4. "Alarmists" make the most accurate predictions so far (which alarmist, or "methane caused global warming" advocate has made such predictions and vindicated?)
5. The primary voices against global warming being caused by humans are ALWAYS based on fear of taxation (won't matter until we first establish who's claiming methane or cow flatulence is a primary cause)
6. You can be against taxation without being a denier of scientific claims (I sure am)
7. Calling every person who accepts the scientific consensus a taxation  advocate only shows your own ignorance of the subject and reveals your  own political agenda. 						

So no, it's just not the same. The data isn't the same at all.




> Cow flatulence is negligibly small compared to the forces involved. It is like a spit in a hurricane.


That may be, but more important is whether there's an actually traceable increase since the industrial age or anything remotely correlated with global warming (let me know when you find it)




> THE SAME factor of SCALE is at play with human produced CO2. Why? Because it accounts for less than 1% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere with water vapor occupying 97%.


You keep repeating this argument as if your whole argument depends on this point (I bet it does)

1. How is percentage measured?
2. Why do you assume percentage is the primary factor, as if all greenhouse gases have the same heat retention ability?
3. Why do you continue to ignore that water has phase changes which dramatically alter its greenhouse effect and weather modification ability?
4. Has water vapor increased with industrialization? Or can we draw an actual correlation graph with it?
5. Which "water is the primary driver" advocate has made better predictions?
6. What IS the primary driver? the sun? I dare you to make ONE prediction based on whichever you blame 




> It also does not take into the account the role of the SUN, duh, which is by far the primary driver.


except it isn't. How about you actually make a prediction based on the sun, if you're so sure the sun is the primary driver?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm

Go ahead, I dare you. 




> Bottom line, even if ALL human produced CO2 was removed from the atmosphere, it would make no significant change to global climate as is proven by millions of years of record where MASSIVE weather changes took place without ANY human produced CO2, and with natural CO2 being over 10 times today's levels with global FREEZING taking place.'


Except it's not been proven, you have at best ONE case where it was true, and it's been explained by other factors. Ignoring the whole pattern and focusing on ONE excpetion is dishonest cherry picking at its best. 




> So this disproves the erroneous theory that HUMAN produced CO2 has ANY significant role in global warming.


Not even close.* Again, I'll ask again, FIND ME ONE SCIENTIST WHO CLAIMS THE SUN IS THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ASK HIM TO MAKE A PREDICTION HE'S WILLING TO PUT TO A TEST. * I, unlike you, don't back down to challenges, I don't repeat the same lie as if nobdoy responded. 




> And yes, publicly you oppose taxation, but you support the FRAUD that is used to “justify” it.


I said a million times nothing justifies taxation. 




> So you are a perfect example of fake “controlled opposition” which pretends to oppose a measure but covertly helps to promote it.


only if you're stupid enough to think you can't oppose policy and taxation while agreeing with facts.

----------


## PRB

Why can't we just agree taxation is wrong? I'm totally with you on stopping any and all taxation, but you'd rather argue with me on whether global warming is caused by man, as if it matters. As if you'd support it if you were ever convinced it was true. 

Your tactic is akin to a person who tries to claim he has no income to avoid income taxes, as if he'd gladly pay it if it was proven to him he has income. If you keep arguing that taxation is wrong ONLY because global warming isn't what it's said to be, you'll come back next time the government wants to tax something trying to argue again something else is false (but you won't have it so easy next time, because next time, they'll tax something you don't dispute, what then? invent a dispute?)

So what IF the government started taxing the sun? Would you then say the sun ISN'T the primary driver of climate change? Or can you finally admit it doesn't matter, you're just opposed to taxation?

Guess who's backing a solar power tax? http://www.alternet.org/environment/...demand-tax-sun

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Foundation of Liberty, you're wasting your time.  The person you're debating with once said that global warming research is a determinant of whether or not he would live near a river.

----------


## PRB

> Foundation of Liberty, you're wasting your time.  The person you're debating with once said that global warming research is a determinant of whether or not he would live near a river.


you're the one who donated to hurricane victims. and you admitted you didn't bother asking if any of them were dipshits who ignored warnings, apparently you can know not to live near a river without global warming research, but you can't do the same for oceans?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Why can't we just agree taxation is wrong? I'm totally with you on stopping any and all taxation, but you'd rather argue with me on whether global warming is caused by man, as if it matters. As if you'd support it if you were ever convinced it was true. 
> 
> Your tactic is akin to a person who tries to claim he has no income to avoid income taxes, as if he'd gladly pay it if it was proven to him he has income. If you keep arguing that taxation is wrong ONLY because global warming isn't what it's said to be, you'll come back next time the government wants to tax something trying to argue again something else is false (but you won't have it so easy next time, because next time, they'll tax something you don't dispute, what then? invent a dispute?)
> 
> So what IF the government started taxing the sun? Would you then say the sun ISN'T the primary driver of climate change? Or can you finally admit it doesn't matter, you're just opposed to taxation?
> 
> Guess who's backing a solar power tax? http://www.alternet.org/environment/...demand-tax-sun


You can only rightly tax the things you own and nothing else.

Hypothetically, if someone was polluting environment to the point of materially damaging someone else's property, then equal force could be used to offset such aggression. In the case of public taxation schemes, be it carbon or the Sun, a) no such damage is provable, hence no force is justified, and b) why is the tax for such "damage" is to be paid to banksters instead of damaged parties? Thus such taxation schemes are illogical, immoral and evil on many levels. I oppose them on this basis.

The proof that human produced CO2 is insignificant in terms of global warming is simply an icing on the cake which supports point (a).

Thanks for your question.

----------


## PRB

> You can only rightly tax the things you own and nothing else.
> 
> Hypothetically, if someone was polluting environment to the point of materially damaging someone else's property, then equal force could be used to offset such aggression.


Sorry, I'm against taxation period. So you can stop accusing me of being for taxation, I'm more against it than you are.




> In the case of public taxation schemes, be it carbon or the Sun, a) no such damage is provable, hence no force is justified,


says the person who just said the sun is the primary driver. 




> and b) why is the tax for such "damage" is to be paid to banksters instead of damaged parties? Thus such taxation schemes are illogical, immoral and evil on many levels. I oppose them on this basis.


we can fix that by paying it to damaged parties, since that's your concern.




> The proof that human produced CO2 is insignificant in terms of global warming is simply an icing on the cake which supports point (a).
> 
> Thanks for your question.


except it's not proven.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> you're the one who donated to hurricane victims. and you admitted you didn't bother asking if any of them were dipshits who ignored warnings, apparently you can know not to live near a river without global warming research, but you can't do the same for oceans?


I'm talking about you.  You're the one who said a forecast for the year 2024 would determine whether or not you would live near a river.

----------


## PRB

> I'm talking about you.  You're the one who said a forecast for the year 2024 would determine whether or not you would live near a river.


Sure, why not. If you can predict by 2024 a river would run dry, I may buy land near it. It wouldn't be the only thing I consider though.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Sorry, I'm against taxation period. So you can stop accusing me of being for taxation, I'm more against it than you are.


You are obviously dumber than I thought. 

Paying for damages is not taxation it is restitution.




> says the person who just said the sun is the primary driver.


"No such damage is provable" against the INDIVIDUALS taxed.




> we can fix that by paying it to damaged parties, since that's your concern.


If you can prove the damage and trace it to the individuals. No such proof exists.




> except it's not proven.


That is the point, isn't it? Without proof you have no right to use force.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Sure, why not. If you can predict by 2024 a river would run dry, I may buy land near it. It wouldn't be the only thing I consider though.


Wow, that's really incredible!  I have some really grand plans for the 4th of July weekend.  Maybe you can tell me if it's going to rain.

----------


## PRB

> Wow, that's really incredible!  I have some really grand plans for the 4th of July weekend.  Maybe you can tell me if it's going to rain.


I can tell you where it won't rain. Drought states.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I can tell you where it won't rain. Drought states.


Uh, Death Valley has already been figured out, Mr. Century 21.

----------


## PRB

> Uh, Death Valley has already been figured out, Mr. Century 21.


If that's all you know, then yeah, I'm a little more up to date.

----------


## PRB

> You are obviously dumber than I thought. 
> 
> Paying for damages is not taxation it is restitution.


So I can solve the problem by just calling something something else?




> "No such damage is provable" against the INDIVIDUALS taxed.
> 
> If you can prove the damage and trace it to the individuals. No such proof exists.


You mean to tell me you can't track and trace sun, carbon emissions, methane and water usage? 




> That is the point, isn't it? Without proof you have no right to use force.


No, I can do better than that, WITH PROOF, you still have no right to use force.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Washington Post Global Warming Lies

John O'Sullivan



 *Mainstream media mouthpiece  left shamefaced as fifty international climate experts break ranks to  defy global warming cult and denounce junk science.**

Washington Post op-ed writer Richard Cohen was last week caught lying  while bad mouthing Texas governor, Rick Perry's presidential candidacy.  Cohen, who would have his readers believe humans are dangerously warming  the planet, jumped the shark to attack skeptic Perry over his stance on  the man-made global warming issue (AGW). Cohen spouted the kooky claim  that skeptic scientists could hold their annual meeting in a phone  booth, if there are any left.

Sadly for Cohen the facts below prove he is just another mendacious mainstream propagandist of climate alarmism. 

For instance, the shocking truth is that all 5 official data sets show global cooling since 2002 while a third of all stations sustain a long term cooling trend for their entire history. 

Indeed, so infuriated over the blatant lies is Nobel Prize winning physicist, Dr. Ivar Giaever,  that last week he resigned in disgust from the American Physics Society  for their part in sustaining the now utterly debunked AGW propaganda.* 

_Article continues below this advert:_


*The physics professor who scooped the Nobel Science Prize in  1973 sagely notes, "It is amazing how stable temperature has been over  the last 150 years."

Professor Giaever and the rank and file of scientists are increasingly  aware that the consensus Cohen and his collaborators alludes to is  little more than 77 of 10,000 scientists polled.

Surge in Government Climate Experts Going Skeptic

To further llustrate just how off base Cohens spin really is just  observe the increasing number of experts who actually worked for the  IPCC as contributors / editors / reviewers now turning against global  warming junk science. (Hat Tip: The Galileo Movement).

Below, for Cohen and those other mainstream media deniers of climate  realism, is a list of just 50 former IPCC experts whose voices your  prejudiced ears refuse to hear*

1. Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration  in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been  detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't  cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some  700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."

3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of  the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming  is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or  politicized with each succeeding report."

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci:  "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a  degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."

5. Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

6. Dr Judith Curry:  "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."

7. Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state  of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of  satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for  Policymakers."

8. Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of  approximately 3,000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernable  human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support  the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human  activities."

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by  now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a  major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the  hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide  emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global  warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from  ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld:  "Much more progress is necessary regarding  our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it." 

11. Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has  grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."

12. Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and  coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the  present scenarios of climate change.  I have reviewed the IPCC and more  recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem  with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the  most-used IPCC scenarios." 

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's  effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The  IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of  climate change."

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic  global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's  James] Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the  [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at  first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were  false."

15. Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most  important environmental problem of the 21st century.  There is no  signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall  frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large  increases in the population at risk."

16. Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

17. Dr Kenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow  increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who  questions their authority."

18. Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading  scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a  significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual  number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen."

19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate  change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When  people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and  scientists." 

20. Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and  global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally  unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."

21. Dr Steven Japar:  "Temperature measurements show that the climate  model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent.  This is more  than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made  with them."

22. Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the  IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of  magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing," 

23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be  taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review  process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC  report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it  might be."

24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of  climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims  as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."

25. Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for  Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated  process of spin-doctoring."

26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the  Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together  by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."

27. Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a  process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas  and being scientifically unsound."

28. Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather  than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and  exploits public ignorance."

29. Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century  have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming  for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is  grossly overstated." 

30. Dr Philip Lloyd:  "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC  reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in  which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of  a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said." 

31. Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC  Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."

32. Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a  "consensus of thousands of scientists" are both a great exaggeration and  also misleading."

33. Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales  have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science  is not settled."

34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."

35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans:  "The IPCC has become too political. Many  scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research  funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are  willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of  the man-made global-warming doctrine."

36. Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a  rebuttal.  At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were  actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce  particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of  the understanding of the climate system."

37. Dr Jan Pretel: "It's nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ...  predicting about the distant future-100 years can't be predicted due to  uncertainties."

38. Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that  is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people  who are not scientists."

39. Dr Murray Salby:  "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone  says the "science is settled.  Anyone who thinks the science is settled  on this topic is in fantasia."

40. Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."

41. Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary  of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or  even the existence of satellites--probably because the data show a  (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the  calculations from climate models?"

42. Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very  strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales.  Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant  relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."

43. Dr Roy Spencer: "The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was  formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause  global warming are only a means to that goal."

44. Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC  attracted more people with political  rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions  in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite  voices."

45. Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather  it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that  global warming is man made."

46. Dr Robert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in  the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by  overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this  trend in the errors and ask why it happened."

47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."

48. Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant  drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."

50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative  studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have  at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing  these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of  publication."

----------


## PRB

> Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Washington Post Global Warming Lies



What makes these 50 people experts? just because they've been involved with IPCC? I thought we agreed IPCC is a political organization full of $#@!? 

I guess they're credible whenever somebody associated supports YOUR views.

Ok, so you trust these 50 people? 

Let's see how many have the balls to make predictions that are more accurate than "alarmists" and "warmists". Opinions don't matter, predictions and vindications do.

*Let me know when you can cite any of these guys on record making a prediction different than alarmists, and turn out to be correct. I'll be waiting.*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

I posted the above to prove to you that the IPCC claim that "the science is settled" is a gross lie, as, for example attested by these 50 PhD's who left IPCC.

More importantly, however, the reason itself, in the light of the available evidence, proves that human-produced-CO2-caused global warming is a lie. That is the point, and you missed it again.

----------


## PRB

> I posted the above to prove to you that the IPCC claim that "the science is settled" is a gross lie


I never cited the IPCC, so I don't care about their claims. But that aside, the science IS settled, unless anybody who say it isn't is willing to put his money where his mouth is, put his own claims to the test. So far that's not been done. You have 50 people who claim to be experts offering their opinions.




> , as, for example attested by these 50 PhD's who left IPCC.


IPCC is not a scientific authority. so what their members or ex members say do not mean very much.




> More importantly, however, the reason itself, in the light of the available evidence, proves that human-produced-CO2-caused global warming is a lie.


You keep saying that, but have either refused or been unable to use your claim to make a testable prediction. Why is that?

Sun?
Methane?
Water vapor?
Which of these are you willing to use as a climate change or global temperature predictor? Dare? I think not. But I am open to being wrong. *Still waiting for you to cite a person who is willing to be test and proven right, or honest enough to admit he's wrong.*




> That is the point, and you missed it again.


*Didn't miss it, challenge you each time you try to slip it through. You can't keep doing it forever. Cite an actual prediction vindicated, and we can actually have a discussion.*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

You are like the guy to whom you say 2+2=4, and he responds, "make a prediction" then I will believe that 2+2=4. 
2+2=4 is a truth in itself and does not depend on predictions. When I tell you that water vapor constitutes 97% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and gave you references to support that number, and also told you that human produced CO2 constitutes less than 1%, I do NOT need to give you any predictions to unequivocally state that human CO2 is NOT the driving factor in global warming. I have also showed you from geological record that CO2 levels used to be over 10 times what they are now BEFORE the industrial revolution, and these high levels of CO2 were accompanied with global FREEZING. This again proves that CO2, and especially human produced CO2 (which is but a tiny fraction of the total) is NOT the driving and controlling factor in establishing global temperatures. I do not need to give you any predictions whatsoever because these facts are matter of the PAST record, and they prove your claims wrong.

2+2=4 and I don't need to give you any predictions to prove that fact.

I however predict that your stupidity will not accept the true facts when they are presented to you, because you are a paid troll.

----------


## PRB

> You are like the guy to whom you say 2+2=4, and he responds, "make a prediction" then I will believe that 2+2=4.


Yes, exactly.

2+2=4 is not a fact, it's a conventional use of agreed on axioms. it's axiomatic language in base 10 mathematics.

"I have also showed you from geological record that CO2 levels used to be over 10 times what they are now BEFORE the industrial revolution, and these high levels of CO2 were accompanied with global FREEZING. "

*You showed ONE INSTANCE WHICH WAS AN EXCEPTION. You try to use EXCEPTION to debunk a rule, it doesn't work that way. Not to mention this exception WAS explained by other factors.*

----------


## PRB

> 2+2=4 and I don't need to give you any predictions to prove that fact.


You are so sure that alarmists and warmists are wrong about temperature predictions, so you must have SOME idea what is the RIGHT temperature predictions. 

So, with CO2 increasing how much COLDER should we expect the globe to get?

With the sun's fluctuating activity, how much WARMER should we expect the globe to get?

*ANSWER ME, I DARE YOU. You can't, because you have no idea what you're talking about. 

Your "2+2=4" in this case is what? that sun and water are the primary drivers are climate and temperature change? PROVE IT. MAKE A PREDICTION, PUT IT TO THE TEST.*

----------


## PRB

> I however predict that your stupidity will not except the true facts when they are presented to you, because you are a paid troll.


I'm not the idiot who doesn't even know how to spell ACCEPT. 

You're right, I don't blindly accept facts without context. I actually look at the whole picture and realize ONE INSTANCE of high CO2 while being cooler is NOT sufficient to destroy greenhouse gas theory.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> 2+2=4 is not a fact


Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself. I close my case. You are certified liar.




> "I have also showed you from geological record that CO2 levels used to be over 10 times what they are now BEFORE the industrial revolution, and these high levels of CO2 were accompanied with global FREEZING. "
> 
> *You showed ONE INSTANCE WHICH WAS AN EXCEPTION. You try to use EXCEPTION to debunk a rule, it doesn't work that way. Not to mention this exception WAS explained by other factors.*


I simply pointed out that that "exception" disproves the premise that CO2 is a driving and controlling factor in global temperatures. Something else is. Let me give you a clue, it is a gigantic ball of fire at the center of the Solar system and it is called the Sun.

On top of that I proved to you that 97% of greenhouse gases are about 100 times more potent in their combined effect than less than 1% that is human produced CO2. It is simple math actually. Any sane and rational person will agree with it, unless he is paid to lie for a living.

----------


## PRB

> On top of that I proved to you that 97% of greenhouse gases are about 100 times more potent in their combined effect of less than 1%, which is human produced CO2. It is simple math actually. Any sane and rational person will agree with it, unless he is paid to lie for a living.


No, you didn't prove that. And if you're so confident, you should have no problem using this to make a prediction as to how much warming and cooling we'll get. 

Forget whether it's natural or man made, let's talk the actual facts we can predict and prove. 

Dare? No, didn't think so. 

You're avoiding the question that'll destroy your argument.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> No, you didn't prove that. And if you're so confident, you should have no problem using this to make a prediction as to how much warming and cooling we'll get. 
> 
> Forget whether it's natural or man made, let's talk the actual facts we can predict and prove. 
> 
> Dare? No, didn't think so. 
> 
> You're avoiding the question that'll destroy your argument.


I do not need to prove anything to a man who literally argues that 2+2=4 is not a fact.

I write it for honest people who will read this thread. As for you, it is quite obvious what your role is here.

Good luck.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> If that's all you know, then yeah, I'm a little more up to date.



Do tell about these hot properties.  I would really like to know how someone touting these predictions goes about house shopping.

----------


## PRB

> Do tell about these hot properties.  I would really like to know how someone touting these predictions goes about house shopping.


not having rain is hot property?

----------


## PRB

> I do not need to prove anything to a man who literally argues that 2+2=4 is not a fact.
> 
> I write it for honest people who will read this thread. As for you, it is quite obvious what your role is here.
> 
> Good luck.


make a prediction. I'm waiting.

admit you can't.

----------


## Iowa

///

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> not having rain is hot property?


This must qualify as a brilliant question from the guy who claims to be so "up to date" with the place I just mentioned.  

Hey buddy, there's this hot new mecca out west.  I even hear tell that O'Mallley is going to move his Dodgers out of Brooklyn to be there. 





> I'm not the idiot who doesn't even know how to spell ACCEPT.


No, you're the finger pointing idiot who consistently uses poor syntax and punctuation, including his apparent unfamiliarity with the purpose of a period.





> I never cited the IPCC, so I don't care about their claims.





> I thought we agreed IPCC is a political organization full of $#@!?


You apparently care enough about IPCC and their scientific separation from politics that you made this statement:
"If you want to challenge Al Gore, use politics, if you want to challenge IPCC, bring better scientists. If you want to challenge the 97% consensus conclusion, use evidence."







> *ANSWER ME, I DARE YOU.*


This is a demand coming from a guy who backed down when I asked him to predict the rain this weekend.  The same guy who's going to bring along his global warming college textbook when he begins to shop for his first house.  








> make a prediction.


Make one yourself.




> I'm waiting.


So am I.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> make a prediction. I'm waiting.
> 
> admit you can't.


Stand on your head. I'm waiting. This is just as relevant as you asking me to make a prediction about an event that has ALREADY happened. I do not make predictions about facts that are already firmly in the past. Water is already 97% of all greenhouse gases, and human CO2 is already less than 1%. I do not need to predict this because it has ALREADY come to pass. I do not need to predict what has already happened! Are you so dumb as not being able to understand that?

Stand on your head and clap your hands. I'm waiting. And also jump up and down while you are at it. I dare you. Admit you can't. If you can't do it, your argument is wrong.

See this is about as relevent as you requiring me to "predict" what has ALREADY happened. I think you are actually dumb, and learned how to make money doing it, troll.

----------


## PRB

> This is a demand coming from a guy who backed down when I asked him to predict the rain this weekend.


Yeah, because weather is different from climate. So, got an answer?




> The same guy who's going to bring along his global warming college textbook when he begins to shop for his first house.


What textbook do you bring?





> Make one yourself.
> 
> 
> So am I.


I'm with most global warming scientists on their predictions, the globe will continue to warm, there will be greater frequencies of droughts and floods, sea level will rise more than lower. I'm willing to be wrong too. (If I've misunderstood any of their claims, do correct me)

Your turn.

----------


## PRB

> Stand on your head. I'm waiting. This is just as relevant as you asking me to make a prediction about an event that has ALREADY happened. I do not make predictions about facts that are already firmly in the past. Water is already 97% of all greenhouse gases, and human CO2 is already less than 1%. I do not need to predict this because it has ALREADY come to pass. I do not need to predict what has already happened! Are you so dumb as not being able to understand that?


You can't make a prediction, so keep making excuses. 

I can predict you'll drink water in the next 480 hours or you'll die.

Make your climate prediction, try 5 years, 10 years. Go ahead, you seem to know what you're talking about. 




> Stand on your head and clap your hands. I'm waiting. And also jump up and down while you are at it. I dare you. Admit you can't.


I never claimed you can't. I didn't say I could stand on my head and clap my hands. So sure, I'll admit I can't. Your turn.

----------


## PRB

> I do not need to predict what has already happened! Are you so dumb as not being able to understand that?


Nobody asked you about what already happened. I'm asking you if you can use your confidence in greenhouse gases and sun activity to predict future climate and temperatures. 

Obviously alarmists are wrong, so you must know what and who is right. Go ahead, prove them wrong, or STFU about calling people liars.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Nobody asked you about what already happened. I'm asking you if you can use your confidence in greenhouse gases and sun activity to predict future climate and temperatures. 
> 
> Obviously alarmists are wrong, so you must know what and who is right. Go ahead, prove them wrong, or STFU about calling people liars.


I do not need to predict weather to prove that their analysis is wrong. Even if the planet experiences catastrophic warming it will NOT be because of human produced CO2. That is my prediction. It will be because of the Sun.

----------


## PRB

> I do not need to predict wather to prove that their analysis is wrong. Even if the planet experiences catastrophic warming it will NOT be because of human produced CO2. That is my prediction. It will be because of the Sun.


Ok, now we're getting somewhere, are you open to the possibility, or readily accept there to be catastrophic warming, regardless of what caused it?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> So, got an answer?


Answer to what?





> Your turn.


For what?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I can predict you'll drink water in the next 480 hours or you'll die.


I gone two weeks and probably close to your three without drinking water, and I'm still around.

----------


## PRB

> Answer to what?
> 
> For what?


Do you dispute the popularly accepted global warming claims? If not, cool. My question was originally to anybody who claims they are wrong, or even intentionally lying. 

Furthermore, those who claim they have better explanations for climate, and thus I ask if they are willing to make any predictions to test using their beliefs.

I gave you my prediction, or the prediction I accept. If you don't dispute or disagree, we have nothing to discuss here, but if you do, I'd love to hear if you have a better one you'd be willing to put to the test.

----------


## PRB

> I gone two weeks and probably close to your three without drinking water, and I'm still around.


you're either lying or you've consumed water in other forms.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...popularly accepted ...





> you're either lying or you've consumed water in other forms.



How so?  Isn't it popularly accepted that one will die if one does not drink water for approximately three days?

----------


## PRB

> How so?  Isn't it popularly accepted that one will die if one does not drink water for approximately three days?


more like scientifically proven. and I said 480 hours, which is 20 days. longer than 2 weeks and far longer than 3 days.

[Edit: what I meant to say was that it's scientifically proven nobody can go 20 days without consuming any source of water. Most people die much sooner, depending on your body mass, weather, activity, there are exceptions, but on a long enough timeline, you will die. I can say 40 days, or 1 year, and you'd have to admit there's a limit science has proven, even if i've gotten the exact number of days wrong]

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> more like scientifically proven. and I said 480 hours, which is 20 days. longer than 2 weeks and far longer than 3 days.


And I've done much longer than three days.  Did I prove the science wrong?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I do not need to predict weather to prove that their analysis is wrong. Even if the planet experiences catastrophic warming it will NOT be because of human produced CO2. That is my prediction. It will be because of the Sun.


So the sun is the only thing which can effect weather on Earth.  Interesting.  After Mt St Helens erupted, the world was cooler for a while due to all of the dust and ash it spewed high into the atmosphere. http://www.pbs.org/saf/1505/features/climatevolcano.htm Manufacturing also spews dirt into the air.  The sun is pretty steady but what is between the ground and the sun changes- whether that is clouds or pollution.  That effects our temperatures. It can also trap heat rather than blocking it.  Energy which reaches the planet can be reflected back into space but under some conditions, the heat gets trapped below gasses and cannot escape and temperatures build up. Snow for example will reflect light and heat away. If there is no snow, then darker earth can absorb the heat and retain it more.  We do get heat from the sun but what happens on Earth has an impact on how hot or how cold we get by changing how much reaches the surface and how much is reflected back off again. The sun is the source, yes, but it is not the major factor behind changes in our weather.

----------


## PRB

> And I've done much longer than three days.  Did I prove the science wrong?


but not 20, right?


the longest known record is an 18 year old who still licked moisture off prison walls. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Mihavecz


He lasted 18 days, he may have longer, depending on what condition and weather he lived in.


if you want to break his record, be my guest.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> but not 20, right?
> 
> 
> the longest known record is an 18 year old who still licked moisture off prison walls. 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Mihavecz
> 
> 
> ...



I have possibly done 20 days, but probably very more like 17-18.  It's very unlike your prisoner in that it's not an "ordeal."  I don't lick water off of walls, let alone prison walls.  My weight remains stable.  And, I as sit here--I don't have a stench like that guy.  Well, not much anyway. 

My 2.5 weeks is still far beyond the three days that you said is scientifically proven, so did I prove the science wrong?  And no, you can't furiously type away on the internet to find an answer like you did for your prisoner.  You seem to have a lot of something packed in your brain, so let's see what you can do without your college textbook.  Let's see if you can just use your own brain.

----------


## Zippyjuan

So no other sources of liquid? No fruits or vegetables? No meats? Just dried foods? No other beverages? Perhaps you can run down what you consumed on a typical "no water" day.  I am curious. Thanks!  (I could say I didn't drink water for weeks if I drank something else instead- I would not be lying).

----------


## PRB

> I have possibly done 20 days, but probably very more like 17-18.  It's very unlike your prisoner in that it's not an "ordeal."  I don't lick water off of walls, let alone prison walls.  My weight remains stable.  And, I as sit here--I don't have a stench like that guy.  Well, not much anyway. 
> 
> My 2.5 weeks is still far beyond the three days that you said is scientifically proven, so did I prove the science wrong?  And no, you can't furiously type away on the internet to find an answer like you did for your prisoner.  You seem to have a lot of something packed in your brain, so let's see what you can do without your college textbook.  Let's see if you can just use your own brain.


I have no way of knowing whether you're lying or cheating, you can claim you flew for all I care. But there's a Guinness Record waiting for you if you wish to break his record.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I have no way of knowing whether you're lying or cheating, you can claim you flew for all I care. But there's a Guinness Record waiting for you if you wish to break his record.


Giving up already?  Now, that's no way to win the school science fair.

The guy I told you about who does a better job on this board than you just gave you a clue, if really not the answer.

----------


## PRB

> Giving up already?  Now, that's no way to win the school science fair.
> 
> The guy I told you about who does a better job on this board than you just gave you a clue, if really not the answer.


"you're either lying or you've consumed water in other forms."

I didn't need him to tell me that.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I didn't need him to tell me that.


So what's the answer, hot shot?

----------


## PRB

> So what's the answer, hot shot?


did you or did you not consume water in some other form when you allegedly went 20 days without water? if so, it doesn't count.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> did you or did you not consume water in some other form when you allegedly went 20 days without water? if so, it doesn't count.


You mean a solid like ice or a gas like steam?  No.  I didn't even breathe anything from the iron when doing shots of steam on my clothes.

----------


## PRB

> You mean a solid like ice or a gas like steam?  No.  I didn't even breathe anything from the iron when doing shots of steam on my clothes.


did you eat or drink anything at all?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> did you eat or drink anything at all?


I ate.  I did not drink.

----------


## PRB

> I ate.  I did not drink.


what did you eat? things that contained water? fruits? vegetables? sauces?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> what did you eat? things that contained water? fruits? vegetables? sauces?


Everything edible contains water.  I ate the stuff on the supermarket shelves, just like everybody else.

----------


## PRB

> Everything edible contains water.  I ate the stuff on the supermarket shelves, just like everybody else.


so you consumed water, you just didn't "drink" it. 

but no, there are things which you can put in your mouth that practically is waterless. "edible" is subjective.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> so you consumed water, you just didn't "drink" it.


Well, your prediction was based on drinking.  I'm not sucking water off of rocks either.  I'm not nitpicking because I thought the--to use your words about global warming--"popularly accepted" notion was that people need or should drink 6-8 glasses of water a day.  Most people probably don't do this, but they probably drink at least one glass of water.  Maybe a swig at the drinking fountain.  Maybe not even that some days.  Maybe just coffee or something.  I don't do any of that.  I don't even get thirsty.  So people stand incredulous or--like you--are befuddled to the point that I might be lying.  Other people do what I do too.  It's not a magic trick or some anomaly.  It's actually a simple explanation that escapes the pre-conceived notions of most even when it is explained.

----------


## PRB

> Well, your prediction was based on drinking.  I'm not sucking water off of rocks either.  I'm not nitpicking because I thought the--to use your words about global warming--


you were consuming water from other sources. I admit my mistake of using the word drinking when I could've broadly included any consumption.




> "popularly accepted" notion was that people need or should drink 6-8 glasses of water a day.


There's huge gray area between staying healthy and dying. 




> Most people probably don't do this, but they probably drink at least one glass of water.  Maybe a swig at the drinking fountain.  Maybe not even that some days.  Maybe just coffee or something.  I don't do any of that.  I don't even get thirsty.  So people stand incredulous or--like you--are befuddled to the point that I might be lying.


Yes, because right when you said you don't drink water I pointed out you could consume water from other sources, you ignored it or missed and continued talking about how you don't drink water, focusing on drink, which is why I thought you were lying if you meant what I said you meant.




> Other people do what I do too.  It's not a magic trick or some anomaly.  It's actually a simple explanation that escapes the pre-conceived notions of most even when it is explained.


So you admit you can't go 20 days without consuming water? No Guinness record for you.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> So you admit you can't go 20 days without consuming water? No Guinness record for you.


Neither did the person you cited.

----------


## PRB

> Neither did the person you cited.


if he didn't consume water he'd have died much sooner.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> if he didn't consume water he'd have died much sooner.


He did not go 18 days without consuming liquid, which is what your article stated.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

You also have not given me an answer of how I can go 2.5 weeks without drinking water or fluids but most people don't.

----------


## PRB

> He did not go 18 days without consuming liquid, which is what your article stated.


he licked moisture, which is consumption of liquid. so you're right, he didn't go 18 days without any.

----------


## PRB

> You also have not given me an answer of how I can go 2.5 weeks without drinking water or fluids but most people don't.


you just answered it yourself, you said you ate things which contained water.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> you just answered it yourself, you said you ate things which contained water.


So does everybody else.

----------


## acptulsa

LOL the last time I didn't I nearly broke my teeth.

The only food I know of with no water in it is pasta, and the first thing you do with that is boil it...

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> There's huge gray area between staying healthy and dying.



There also a huge area between the people in the 1980s who predicted parts of New York would be under water by now because of global warming, and the fact that it is not under water.  There's a huge area between the people who said the Missouri River on the plains would be dried up, and the fact that it's not dried up.

People like you who say things like the "science is settled" and depend on notions of what's "popularly accepted" represent the worst kind of critical thinking.  It's rampant throughout history.  It's represented by everything from flat earth to the food pyramid/food group/food whatever, and a zillion other things.  I mention something about drinking water and what do you do?  You furiously type away on the internet trying to figure it out instead of just thinking.  You google away, and even then come up with a source that is inaccurate.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Ok, now we're getting somewhere, are you open to the possibility, or readily accept there to be catastrophic warming, regardless of what caused it?


It will happen, but not because of human produced CO2. CO2 does not cause global warming, just like wet sidewalks do not cause rain.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> So the sun is the only thing which can effect weather on Earth.  Interesting.  After Mt St Helens erupted, the world was cooler for a while due to all of the dust and ash it spewed high into the atmosphere. http://www.pbs.org/saf/1505/features/climatevolcano.htm Manufacturing also spews dirt into the air.


Which brings up a good point. St Helen dumped enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere yet the temperatures world-wide went down. Why? Because of global dimming, -- the condition proven in the last 30 years. So AGAIN, more CO2 does NOT mean high temperatures. It is a fallacy. And to build a government policy that starves millions of people in Africa based on this fallacy, is a crime of genocide, which is actually their true goal. Even Maurice Strong, the author of this fraud, said "humanity is the enemy." He must be a devil then.




> The sun is the source, yes, but it is not the major factor behind changes in our weather.


We are talking GLOBAL climate changes like ice ages, etc. These ARE caused by Sun fluctuations, and it is admitted.

----------


## PRB

> So does everybody else.


why? because they'd die without it? how do you know? is that popularly accepted or scientifically proven?

----------


## PRB

> It will happen, but not because of human produced CO2. CO2 does not cause global warming, just like wet sidewalks do not cause rain.


Can we agree then, that global warming is happening, droughts and floods are coming, and if we can nothing to stop it, we should prepare for it?

Oh, let me remind you we're both against taxing CO2 emissions.

----------


## PRB

> There also a huge area between the people in the 1980s who predicted parts of New York would be under water by now because of global warming


Citation?




> , and the fact that it is not under water.  There's a huge area between the people who said the Missouri River on the plains would be dried up, and the fact that it's not dried up.


Also not aware of it, citation please.





> People like you who say things like the "science is settled" and depend on notions of what's "popularly accepted" represent the worst kind of critical thinking.


Show us what's better. I am open to being wrong and science not being settled, but I listen to evidence, not just any alternative opinion.




> It's rampant throughout history.  It's represented by everything from flat earth to the food pyramid/food group/food whatever, and a zillion other things.


But is science more often right than not? Is science at least self correcting? What do you propose as an alternative which has a better track record of being correct and self correcting?




> I mention something about drinking water and what do you do?  You furiously type away on the internet trying to figure it out instead of just thinking.


I immediately pointed to that you are either lying or you consume water from other sources, instead of just admitting "yeah, you figured me out" you continue to say you don't drink water as if I didn't know there was a way around it..




> You google away, and even then come up with a source that is inaccurate.


You have better one, I suppose. That's all you do, tell me I'm not perfect, but won't give something better.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> why? because they'd die without it? how do you know? is that popularly accepted or scientifically proven?


Why what?  You said the reason I can go without drinking water for 2.5 weeks is water in food.  I pointed out that everybody else eats the same food that also has water.  You have yet to explain the discrepancy of why I go 2.5 weeks without drinking liquids but others don't.




> Citation?


It's all I heard back in the 1980s and 1990s.  You seem to have good internet skillz, so I'm sure you can find it.






> Also not aware of it,..


I would ask you how you could not possibly be aware of it, but I know better.  Maybe you're not old enough to remember, but you can still look it up in your school library.






> Show us what's better.


Who is us?





> I am open to being wrong and science not being settled,


You just said the science is settled, and rather emphatically at that.  If you're going into your usual backtrack mode, then just save it.






> But is science more often right than not?


Who knows?  Depends on what you're talking about.  Not when you have conservative/liberal/libertarian think tanks whose research is nothing but the political adjectives that describe them.





> ...instead of just admitting "yeah, you figured me out


You still have not figured it out or answered it.







> ...You have better one, I suppose.


I gave you a better source.  I showed you that your source was wrong through my simple explanation.  You even acknowledged that I was right.





> ... That's all you do, tell me I'm not perfect,


Well, don't cry.  I never said you look fat next to your keyboard.  

If you lazily use a poor source like "wikipedia," then your problem won't approach anything near perfection.





> ... but won't give something better.


I gave you something better.  I told you to use critical thinking instead of running to google, your book, or your professor for answers.

----------


## PRB

> Why what?  You said the reason I can go without drinking water for 2.5 weeks is water in food.  I pointed out that everybody else eats the same food that also has water.


How do you know that?




> You have yet to explain the discrepancy of why I go 2.5 weeks without drinking liquids but others don't.


I don't agree it's a discrepancy to begin with. 




> It's all I heard back in the 1980s and 1990s.  You seem to have good internet skillz, so I'm sure you can find it.


No, I don't, I suck at it. You tell me.




> I would ask you how you could not possibly be aware of it, but I know better.  Maybe you're not old enough to remember, but you can still look it up in your school library.


I don't remember at all, so please let me know when you find it.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Can we agree then, that global warming is happening, droughts and floods are coming, and if we can nothing to stop it, we should prepare for it?


People are not preparing now.  People continue to live in hazardous water areas, global warming or no global warming.  People build their houses right on top of rivers.  These are college educated people.  Probably some of the same ones talking about global warming.  If they can't even comprehend something you learn in third grade, then talking about global warming is not going to make much difference.

----------


## PRB

> Who knows?  Depends on what you're talking about.  Not when you have conservative/liberal/libertarian think tanks whose research is nothing but the political adjectives that describe them.


I don't listen to political think tanks on things about science. 

So you admit you don't know, fair enough.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> How do you know that?


Because we just discussed it.






> I don't agree it's a discrepancy to begin with.


Can you do it?  Know anybody who has ever done it?  You furiously looked it up on the internet when I mentioned it, so it appears you never even heard of it.  






> No, I don't, I suck at it. You tell me.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember at all, so please let me know when you find it.


I just told you.

----------


## PRB

> People are not preparing now.  People continue to live in hazardous water areas, global warming or no global warming.


Is it because they don't know? or because people are telling them global warming isn't happening? 

Are you going to donate to them again?




> People build their houses right on top of rivers.  These are college educated people.


How do you know they're college educated?

Is your point that regardless of whether there's global warming, people are either ignorant or ignoring warning signs? If so, do they deserve what happens later? will you donate to them later? (I'll say first I won't, but I will pass on any information I know in advance)

----------


## PRB

> Can you do it?  Know anybody who has ever done it?


Do what?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I don't listen to political think tanks on things about science. 
> 
> So you admit you don't know, fair enough.


I don't listen to think tanks either, but I know it when I see it.  What I see from you is a guy who cited to me an inaccurate article on the internet.  I pointed out the inaccuracy and you acknowledged I was right.  Your critical thinking was so lacking that you could not even figure out something that simple.  I also know about the dunces who said parts of New York would be under at this time.  So if you have anything else besides yourself or dunces, then I'd like to hear about it.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Do what?


Go without drinking water for 2.5 weeks.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> How do you know they're college educated?


I know they're college educated because they told me.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Is it because they don't know? or because people are telling them global warming isn't happening?


Floods occurred long before global warming.  Critical thinking skills.

----------


## PRB

> Go without drinking water for 2.5 weeks.


they can as long as they consume water by other means than drinking it directly.

----------


## PRB

> Floods occurred long before global warming.  Critical thinking skills.


that didn't stop you from donating to Sandy victims, did it?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> they can as long as they consume water by other means than drinking it directly.


I asked if you could do it or know anybody who has ever done it.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> that didn't stop you from donating to Sandy victims, did it?


I did not donate to them.

----------


## PRB

> I did not donate to them.


but you donated to Katrina? 

What's the difference?

----------


## PRB

> I asked if you could do it or know anybody who has ever done it.


I don't find it to be difficult, much less unsurvivable. So yes, I think I could do it as long as I consume water by other means. 

I never asked people I know, but I don't think it's impossible.

----------


## libertyjam

Just adding this for reference to the OP, as another reference if needed again in the future. 

http://vk3bbrsblogs.blogspot.com/201...gineering.html Update June 17th 2013


  I notice people are still viewing this old blog so it's time for an update.
  There is now a significant amount of material which closes the door on this debate.


  The first issue I would like to review is "just how much can we humans  expect to be able to control nature by varying human CO2 levels?"
  This chart sums it up.


 So the total Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is dominated by natural water vapor, which is at 95% of the total.
  CO2 makes up just 3.6% of the total and human CO2 makes up just 3.2% of that.
  Hence the maximum influence we can expect over nature's greenhouse  gasses is 3.2% of that 3.6% = 3.6*3.2/100 =  0.1152% or approximately  0.12% as shown in the diagram.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> but you donated to Katrina?


No, I did not donate to Katrina.





> I don't find it to be difficult, much less unsurvivable. So yes, I think I could do it as long as I consume water by other means.


What other means?  Water in what form?  I'm talking about water strictly from food and done routinely for about a week at time, or sometimes two weeks or a little more. 





> I never asked people I know, but I don't think it's impossible.


I'm not talking about whether it's possible.  I know it's possible because I do it.   

Is it common from your understanding and observation?

----------


## PRB

> No, I did not donate to Katrina.


Did you donate to ANY hurricane victims?




> What other means?  Water in what form?  I'm talking about water strictly from food and done routinely for about a week at time, or sometimes two weeks or a little more.


The means you just said, eating things which contain water. Watermelon is probably a effective way.




> I'm not talking about whether it's possible.  I know it's possible because I do it.   
> 
> Is it common from your understanding and observation?


Unless you're superman or have some abnormal abilities, what's your question and what makes you think you're more able than other people?

----------


## PRB

> Just adding this for reference to the OP, as another reference if needed again in the future. 
> 
> http://vk3bbrsblogs.blogspot.com/201...gineering.html Update June 17th 2013
> 
> 
>   I notice people are still viewing this old blog so it's time for an update.
>   There is now a significant amount of material which closes the door on this debate.
> 
> 
> ...


How is the percentage measured? By volume or mass?

Is it assumed each gram or ml or molecule of any GHG has the same GH effect as any other?

If water vapor is the dominant GHG, has it increased in the past 100 years? And can we use it to predict future climate and temperature?

Facts alone tell us nothing.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Did you donate to ANY hurricane victims?


Yes, I have said as much and you acknowledged it.  You just assumed it was Katrina or Sandy.  







> Unless you're superman or have some abnormal abilities,...


That is an interesting way of putting it, especially from someone who just said, "I don't find it to be difficult..."






> what's your question


I hope you know you are posing your question to my question that you just quoted.

Anyway, is it common from your understanding and observation?






> ..and what makes you think you're more able than other people?


Because I do it and other people don't.  People say things like they could not do it.  They say I am full of baloney.

I think anybody could do it.  They just don't follow along because of what you call "popularly accepted."  If you combine your words of _popularly accepted_ with your other words of the _science is settled_, then it explains why somebody might have believed that parts of New York City would be under water in 2014 because a scientist predicted it from global warming.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Facts alone tell us nothing.


But interpretations and predictions from facts tell quite a bit.  Like the people who predicted that New York City would be under water because of global warming.

----------


## PRB

> But interpretations and predictions from facts tell quite a bit.  Like the people who predicted that New York City would be under water because of global warming.


I'd like to see who they were, what data they relied on, I wouldn't have just taken their word for it.

----------


## PRB

> Yes, I have said as much and you acknowledged it.  You just assumed it was Katrina or Sandy.


Which hurricanes were they?

Did you or did you not donate to Katrina and Sandy victims? Yes or no?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Which hurricanes were they?
> 
> Did you or did you not donate to Katrina and Sandy victims? Yes or no?


Haiyan.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ... I wouldn't have just taken their word for it.


Millions do.

----------


## PRB

> Millions do.


That's nice.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> That's nice.


Not nice, but true.

----------


## PRB

> Not nice, but true.


doesn't mean i have to.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> doesn't mean i have to.


You don't have to what?  Believe it?  If something is true, it will still be true whether you believe it or not.

----------


## PRB

> You don't have to what?  Believe it?  If something is true, it will still be true whether you believe it or not.


what would you do to determine whether the predictions in 1980s were true or not?

you're right, if it's true, it doesn't matter what I believe, and how would you know, or do you care at all?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> what would you do to determine whether the predictions in 1980s were true or not?
> 
> you're right, if it's true, it doesn't matter what I believe, and how would you know, or do you care at all?


No, I don't care because I've heard these clowns say such things all my life.  Of course you don't remember.  You were probably in diapers when all these numbskulls were coming out of the woodwork in the 1980s, 1990s and even before that.    Dipshits publishing things where every other book or paper has the word "crisis" in the title.  A couple of birds get stuck in the mud and suddenly the entire earth becomes "fragile."  Funny how the earth is resilient enough to keep spinning, just like the motor in my almost 60 year old freezer.  

Gets a little old when people keep crying wolf.

----------


## PRB

> No, I don't care


got it

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Can we agree then, that global warming is happening, droughts and floods are coming, and if we can nothing to stop it, we should prepare for it?
> 
> Oh, let me remind you we're both against taxing CO2 emissions.


We should definitely prepare, but we must not buy into the human-CO2-is-causing-it FRAUD. THAT is utter nonsense used to justify the very taxation and tyranny you claim to oppose.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Just adding this for reference to the OP, as another reference if needed again in the future. 
> 
> http://vk3bbrsblogs.blogspot.com/201...gineering.html Update June 17th 2013
> 
> 
>   I notice people are still viewing this old blog so it's time for an update.
>   There is now a significant amount of material which closes the door on this debate.
> 
> 
> ...


Brilliant! Thanks.

That's what I said: Even if you remove ALL human produced CO2 from the atmosphere it will make practically NO effect on global temperature. Yet this FRAUD is used to sell global genocide!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Facts alone tell us nothing.


This is coming from a troll who literally argues that "2+2=4 is not a fact."

There is no point talking to you because you are not honest. The only point is for the readers to see us wipe the floor with your folly, lies and distortions.

----------


## PRB

> We should definitely prepare


*We don't disagree. But you're preparing for a fraud?
*
I'm sorry you feel the need to insist global warming is a fraud when you can, like I do, simply say you don't care as long as you can argue against carbon taxation.

I'm totally with you on opposing carbon regulations, I don't waste my time argue with science when I know it won't justify taxes anyway. 

*You just said it won't justify taxation, now you're saying it does, which one is it?*

----------


## PRB

> Brilliant! Thanks.
> 
> That's what I said: Even if you remove ALL human produced CO2 from the atmosphere it will make practically NO effect on global temperature. Yet this FRAUD is used to sell global genocide!


I'm not buying genocide.

Just so we're clear the 2 people who argued with me most on these global warming threads
1. One guy admitted we should prepare and he predicts there to be global warming
2. One guy admitted he doesn't believe global warming is a fraud

If we agree global warming is happening, but not worth taxing, we can stop arguing whether it's a fraud.

----------


## HVACTech

> Facts alone tell us nothing.


nice.

----------


## PRB

> nice.


am i wrong?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> *We don't disagree. But you're preparing for a fraud?
> *
> I'm sorry you feel the need to insist global warming is a fraud when you can, like I do, simply say you don't care as long as you can argue against carbon taxation.
> 
> I'm totally with you on opposing carbon regulations, I don't waste my time argue with science when I know it won't justify taxes anyway. 
> 
> *You just said it won't justify taxation, now you're saying it does, which one is it?*


Learn to read. I said human-CO2-causes-global-warming is a FRAUD. Human CO2 causes no more global warming than wet sidewalk causes rain. If there will be global warming it will be caused by the Sun.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I'm not buying genocide.
> 
> Just so we're clear the 2 people who argued with me most on these global warming threads
> 1. One guy admitted we should prepare and he predicts there to be global warming
> 2. One guy admitted he doesn't believe global warming is a fraud
> 
> If we agree global warming is happening, but not worth taxing, we can stop arguing whether it's a fraud.


Again, learn to read, and stop lying for a living, then there will be no arguing.  Cheers!

----------


## buenijo

There is no way to know how average global temperatures will change in the coming years. There are far too many unknowns and far too many confounding variables. Anyone who states otherwise is full of s**t. Furthermore, we cannot quantify or even accurately characterize how the production of (net) CO2 will change average global temperatures or weather patterns (a.k.a. "climate"). Any "scientist" who purports otherwise is full of s**t. Finally, even IF average global temperatures are rising (or cooling), then (1) we can't do anything about it, (2) we can't know whether the effects will be on net balance favorable or unfavorable, and (3) we would almost certainly do more damage by trying to intervene.

The entire "science" of "climate change" is motivated by an underlying political agenda, and is fueled by tax dollars. 

A few sober words:

"We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect." http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9764

"The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period." http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/09/...lobal-warming/

"Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever

"... It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare..." http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclu...sical-society/

----------


## PRB

> Learn to read. I said human-CO2-causes-global-warming is a FRAUD. Human CO2 causes no more global warming than wet sidewalk causes rain. If there will be global warming it will be caused by the Sun.


if you're going to prepare for global warming & climate destabilization, I don't care what causes it.

----------


## PRB

> There is no way to know how average global temperatures will change in the coming years. There are far too many unknowns and far too many confounding variables. Anyone who states otherwise is full of $#@!.


So average temperatures will remain a flat line, that's your prediction?

----------


## PRB

> Again, learn to read, and stop lying for a living, then there will be no arguing.  Cheers!


At the end of the day, you're saying even if humans caused global warming, you wouldn't accept carbon taxes, while I say, even if humans didn't, you'd accept global warming as a possibility enough to prepare for it. Good job arguing all the details to reach the same conclusion.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> There is no way to know how average global temperatures will change in the coming years. There are far too many unknowns and far too many confounding variables. Anyone who states otherwise is full of s**t. Furthermore, we cannot quantify or even accurately characterize how the production of (net) CO2 will change average global temperatures or weather patterns (a.k.a. "climate"). Any "scientist" who purports otherwise is full of s**t. Finally, even IF average global temperatures are rising (or cooling), then (1) we can't do anything about it, (2) we can't know whether the effects will be on net balance favorable or unfavorable, and (3) we would almost certainly do more damage by trying to intervene.
> 
> The entire "science" of "climate change" is motivated by an underlying political agenda, and is fueled by tax dollars. 
> 
> ...
> 
> "Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever


Brilliant. Thanks.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> if you're going to prepare for global warming & climate destabilization, I don't care what causes it.


The people who wish to dupe the world into tyranny do care. They use human-CO2-causes-global-warming LIE as the excuse. You support the lie. That is the problem.

----------


## buenijo

> So average temperatures will remain a flat line, that's your prediction?


Prediction? Did you read my post? The first sentence I wrote was "_There is no way to know how average global temperatures will change in the coming years._" 

I don't know what the average temperatures will be or how they will trend in the coming years. You don't know it either. Climate scientists don't know. Nobody knows.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

"Prepare for global warming."  What a dumb joke.  Over 90% of people can't even prepare to stop their car because they're riding someone's bumper on the highway, but somehow this grand problem of "global warming" is a bigger daily issue.  People can't shovel enough fast food in their mouths every day, but somehow this macro problem of global warming far supercedes their own personal health.  People continue to build houses and business right on top of a river, but somehow the flooding from rising seas in the next 50 years is a bigger problem than the structure right in front of their noses that just begs to be drowned.

This has to be the biggest ideological joke of our day.  Almost half the people out there don't even prepare for a problem until the 90 foot wall of water is breathing down their neck.  The other half are not even paying attention and get carried away by the water.  Somehow though--people change their whole mode of operation because it's doesn't snow like when we were kids. 

The clowns of the 1990s were exactly the knuckleheads fueling this nonsense.  They're still a fun distraction because people can't even pay attention to what the hell their doing in their daily lives.

"Prepare for global warming."  Go flail your girly arms and crap your pants somewhere else.

----------


## buenijo

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

----------


## PRB

> Prediction? Did you read my post? The first sentence I wrote was "_There is no way to know how average global temperatures will change in the coming years._" 
> 
> I don't know what the average temperatures will be or how they will trend in the coming years. You don't know it either. Climate scientists don't know. Nobody knows.


So then, you're prepared for both warming and cooling, both droughts and floods, both hurricanes and extreme blizzards? 

after all predictions are anybody's guess, people who say none of that will happen are just as valid as those who said it will or may, right?

----------


## PRB

> "Prepare for global warming."  What a dumb joke.  Over 90% of people can't even prepare to.....


forget about other people, are YOU prepared?

for both cooling and warming, for both droughts and floods, for both hurricanes and blizzards?

it's not a hoax, then it's probably happening, how are you dealing with it?

----------


## PRB

> The people who wish to dupe the world into tyranny do care. They use human-CO2-causes-global-warming LIE as the excuse. You support the lie. That is the problem.


we agreed that the alleged lie as you claim, whether true or not, will not justify carbon taxes, so I don't care what excuse they use, the problem is on you, but you're free to keep caring.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> forget about other people, are YOU prepared?


Gee, I don't know if I am prepared, Mr. Marketing, but I know I'm really scared.  Please tell what you can sell me for the terrible crisis.





> it's not a hoax, then it's probably happening, how are you dealing with it?


I have a psychiatrist friend who said he can help me with this overwhelming trauma.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> "The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this warming period."


Forget the earth.  The temperature is different from my front porch to the driveway.  

People can barely pay attention in this day and age, but I'm somehow supposed to believe that somebody collected some accurate information for the last 150 years showing the whole damn planet changed by a couple of degrees.  Yeah, okay.

----------


## PRB

> Gee, I don't know if I am prepared, Mr. Marketing, but I know I'm really scared.  Please tell what you can sell me for the terrible crisis.
> 
> I have a psychiatrist friend who said he can help me with this overwhelming trauma.


Not selling you anything. you'll have to ask the sponsors of Alex Jones and Mike Adams if you want to buy water filters or emergency food storage.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Not selling you anything. you'll have to ask the sponsors of Alex Jones and Mike Adams if you want to buy water filters or emergency food storage.


You sure are selling something.  It's actually worse than anything a prepper business might come up with.  The industry you peddle fuels all the government tax ticks who make people buy their crappy product.  

I'm guessing you're taking some kind of college classes where you inhale all of this stuff like a fat American sucking down Big Macs.  Maybe you're even an environmental studies major or some $#@! like that.  I would not be surprised if you get into some field upon graduation where you continue to sell this nonsense.  The stuff you peddle here will be eaten up by your fellow government ticks.

And dude, I don't know why you keeping giving me +reps and then you argue with me.  You've done it about five times.  Maybe you did not hit the option for neg rep.

Anyways, happy fourth, college troll boy.

----------


## PRB

> You sure are selling something.  It's actually worse than anything a prepper business might come up with.  The industry you peddle fuels all the government tax ticks who make people buy their crappy product.


What industry is that?




> I'm guessing you're taking some kind of college classes where you inhale all of this stuff like a fat American sucking down Big Macs.


It's true that I suck on big macs, but it's not some college course I'm taking.




> Maybe you're even an environmental studies major or some $#@! like that.


No, I'm actually against protecting the environment, if you can believe it, but I don't expect you to, because most likely in your mind, anybody who isn't paranoid about global warming being a hoax (oh wait, that includes you), must believe we have to tax people to protect the environment.




> I would not be surprised if you get into some field upon graduation where you continue to sell this nonsense.  The stuff you peddle here will be eaten up by your fellow government ticks.


Well it won't happen, so you don't need to be surprised either way




> And dude, I don't know why you keeping giving me +reps and then you argue with me.  You've done it about five times.  Maybe you did not hit the option for neg rep.
> 
> Anyways, happy fourth, college troll boy.


because we don't always disagree.

----------


## buenijo

> So then, you're prepared for both warming and cooling, both droughts and floods, both hurricanes and extreme blizzards?


Yes. I prepare myself for the weather as best I can. For example, every year I've noticed that it starts to get warmer around the month of June. I've heard some call this "summer". I prefer to wear sandals during this time - along with cotton T shirts. Similarly, it seems to cool down around the month of December. I think the word "winter" is used to describe this phenomenon. I prefer tennis shoes during these periods, and I wear a jacket. 

If I lived in Kansas, then I would prepare for tornadoes. If I lived in Florida, then I would prepare for hurricanes. If I lived in North Dakota, then I would prepare for blizzards. Of course, there is no reason whatever to expect such events to increase in frequency or severity in the coming years - so, why are you so concerned with such things?




> after all predictions are anybody's guess, people who say none of that will happen are just as valid as those who said it will or may, right?


No. People who say none of that will happen are just as _invalid_ as those who said it will or may.

----------


## PRB

> there is no reason whatever to expect such events to increase in frequency or severity in the coming years - so, why are you so concerned with such things?


No reason to expect, so you are expecting there to be little or no change, is that a positive claim you're willing to bet on?




> No. People who say none of that will happen are just as _invalid_ as those who said it will or may.


You just answered your own question. Are you expecting more out of the norm or not? Is your lack of expectation any more valid than others? You seem so confident other people are wrong, aren't you?

*Just as valid and just as invalid mean the same thing.*

----------


## PRB

> If I lived in Kansas, then I would prepare for tornadoes. If I lived in Florida, then I would prepare for hurricanes. If I lived in North Dakota, then I would prepare for blizzards.


So people in Sandy and Katrina should've just saw it coming and rightly deserve what happened to them, right?

----------


## buenijo

> So people in Sandy and Katrina should've just saw it coming and rightly deserve what happened to them, right?


Suggesting that I believe victims of natural disasters deserve their suffering is pretty far out. 

Of course, it's not possible to prepare fully for such highly unusual events. However, Kansas has a long history of tornadoes, Florida has a long history of hurricanes, and North Dakota has a long history of blizzards. It is prudent to prepare for disasters associated with one's location. Don't you agree?

----------


## PRB

> Suggesting that I believe victims of natural disasters deserve their suffering is pretty far out.


Why don't they deserve it? are they ignorant or stupid or purposely ignoring warning signs? why were they not prepared like you are? they're NATURAL disasters, which means they can't be surprised it happened.




> Of course, it's not possible to prepare fully for such highly unusual events.


That's your problem, you keep thinking they're highly unusual or that they'll never happen more often or more severly.




> However, Kansas has a long history of tornadoes, Florida has a long history of hurricanes, and North Dakota has a long history of blizzards. It is prudent to prepare for disasters associated with one's location. Don't you agree?


I agree those are locations that are known to be high risk, but I don't agree those are the ONLY places.

----------


## buenijo

> Is your lack of expectation any more valid than others? You seem so confident other people are wrong, aren't you?


Of course a claim is as valid as any other. An argument is not. Your claims carry implications despite your reluctance to state them outright. I say the underlying argument implied by your claims is invalid quite simply because the premise  cannot be shown to be true. 

If I say that aliens are preparing for an invasion of Earth, then this implies our intervention. However, the intervention is justified only when the premise is shown to be true. 

You cannot provide any justification whatever to defend your claim that severe climate disruptions are likely to take place in the future. Therefore, whatever argument you defend is baseless - invalid. 

Likewise, anyone else making arguments based on the same premise is full of s**t.

----------


## buenijo

> That's your problem, you keep thinking they're highly unusual or that they'll never happen more often or more severly.


It's not a problem. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Neither do you- and yet, you believe otherwise. You have the problem.

----------


## PRB

> If I say that aliens are preparing for an invasion of Earth, then this implies our intervention.


No, actually it doesn't, if you think this way, that's your problem.

----------


## buenijo

> No, actually it doesn't, if you think this way, that's your problem.


PRB, do you take the position that there will be global warming and climate destabilization in the future? If you do not wish to answer the question, then describe clearly your argument. Take a stand, and be clear about it.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> we agreed that the alleged lie as you claim, whether true or not, will not justify carbon taxes, so I don't care what excuse they use, the problem is on you, but you're free to keep caring.


I care because to justify force one must prove direct causal link between alleged perpetrator and the damage he supposedly caused. The human-produced-CO2-causes-catostrofic-climate-chenge LIE is used to "prove" that such causal link, and thus basis for violence, exists. That's why it is important to expose the lie to remove any justification for the violence. But you support the lie, and thus, indirectly, the violence they are ALREADY using on the basis of it, (and I believe you get paid for doing so), troll.

----------


## PRB

> I care because to legitimately justify force one must prove direct causal link between alleged perpetrator and the damage he supposedly caused.


Must prove, doesn't mean proving it would be sufficient




> The human-produced-CO2-causes-catostrofic-climate-chenge is THE lie used make appear the causal link, and thus basis for violence exists.


That's no basis for violence, if you think that, you're agreeing with the aggressors, I don't.




> That's why it is important to expose the lie. But you support the lie (and I believe get paid for doing so, troll).


I don't support the lie (am convinced based on scientific evidence that it's not a lie, and I trust the scientists who make the most accurate predictions), nor do I support using it to make any policy.

----------


## PRB

> PRB, do you take the position that there will be global warming and climate destabilization in the future?


Yes. Any intellectually honest person takes such as position unless he's ignoring evidence of has better reason to believe otherwise.




> If you do not wish to answer the question, then describe clearly your argument. Take a stand, and be clear about it.


I answered you, but I'll try to make a clear argument anyway. 

Scientists through multiple lines of evidence, continued and repeated testing, observation, have concluded that the globe is overall warming due to industrialization. The temperature predictions made by those who advocate the theory of man made global warming, while not perfect, have been far more accurate than those who deny it. I am open to being wrong, and I oppose any and all policies to regulate and tax carbon emissions. My belief is that knowing the facts and being prepared for natural disasters is generally better than not being prepared. If people of Sandy and Katrina could have known even a year in advance of what they're facing, they'd be much better off. 

I do not believe in protecting the environment. I do not believe global warming will destroy civilization or life as we know it, just that destabilization, droughts, hurricanes, extreme snow fall, heat waves, will cause enough inconvenience that people would rather avoid or prepare for if they could. I can tell Sandy & Katrina victims that they're still alive, civilization is still around, the world is still here, and what happened is totally natural, that won't help them any. I could also tell them they deserve whatever happened, because it's natural and nobody should be surprised. If they ARE surprised, then we should ask ourselves if they knowingly ignored warning signs, or had no way of knowing, this would tell us if they deserved what they got.

You cannot say both "it'll never happen" and "it's natural, what's the big deal" in the same breath, they are contradictions. If your belief is that climate WILL be stable, by all means do nothing, just remember if you're ever caught off guard, the government will be the first to greet you, and I'll be the first to laugh at you. If your belief is that the climate will be less stable in the near future, do whatever you think you have to do to protect yourself, because the government will be the first to greet you if something goes wrong, and I won't be donating to your rescue.

I'll say again I'm against carbon taxation. So accusing me of supporting it just won't work, accepting scientific claims does not force me to intervene. If you insist that accepting scientific conclusions justifies regulation policies, YOU are part of the problem and you've accepted the liberal logic.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Scientists through multiple lines of evidence, continued and repeated  testing, observation, have concluded that the globe is overall warming  due to industrialization.


That is patently and blatantly false. Industrialization was not proven as climate driver. It is a lie. It has been overall warming up for over 200,000 years, and it was not because of industrialization or  human-produced-CO2. It used to be an ice age, you know. The earth was frozen from pole to pole, and it thawed out, and not because of SUV's. Get it?

----------


## PRB

> That is patently and blatantly false.


Prove it, and collect $30,000 http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blog...challenge.html

It doesn't need to be your own original study, cite any scientist you like. If he can't refute it (and I know he can, because I have), you'll get your $30,000.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Prove it, and collect $30,000 http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blog...challenge.html
> 
> It doesn't need to be your own original study, cite any scientist you like. If he can't refute it (and I know he can, because I have), you'll get your $30,000.


I have refuted this IPCC claim, as also have done at least 50 other PhD's from IPCC.

Who is a judge of the proof? Let everyone decide for themselves. Truth speaks for itself and cannot be overcome. It always conquers in the end.

----------


## buenijo

PRB, thank you for the lengthy post. Your answering one last question should make clear for me your position:

QUESTION: If a problem exists and the source of the problem is understood, then is not intervention to mitigate the problem a rational action _assuming this can be done_? Before you answer, please read the previous sentence again carefully, then consider the following. With respect to the particular problem in consideration, many who believe increases in net CO2 to be a problem also consider that we've painted ourselves into a corner so to speak. That is, they take the position that intervention to solve the problem will likely cause more harm to us than not. Do you take this position? That is, do you NOT advocate for government intervention (such as taxation) because you believe it cannot have a NET benefit - or that it's simply not the best approach? Or, have you considered that intervention should be limited to individuals becoming aware of the problem and making personal decisions (such as where to locate, and other actions) to prepare for the expected climate disruptions? NOTE: While the following seems preposterous, I feel the need to ask - do you propose that people do absolutely nothing to prepare (i.e. no intervention whatever)? 

NOTE: I am interested primarily in clarity, and not agreement. It seems we will not agree on this matter, so the following statement of my position on the matter will most likely be my last post on this thread.

MY POSITION: I take the position that we do not have a sufficient understanding of the global climate systems to make accurate predictions. Most global warming predictions made in the past have not proven successful (the models have failed to represent reality). Indeed, hundreds if not thousands of scientists argue that the Earth has shown a net cooling (or no net warming) over the last decade despite most predictions having called for a pronounced warming. Furthermore, this cooling (or lack of warming) trend was predicted by many prominent scientists who consider solar activity as the most important single input when considering trends in global temperature changes. While I accept the premise that CO2 emissions from industry can affect the climate system, I emphasize that we do not have the means to quantify or characterize how these effects will manifest. I state with perfect confidence that there is no reason (i.e. insufficient evidence) to expect climate to change in any material manner due to the CO2 emissions by industry. I take the position that many politicians have exaggerated some claims of the underlying science, and that the objectivity of scientists working in the field has been compromised by a resulting public outcry. The institutions that support the science of climate and environmental science in general have expanded many fold in the face of the widely perceived threat of global warming. Today, these institutions are now wholly dependent on the tax dollars derived from this perceived threat. Selection bias has characterized the entire field since this dynamic began. _It is not possible for science to be objective under these conditions._ Under these conditions, people will see (and have seen) what they want to see. The science of global warming (a.k.a. climate change) is deficient because it has not and cannot perform a controlled and repeatable experiment to test its hypothesis. The climate system presents far too many confounding variables and poorly understood (or unknown) feedback loops. My position is scientific skepticism. 

RELEVANT QUOTES:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

VARIOUS RESOURCES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMHwhb8C8to

----------


## PRB

> PRB, thank you for the lengthy post. Your answering one last question should make clear for me your position:
> 
> QUESTION: If a problem exists and the source of the problem is understood, then is not intervention to mitigate the problem a rational action _assuming this can be done_? Before you answer, please read the previous sentence again carefully, then consider the following. With respect to the particular problem in consideration, many who believe increases in net CO2 to be a problem also consider that we've painted ourselves into a corner so to speak.


Assuming it can be done almost sounds like a sure "Ok, great, why not?" If you ignore your sacred ideology of libertarianism, that taxation is ALWAYS theft and government is ALWAYS evil and the environment is NEVER your problem and pollution is NOT your fault. So to answer your question, either it would NOT be rational to do so because libertarianism as a religion comes before all other facts. Or that it would be rational, BUT my freedoms are more important than whatever will happen to other people. 

It's true, MOST people believe that IF CO2 is indeed the culprit, then the ONLY rational response is to regulate carbon emissions AS LONG AS it can actually make a difference. But they themselves have limited their thinking into such few options, and deniers are helping them! This is why they deny, because they can't man up and say "I don't care if it's true, I still don't want to pay carbon taxes".

This is no different than the people who deny the 16th Amendment was ratified, when what they REALLY want to say is "Ok, the law says i need to pay income taxes, I'm just personally selfishly emotionally and morally against it". Do you see the point here? 

You don't need to deny the facts to get what you want (or at least ask for it). If you insist on arguing facts you can't win on, while not addressing the real point (which is, even if true, you're still not accepting taxes and regulations), you're allowing your opponent to discredit you on dishonesty, ALSO, you're basically saying, IF you can prove that the premise is true, you'll gladly accept taxes and regulations. (As you've heard with a million idiot tax protestors "Just show me the law and I will gladly pay taxes" and they don't mean it).

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Brilliant, *buenijo*! Thanks.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> If you ignore your sacred ideology of libertarianism, that taxation is ALWAYS theft and government is ALWAYS evil and the environment is NEVER your problem and pollution is NOT your fault. So to answer your question, either it would NOT be rational to do so because libertarianism as a religion comes before all other facts. Or that it would be rational, BUT my freedoms are more important than whatever will happen to other people.


There your true colors are coming out. You misrepresent Libertarianism. All Libertarianism is the Non-Aggression principle. It does not say "environment is NEVER your problem and pollution is NOT your fault". NAP prohibits violation of anyone's property, including polluting your neighbor's land, water or air. So you are lying again, and building a straw-man.

----------


## buenijo

> There your true colors are coming out. You misrepresent Libertarianism. All Libertarianism is the Non-Aggression principle. It does not say "environment is NEVER your problem and pollution is NOT your fault". NAP prohibits violation of anyone's property, including polluting your neighbor's land, water or air. So you are lying again, and building a straw-man.


Yes. PRB has fashioned many straw men during this discussion. I had noted earlier that I would likely stop posting comments on this thread, but it seems what I desire is to no longer reply directly to his posts. He's a sophist - nothing more. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophist?s=t : see definition 2.

----------


## PRB

> That is, they take the position that intervention  to solve the problem will likely cause more harm to us than not. Do you  take this position?


I too graduated from the Mises  Institute for Advanced Libertarian studies, I know that government  intervention either always causes more harm or is still morally wrong  regardless. So yes, I take the position that we shouldn't have  government intervention in form of taxation and regulation.




> That is, do you NOT advocate for government intervention (such as  taxation) because you believe it cannot have a NET benefit - or that  it's simply not the best approach?


Correct, I don't  know how much more clear I need to say it. People like Foundation keep  accusing me of advocating for taxes or helping taxer's arguments,  because HE is the one who thinks like they do (I do not).




> Or, have you considered that intervention should be limited to  individuals becoming aware of the problem and making personal decisions  (such as where to locate, and other actions) to prepare for the expected  climate disruptions?


I don't call that intervention, more like just knowing the facts and being prepared for it. 

You can't predict earthquakes, but you sure as hell hope to be prepared for it.




> NOTE: While the following seems preposterous, I feel the need to ask -  do you propose that people do absolutely nothing to prepare (i.e. no  intervention whatever)?


Sorry that I wasn't clear, by intervention I  automatically think government interference. Preparation done on a  personal level, I advocate and do not consider intervention. So I want  people to do absolutely everything BUT ask for government to interfere.

----------


## PRB

> There your true colors are coming out. You misrepresent Libertarianism. All Libertarianism is the Non-Aggression principle. It does not say "environment is NEVER your problem and pollution is NOT your fault". NAP prohibits violation of anyone's property, including polluting your neighbor's land, water or air. So you are lying again, and building a straw-man.


the environment is nobody's property, so it follows that it's not your problem and pollution is not aggressing against anybody. Splitting hairs with me is not the same as proving I'm a liar.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Yes. PRB has fashioned many straw men during this discussion. I had noted earlier that I would likely stop posting comments on this thread, but it seems what I desire is to no longer reply directly to his posts. He's a sophist - nothing more. 
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophist?s=t : see definition 2.


Exactly! (And in all likelyhood he is a paid troll, because no one can be this stupid on their own). Thank you for your BRILLIANT contribution!

----------


## PRB

> NOTE: I am interested primarily in clarity, and not agreement. It seems we will not agree on this matter, so the following statement of my position on the matter will most likely be my last post on this thread.
> 
> MY POSITION: I take the position that we do not have a sufficient understanding of the global climate systems to make accurate predictions. Most global warming predictions made in the past have not proven successful (the models have failed to represent reality).


What do you consider a successful one and who are you aware of that have made the most accurate predictions? I can bet you it's not the deniers who say CO2 isn't causing warming. 




> Indeed, hundreds if not thousands of scientists argue that the Earth has shown a net cooling (or no net warming) over the last decade despite most predictions having called for a pronounced warming.


Published in journals? Or just opinions? 




> Furthermore, this cooling (or lack of warming) trend was predicted by many prominent scientists who consider solar activity as the most important single input when considering trends in global temperature changes.


Wait, which cooling? Establish the fact first, thanks.




> While I accept the premise that CO2 emissions from industry can affect the climate system, I emphasize that we do not have the means to quantify or characterize how these effects will manifest.


What would convince you that we can? What kind of an accurate prediction would you need? 




> I state with perfect confidence that there is no reason (i.e. insufficient evidence) to expect climate to change in any material manner due to the CO2 emissions by industry.


So tell us what would be sufficient evidence, you sure know what ISN'T sufficient evidence, so you must know what IS. This is the test of whether a person can intellectually honestly argue what he believes, or is just jerking off, wasting time. 

Any idiot can say "there is no evidence" with his eyes closed and ears covered, how do you know you're not doing it? (By contrast, I can tell you exactly why I don't take the counter arguments seriously. I DO consider multiple points of view and arguments, I DO hold them to the same standard of evidence and scrutiny)




> I take the position that many politicians have exaggerated some claims of the underlying science, and that the objectivity of scientists working in the field has been compromised by a resulting public outcry. The institutions that support the science of climate and environmental science in general have expanded many fold in the face of the widely perceived threat of global warming.


We don't disagree here. Just because politicians exploit 9/11 for war doesn't mean 9/11 didn't happen.




> Today, these institutions are now wholly dependent on the tax dollars derived from this perceived threat. Selection bias has characterized the entire field since this dynamic began. _It is not possible for science to be objective under these conditions._


Again, find me a more objective, more accurate study and prediction. I admit science can be corrupted and wrong, but that doesn't mean you automatically deny whatever is given, nor does it mean you can cherry pick which scientific points to deny just because you want to. 

What scientific institutions ARE NOT wholly dependent on donations, grants and tax dollars? Do we dismiss ALL of them? 

Is NASA a complete fraud and everything they say false? Your point about funding influencing conclusions is taken, but we test claims with science, and ANYBODY IS FREE TO PROVE THEM WRONG. 




> Under these conditions, people will see (and have seen) what they want to see. The science of global warming (a.k.a. climate change) is deficient because it has not and cannot perform a controlled and repeatable experiment to test its hypothesis.


Except it can and has.




> The climate system presents far too many confounding variables and poorly understood (or unknown) feedback loops. My position is scientific skepticism.


Skepticism means you set a goal from where you will be convinced. So i'll ask you until you give it to me, or admit you don't know.

What would it take to convince you you are wrong? As for "far too many confounding variables" I welcome you to list any and all you believe we've ignored or failed to study. I don't expect you to know what scientists never heard or or imagined, just the ones you believe they're intentionally ignoring or can study but have not.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> the environment is nobody's property,


What about the air in your house, or water that falls on your lawn? If someone pollutes your land, air or water, they are violating your property. Thus your premise is false. 




> so it follows


No it doesn't. Because your premise was wrong.




> that it's not your problem and pollution is not aggressing against anybody. Splitting hairs with me is not the same as proving I'm a liar.


O, you are.

----------


## buenijo

> Exactly! (And in all likelyhood he is a paid troll, because no one can be this stupid on their own). Thank you for your BRILLIANT contribution!


You're welcome Sir. Thank you for your persistence in dealing with PRB during the course of this discussion. It seems you have more persistence than I. However, I suggest it's time to throw in the towel. His latest post lost all pretense of reason and declined to little more than gibberish. Of course, this is the final avenue of sophism when used to address a sound argument. I fear there is nothing we can do to help him from here on.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> We don't disagree here. Just because politicians exploit 9/11 for war doesn't mean 9/11 didn't happen.


Right. Except it is important to understand what caused 9/11 so that correct actions could be taken. 9/11 was a bonafide inside job. Therefore, the correct action to is should have been prosecution of those in power who facilitated, helped to carry out and then covered it up, instead of promoting them and giving them more money. Thus because the cause was incorrectly determined, the action taken was the REVERSE of the proper one. The same thing happens with global climate change. The cause of it is NOT human-produced-CO2. Therefore trying to regulate and tax it out of existence will do practically NOTHING in terms of global temperatures. Even if ALL human-produced-CO2 was removed, it would not make ANY significant difference. Thus the whole thing is a FRAUD.




> Is NASA a complete fraud and everything they say false?


Most of it. NASA is a lie.





> Your point about funding influencing conclusions is taken, but we test claims with science, and ANYBODY IS FREE TO PROVE THEM WRONG.


We just did, over and over again, but you would not listen because you are a paid liar and a troll. The honest people, however, have figured it out already. Truth speaks for itself, and is unconquerable.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> You're welcome Sir. Thank you for your persistence in dealing with PRB during the course of this discussion. It seems you have more persistence than I. However, I suggest it's time to throw in the towel. His latest post lost all pretense of reason and declined to little more than gibberish. Of course, this is the final avenue of sophism when used to address a sound argument. I fear there is nothing we can do to help him from here on.


My view is that the more he talks the more the people who read this thread are convinced that we are right and he is wrong. Such is the nature of the truth.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> What about the air in your house, or water that falls on your lawn? If someone pollutes your land, air or water, they are violating your property. Thus your premise is false.


For this reason I believe that protecting the environment is part of the government's primary role - defense from aggression.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> For this reason I believe that protecting the environment is part of the government's primary role - defense from aggression.


The government has no right to claim such a monopoly, no to rob people for such "protection." Google "protection racket."

----------


## PRB

> Most of it. NASA is a lie.


Ok then. I guess I am not surprised that people who deny global warming or man caused global warming are ultimately 2 kinds of people, one who will have to dismiss all science, or the other, who have to explain why science is reliable almost everywhere else, just not here.

----------


## PRB

> My view is that the more he talks the more the people who read this thread are convinced that we are right and he is wrong. Such is the nature of the truth.


You won't need my help there, you can spam this board with all your own stuff if you just want to repeat and read yourself talk. I can't stop you.

----------


## PRB

> What about the air in your house


It would have to be in your house, not around it




> , or water that falls on your lawn?


Water is not yours until it's on your lawn




> If someone pollutes your land, air or water, they are violating your property. Thus your premise is false.


But only if the person pollutes YOUR land, anywhere else is none of your business




> No it doesn't. Because your premise was wrong.
> 
>  O, you are.


If you don't own something, you can't control it, what did I miss?

----------


## PRB

> We just did, over and over again, but you would not listen because you are a paid liar and a troll. The honest people, however, have figured it out already. Truth speaks for itself, and is unconquerable.


No, you didn't. Not when you admit you predict warming will happen. Not when you've not made a temperature prediction different than those who predict CO2 has caused warming. 

Now go ahead and claim your prize, or tell me who won it first.

http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blog...challenge.html

----------


## PRB

> Even if ALL human-produced-CO2 was removed, it would not make ANY significant difference. Thus the whole thing is a FRAUD.


whether it caused it and whether we can stop it are 2 different things.

----------


## buenijo

> My view is that the more he talks the more the people who read this thread are convinced that we are right and he is wrong. Such is the nature of the truth.


Reasonable.

Allow me to contribute to this end. I recently engaged PRB in a lengthy discussion on economics here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ue-lol/page4&&. PRB noted in post #117 of the linked thread the following: 




> I will admit I don't know what you mean by malinvestment.


However, in post #790 of this thread he posted the following:




> I too graduated from the Mises Institute for Advanced Libertarian studies,...


Contradiction? Lie? You decide. Personally, I can't see how someone can complete a formal study with the Mises Institute without being introduced to the concept of malinvestment. It looks suspicious to me.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> The government has no right to claim such a monopoly, no to rob people for such "protection." Google "protection racket."


As long as people are dependent on water supplies and the air around them, you really think the government protecting others from polluting those things is "robbing people for protection"?

----------


## PRB

> As long as people are dependent on water supplies and the air around them, you really think the government protecting others from polluting those things is "robbing people for protection"?


Yes, because government by definition is a robber and aggressor, don't you ever get it?! How can government protect property when it must violate property to exist?!!!!!!

----------


## PRB

> Reasonable.
> 
> Contradiction? Lie? You decide. Personally, I can't see how someone can complete a formal study with the Mises Institute without being introduced to the concept of malinvestment. It looks suspicious to me.


How about, a joke? I didn't actually complete any formal course or study with the Mises Institute, it was a parody reference to this http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2793963/posts By the way, is it possible I just didn't know what YOU meant by the word? I mean, I've heard the word before and if I had to guess before you told me, I'd have said it probably meant "Unsound, irresponsible, unprofitable allocation of resources or failed return on an investment of time and product" or something like it.

I did however, hear a million times what libertarianism is by people of all sprectra, from religious conservatives to anarcho capitalists and then conspiracy theorists. They can disagree on whether abortion should be a crime or whether borders should be collective, but one thing they never disagree on is whether the environment is ever an individual's fault. the answer is emphatically always *NO, UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU POLLUTE AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON'S PROPERTY.*

----------


## PRB

> You're welcome Sir. Thank you for your persistence in dealing with PRB during the course of this discussion. It seems you have more persistence than I. However, I suggest it's time to throw in the towel. *His latest post lost all pretense of reason and declined to little more than gibberish.* Of course, this is the final avenue of sophism when used to address a sound argument. I fear there is nothing we can do to help him from here on.


How is that? I answered what you asked, and responded to your opinions, have you anything to say in return?

----------


## buenijo

> How about, a joke?


I concede that I should have suspected this based on the style of your posts (i.e. vagueness and quibbling).

I'm done with this thread.

----------


## PRB

> I concede that I should have suspected this based on the style of your posts (i.e. vagueness and quibbling).
> 
> I'm done with this thread.


as you can expect with anybody who doesn't know what he's talking about. 

Again, check out who wins the challenge.

$30,000 to be reward to the first person who can present a scientific case against AGW (show a better explanation and prediction for climate), it needs not be original, so copy your best argument from whereever you heard it.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.co.uk/

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Yes, because government by definition is a robber and aggressor, don't you ever get it?! How can government protect property when it must violate property to exist?!!!!!!


I am not an anarchist.  I believe in a limited government that provides some key functions, one of which is to help protect its citizens' property.  I guess no government may be better than what we've got now though.

----------


## PRB

> I am not an anarchist.  I believe in a limited government that provides some key functions, one of which is to help protect its citizens' property.  I guess no government may be better than what we've got now though.


so you're an anarchist without even knowing it.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Ok then. I guess I am not surprised that people who deny global warming or man caused global warming are ultimately 2 kinds of people, one who will have to dismiss all science, or the other, who have to explain why science is reliable almost everywhere else, just not here.


I am dismissing and condemning lies and cover-ups, not science.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> No, you didn't. Not when you admit you predict warming will happen. Not when you've not made a temperature prediction different than those who predict CO2 has caused warming. 
> 
> Now go ahead and claim your prize, or tell me who won it first.
> 
> http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blog...challenge.html


You are like those people who say: "We both predict that the Sun will rise tomorrow, therefore you agree with my premise that it is being pushed up by two unicorns."

  The fact that I believe that global warming will happen does not give credence to your and IPCC fraudulent claim that it will be caused by human-made-CO2. It will be caused by the Sun.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Reasonable.
> 
> Allow me to contribute to this end. I recently engaged PRB in a lengthy discussion on economics here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ue-lol/page4&&. PRB noted in post #117 of the linked thread the following: ...
> 
> However, in post #790 of this thread he posted the following: ...
> 
> Contradiction? Lie? You decide. Personally, I can't see how someone can complete a formal study with the Mises Institute without being introduced to the concept of malinvestment. It looks suspicious to me.


Good point. That's why I said PRB stands for Paid Rothschild’s Bamboozler.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> As long as people are dependent on water supplies and the air around them, you really think the government protecting others from polluting those things is "robbing people for protection"?


Yes, if they finance such "protection" via aggressive violence of taxation, whether individuals asked for it or not. Hence, the protection racket.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Yes, because government by definition is a robber and aggressor, don't you ever get it?! How can government protect property when it must violate property to exist?!!!!!!


That's actually a good point, PRB. I am surprised!

----------


## PRB

> You are like those people who say: "We both predict that the Sun will rise tomorrow, therefore you agree with my premise that it is being pushed up by two unicorns."
> 
>   The fact that I believe that global warming will happen does not give credence to your and IPCC fraudulent claim that it will be caused by human-made-CO2. It will be caused by the Sun.


Actually not a bad analogy, but it might be closer to saying 

"We both predict the sun will rise tomorrow, so I don't care if you believe unicorns are pushing it, as you'd act the same way in reaction"

If it will be caused by the sun, isn't it funny that no scientist who advocates this theory has been able to make a more accurate prediction of future climate patterns? They just wait until it happens and say "I saw it coming but it's not because of anything but the sun".

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I am not an anarchist.  I believe in a limited government that provides some key functions, one of which is to help protect its citizens' property.  I guess no government may be better than what we've got now though.


The problem is the definition of the word "government." If you define government as an entity that claims the “right” to forcefully expropriate (rob) private property for the purpose of providing “services,” then such government is unjust by definition and has no right to exist.

However, if you define government as public property and its government (public property defined as property to which all citizens have equal claim of ownership), then such government does have a legitimate function, i.e. just management of public property. (Please see *The Fundamental Principles of Liberty*)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> If it will be caused by the sun, isn't it funny that no scientist who advocates this theory has been able to make a more accurate prediction of future climate patterns? They just wait until it happens and say "I saw it coming but it's not because of anything but the sun".


The claim that it is primarily caused by the Sun is supported by historical evidence. The same historical record shows that CO2 (human made or otherwise) never was the driving factor in global temperature. Too many things outweigh it 100 to 1 in importance, consequence, and effect.

----------


## PRB

> The claim that it is primarily caused by the Sun is supported by historical evidence.


Not for the past 35 years. Let me know when you have a source that refutes this fact.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...g-advanced.htm




> The same historical record shows that CO2 (human made or otherwise) never was the driving factor in global temperature. Too many things outweigh it 100 to 1 in importance, consequence, and effect.


Go ahead and collect your $30,000 reward. Or let me know who did.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blog...bmissions.html

what we know about the past 35 years : the sun has gone the opposite of what we expect to cause warming, no other greenhouse gas has increase as much as man made CO2. So what other "too many things" are you talking about?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Not for the past 35 years. Let me know when you have a source that refutes this fact.


I am talking about last 200,000 years.




> Go ahead and collect your $30,000 reward. Or let me know who did.
> http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blog...bmissions.html


Who is going to be the judge of whether I won, you? No thanks. I need an objective, honest judge, and that is not you and not any other paid shills.




> what we know about the past 35 years : the sun has gone the opposite of what we expect to cause warming, no other greenhouse gas has increase as much as man made CO2. So what other "too many things" are you talking about?


The global temperature remained fairly constant in the last 15 years, if not actually cooling as attested by massive build up of polar ice.

Besides, as I said: ice ages were not caused by SUV's.

----------


## PRB

> I am talking about last 200,000 years.


Before industrialization there was no industrialization emissions causing warming, what's your point? Today we know that carbon emissions exceeded the effects of the sun, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SUN HAS DONE THE OPPOSITE.





> Who is going to be the judge of whether I won, you? No thanks. I need an objective, honest judge, and that is not you and not any other paid shills.


Oh, not so fast. it works this way

1. You post the best scientific evidence you have
2. If he can't respond with why you're wrong, you win.
3. If he responds, feel free to spill out why he's wrong, he's a liar, or he cheated you

So, while there's no guarantee he's an honest or objective judge, the response and lack of responses will tell all who's got facts on his side.




> The global temperature remained fairly constant in the last 15 years, if not actually cooling as attested by massive build up of polar ice.


Only if you use the word constant arbitrarily.




> Besides, as I said: ice ages were not caused by SUV's.


Who said they were??

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is  thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years  ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now*





*If you are making "public policy" based on "science" such as this, you are criminally insane!*

----------


## PRB

> *Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is  thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years  ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If you are making "public policy" based on "science" such as this, you are criminally insane!*


thicker than 2 years ago, which is another way of saying thicker than ONLY 2 years ago, still thinner than most other years.

and always using Al Gore to make your arguments. 

try something harder. like actually responding to scientific arguments.

----------


## juleswin

> thicker than 2 years ago, which is another way of saying thicker than ONLY 2 years ago, still thinner than most other years.
> 
> and always using Al Gore to make your arguments. 
> 
> try something harder. like actually responding to scientific arguments.


Or another way of saying it is "ice cap levels have been gaining for 2 years not decreasing". Either way, its hard to spin this on as the problems from global warming

----------


## PRB

> Or another way of saying it is "ice cap levels have been gaining for 2 years not decreasing". Either way, its hard to spin this on as the problems from global warming


that's because your understanding of global warming is wrong, you think global warming means always warming never cooling, ever.

----------


## juleswin

> that's because your understanding of global warming is wrong, you think global warming means always warming never cooling, ever.


I don't believe that but if we have a average temperatures for about 20 yrs not showing any warming, then I start to think maybe the global warming that started from the end of the last ice age is taking a break. Or maybe some negative feedback loop is cooling the earth. Either way, if your global warming doesn't show up in the temperature record for 20 yrs, then what the hell is supposed to be warming?

----------


## PRB

> I don't believe that *but if we have a average temperatures* for about 20 yrs not showing any warming


We don't "*have average temperatures* for about 20 yrs not showing any warming". Or else your statement is so vague it can mean anything or nothing.

You're probably thinking of this long debunked bull$#@! argument.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil...since-1995.htm

2013 is tied with 2003 as the 4th hottest on record since 1880.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

2010 and 2005 being the hottest 2 years. Hardly "no warming since 1995" or "no warming for about 20 years".





> , then I start to think maybe the global warming that started from the end of the last ice age is taking a break. Or maybe some negative feedback loop is cooling the earth. Either way,* if your global warming doesn't show up in the temperature record for 20 yrs,* then what the hell is supposed to be warming?


You ask the question with the false premise, check your premise, then ask the question again.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

The point is that the high priest of human-caused global warming predicted ice free arctic by now, instead it gained MILLIONS of square kilometers of ice, and increased over 46% in mere 2 years. 

The prediction and reality are as opposite as night and day, as black and white, as true and false. Yet this Al Gore lunacy, this fraud "science," is used to formulate public policy that threatens to cause the starvation of literally MILLIONS of people. That's why I said that the law-making based on this "scientific" fraud is criminally insane.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

The irony is that high CO2 is what makes the planet really *Go Green*.

----------


## amonasro

> that's because your understanding of global warming is wrong, you think global warming means always warming never cooling, ever.


Every one of your posts since you registered is argumentative, inflationary or divisive. I'm surprised you haven't been banned yet. Maybe we should track your IP to the troll cave of pale, tormented shills, where you probably have never even been outside much less posses the actual intelligence to argue for... whatever it is you're here to argue about.

Don't feed the troll guys. Can we get an ignore option up in here?

----------


## PRB

> The point is that the high priest of human-caused global warming predicted ice free arctic by now


He's not a scientist, so quoting his bull$#@! won't get you anywhere. try to actually listen to scientists, not a con artist like Al Gore when you make your argument.




> , instead it gained MILLIONS of square kilometers of ice, and increased over 46% in mere 2 years.


And before that?




> The prediction and reality are as opposite as night and day, as black and white, as true and false.


Which is just what you expect if the prediction was not made based on science. So, let's see you make one, or are you scared to be wrong?




> Yet this Al Gore lunacy, this fraud "science," is used to formulate public policy that threatens to cause the starvation of literally MILLIONS of people.


You can oppose public policy regardless of what science and Al Gore say.




> That's why I said that the law-making based on this "scientific" fraud is criminally insane.


Based on any fraud would be criminal.

----------


## PRB

> Every one of your posts since you registered is argumentative, inflationary or divisive. I'm surprised you haven't been banned yet. Maybe we should track your IP to the troll cave of pale, tormented shills, where you probably have never even been outside much less posses the actual intelligence to argue for... whatever it is you're here to argue about.
> 
> Don't feed the troll guys. Can we get an ignore option up in here?


I'm not the one who bumped this thread and dragged out Al Gore to beat.

----------


## PRB

> The irony is that high CO2 is what makes the planet really *Go Green*.


that's not an irony. It's at best good for plants, but it won't be good for humans.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Which is just what you expect if the prediction was not made based on science. So, let's see you make one, or are you scared to be wrong?


The point is that public policy and law ARE being made based on fraud sold as "science." *That is the point.* Practically ALL the predictions of government paid "scientific" fraudsters turned out to be false. *That is the point.* I am not writing laws based on fraud-science. They are. *That is the point.* I don't need to make a climate prediction to point out that fact.

In case you missed it, the point of this thread is: *Law-making based on humans-are-causing-global-warming claim is criminally insane*, because the core claim is at best unproven, and at worst actually a fraud. The point is, *it is WRONG to write laws based on such a premise*. It is criminally insane. *That is the point.* Did you get it this time? This point does not require me making ANY climate predictions. 

If you don't like the point of the thread, get off of it.

----------


## liberty2897

> *the point of this thread is: Law-making based on humans-are-causing-global-warming claim is criminally insane*





> *The point is, it is WRONG to write laws based on such a premise. It is criminally insane. That is the point.*


$#@!,  you should have said that before 28 pages of this thread.   I would have agreed a LONG time ago.

Also,  I feel like talking $#@! about other scientists tonight.   I'm going to use some caps...   * Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Entanglement, Time, Consciousness*... okay help me, what others did I miss?   I'm pretty sure that most people who have experimented with some hallucinogenics are more informed about time and consciousness than most scientific "experts" are after many years of research and government funding.  Really funny to watch these "universe" documentaries and see people spouting off about what they "know" and then making fun of alternative views offline that don't subscribe.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> I'm pretty sure that most people who have experimented with some hallucinogenics are more informed about time and consciousness than most scientific "experts" are after many years of research and government funding.  Really funny to watch these "universe" documentaries and see people spouting off about what they "know" and then making fun of alternative views offline that don't subscribe.


High five.  $#@! scientists and all their sciency stuff.

----------


## liberty2897

> High five.  $#@! scientists and all their sciency stuff.


Not really the point I was trying to make.   More like $#@! pseudo-scientists (most of them) and all their non-sciency [sic] stuff.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Not really the point I was trying to make.   More like $#@! pseudo-scientists (most of them) and all their non-sciency [sic] stuff.


Who is the judge of what constitutes a pseudo-scientist versus a real scientist?  What criteria do they use to make such a decision?

----------


## liberty2897

> Who is the judge of what constitutes a pseudo-scientist versus a real scientist?  What criteria do they use to make such a decision?


I don't know who is "the judge", but for me someone who doesn't follow the scientific method and yet claims to be a scientist would be a "pseudo-scientist".  There are plenty of them these days.

The criteria is dependent on your last name when you try to publish.   For example,  Lieberman, Lerner, Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen  are all considered names that would be accepted for example.

----------


## PRB

> Who is the judge of what constitutes a pseudo-scientist versus a real scientist?  What criteria do they use to make such a decision?


If the scientist doesn't agree with the liberty movement, he's a pseudo scientist. If a scientist is loved by liberals, he's a pseudoscientist. Real scientists are libertarians and always publish facts only when it doesn't justify more taxes.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> If the scientist doesn't agree with the liberty movement, he's a pseudo scientist. If a scientist is loved by liberals, he's a pseudoscientist. Real scientists are libertarians and always publish facts only when it doesn't justify more taxes.


Yes. But I would say, real scientist are those who do not propagate false claims after the predictions they made based on them turned out to be false.  And more importantly real scientists would not support public policy making based on such unproven or false claims, because if the cause is not clearly determined, the "solutions" proposed based on such flawed assumptions will a) not work, b) cause more harm, and c) destroy justice and liberty world-wide. I remind you that the policies proposed based on this fraud will not reverse climate change, but will cause the starvation and death of literally MILLIONS of people, (which is actually the true covert goal of the elites). For evidence Google "depopulation" and club of Rome.

----------


## PRB

> I remind you that the policies proposed based on this fraud will not reverse climate change,


Why do you assume reversing climate change is the only goal?




> but will cause the starvation and death of literally MILLIONS of people, (which is actually the true covert goal of the elites). For evidence Google "depopulation" and club of Rome.


If depopulation is evil, then overpopulation must be great. Since when did you care about starvation and death of literally millions of people (especially when they don't live in your own country)? How much humanitarian aid have you donated or participated in?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Why do you assume reversing climate change is the only goal?
> 
> If depopulation is evil, then overpopulation must be great. Since when did you care about starvation and death of literally millions of people (especially when they don't live in your own country)? How much humanitarian aid have you donated or participated in?


Hey mister fraud and misdirection, how about staying on topic. Which is that: making law based on unproven and/or fraudulent hypothesis is criminally insane.

----------


## PRB

> Hey mister fraud and misdirection, how about staying on topic. Which is that: making law based on unproven and/or fraudulent hypothesis is criminally insane.


I'm against all new laws, so I wouldn't disagree with you.

----------


## PRB

> Yes. But I would say, real scientist are those who do not propagate false claims after the predictions they made based on them turned out to be false.  And more importantly real scientists would not support public policy making based on such unproven or false claims, because if the cause is not clearly determined, the "solutions" proposed based on such flawed assumptions will a) not work, b) cause more harm, and c) destroy justice and liberty world-wide. I remind you that the policies proposed based on this fraud will not reverse climate change, but will cause the starvation and death of literally MILLIONS of people, (which is actually the true covert goal of the elites). For evidence Google "depopulation" and club of Rome.


by the way, Al Gore is not a scientist, and I agree, making laws based on faulty science is wrong.

*Can you name ONE law made based on Al Gore's claim that it'll be iceless arctic in 2014? You can't, because it never happened.*

----------


## PRB

> The point is that public policy and law ARE being made based on fraud sold as "science."


Name one.




> *That is the point.* Practically ALL the predictions of government paid "scientific" fraudsters turned out to be false.


What are the ones which are not false?




> *That is the point.* I am not writing laws based on fraud-science. They are.


What are you writing laws based one? 




> *That is the point.* I don't need to make a climate prediction to point out that fact.


It's not a fact until you prove it to be.




> In case you missed it, the point of this thread is: *Law-making based on humans-are-causing-global-warming claim is criminally insane*, because the core claim is at best unproven


No, it's at best proven, at worst denied by people who refuse to understand. This is evidence by your cherry picking.




> , and at worst actually a fraud. The point is, *it is WRONG to write laws based on such a premise*. It is criminally insane. *That is the point.* Did you get it this time? This point does not require me making ANY climate predictions.


I'm asking you anyway, do you listen to ANYBODY making ANY predictions?




> If you don't like the point of the thread, get off of it.


You're not the one paying me to post here, so I'll ignore your request.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> "Hey mister fraud and misdirection, how about staying on topic. Which is  that: making law based on unproven and/or fraudulent hypothesis is  criminally insane."
> I'm against all new laws, so I wouldn't disagree with you.


So then we agree, and have nothing else to discuss in this thread. Thank you for posting.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> by the way, Al Gore is not a scientist, and I agree, making laws based on faulty science is wrong.
> 
> *Can you name ONE law made based on Al Gore's claim that it'll be iceless arctic in 2014? You can't, because it never happened.*


There are laws galore being made already based on unproven/fallacious hypothesis that human produced CO2 is the driving and determining factor in global warming.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> "In case you missed it, the point of this thread is: *Law-making based on humans-are-causing-global-warming claim is criminally insane*, because the core claim is at best unproven"
> 
> No, it's at best proven, at worst denied by people who refuse to understand.


If this hypothesis is "proven," then why practically ALL predictions and computer models based on it turned out to be wrong? Care to answer that?




> You're not the one paying me to post here, so I'll ignore your request.


Well, at least you admit being a paid troll, which was obvious to most a long time ago.

----------


## PRB

> There are laws galore being made already based on unproven/fallacious hypothesis that human produced CO2 is the driving and determining factor in global warming.


that's different than saying it'll be iceless Arctic by 2014, don't you agree?

----------


## PRB

> If this hypothesis is "proven," then why practically ALL predictions and computer models based on it turned out to be wrong? Care to answer that?


not practically all predictions are wrong.

----------


## PRB

> Well, at least you admit being a paid troll, which was obvious to most a long time ago.


No, I didn't admit that, but you're so deluded in your own world that you can't detect sarcasm.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> "There are laws galore being made already based on unproven/fallacious  hypothesis that human produced CO2 is the driving and determining factor  in global warming."
> that's different than saying it'll be iceless Arctic by 2014, don't you agree?


It is still criminally insane.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> not practically all predictions are wrong.


Proof?

----------


## HVACTech

this entire discussion is about heat. cold does not exist.

I find it entertaining now, that most people talk about things... that they don't even understand the basics about. 

I am a cooling specialist, supermarkets are where I earn my living. I do NOT create cold. I remove heat. 

any questions?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> No, I didn't admit that, but you're so deluded in your own world that you can't detect sarcasm.



Still trying to play it off.

----------


## PRB

> Proof?


so if I say you're not a child molester, I have to prove it?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Here is a long list of failed global warming predictions:
*
Top 5 failed ‘snow free’ and ‘ice free’ predictions*

*Archive | Failed predictions*

*More*

*Climate Science Humiliated…Earlier Model Prognoses Of Warmer Winters Now Today’s Laughingstocks*
*
It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: ... long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice*

To make laws based on such "science" is insane!

----------


## PRB

> Here is a long list of failed global warming predictions:*
> *
> *Climate Science Humiliated…Earlier Model Prognoses Of Warmer Winters Now Today’s Laughingstocks*
> 
> To make laws based on such "science" is insane!


This is actually an interesting list. 

So, how are these "nearly all" predictions?

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> This is actually an interesting list. 
> 
> So, how are these "nearly all" predictions?


Nothing beats ridiculing long-term predictions 10 years after they were given.

----------


## PRB

> Nothing beats ridiculing long-term predictions 10 years after they were given.


well, then, what's appropriate to ridicule?

hey, I found 50 idiots in the liberty movement on this guy's blog, that means nearly all liberty movement is idiots?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

The law and policy is being made NOW based on this ludicrous and fraudulent claim that human produced CO2 is the driving and controlling factor in global warming. Such law making based on fraud is criminal and insane.

----------


## PRB

> The law and policy is being made NOW based on this ludicrous and fraudulent claim that human produced CO2 is the driving and controlling factor in global warming. Such law making based on fraud is criminal and insane.


would you support it if it were not based on fraud? I wouldn't.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Thread title is misleading. I'm not reading all of these pages so can it be assumed that we're separating corporation and state just this one lil time? Hm? Now, I know that any _other_ time we get the old "oh, corporations are people too and so we have to think of them as people" but after reading this one page I'm thinking that model is conveniently tossed out the window  or something and we're finally going to use the term "human" just because it's suddenly convenient? All of a sudden we didn't build that? Heh...

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Fishy Global Warming
*                                                          By Dr. Tim Ball
Dr. Tim Ball.com
September 26, 2014

 Free speech is essential to freedom, but with it comes a level of  personal responsibility. Supposedly, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes  recognized this in his observations about shouting “fire” in a crowded  theatre. People assume this meant you can’t do it, but his original  comment included the critical word, “falsely”. In the US, your right to  shout fire is part of free speech, but Holmes argued that you couldn’t  shout fire, if it is false. The trouble is, who decides it is false and  once it is said, the damage is done. The question then becomes  accountability. Both the need for personal responsibility in confirming  there is a fire, and being held accountable, when it is determined there  was no fire, and you did not check with a modicum of due diligence.  What if you shout fire in a supposedly crowded world?

 Who holds the person accountable and how is it done? Lack of  accountability is of great public concern. It was an issue raised by  engineer Pierre Latour at the recent Heartland Climate Conference. It  involved a debate over the difference of opinion between engineers and  theoretical physicists using physics in the science of CO2. He said  engineers have to belong to a professional organization in order to  practice and are legally and professionally liable for their work,  unlike many others using physics, including climate scientists.

 Only the US makes free speech number one in their Constitution. Some  deride the fact that the Founding Fathers made the right to bear arms  the second guarantee, to defend the first guarantee. However, it  recognized the reality that the greatest threat to the people was their  own government. This threat also applies to those who seek total  government control through any form of totalitarianism. H L Mencken said  decades ago,
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
Change the word _“humanity”_ to _“planet”_ and it is equally true today about exploitation of environmentalism for a political agenda.Vaclav Klaus, in his prescient book _Blue Planet in Green Shackles_ wrote,
“Environmentalism is a political movement that originally  began with the intent to protect the environment – a humble and perhaps  even legitimate goal – but which has gradually transformed itself into  an ideology that has almost nothing to do with nature.This ideological  stream has recently become a dominant alternative to those ideologies  that are consistently and primarily oriented towards freedom.  Environmentalism is a movement that intends to change the world  radically regardless of the consequences (at the cost of human lives and  severe restrictions on individual freedom). It intends to change  humankind, human behavior, the structure of society, the system of  values – simply everything.”
These are the same criticism Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, made when he left that organization.

 Some refer to people who use environmentalism as a cloak for  political activities as watermelons. James Delingpole explains the  situation in detail in his book _Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors_. The damage done by their false claims are virtually incalculable. Paul Driessen was among the first to identify the damage in his _Eco-Imperialism_. Beyond that, there is the frustration that nobody is ever held accountable.

 In advance of the September Climate Conference in New York, the UN,  through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), is distributing  world wide a series of short videos that are tantamount to shouting _“fire”,_ in what they say is a crowded theater. The first one is  a forecast for 2050, full of extreme events including floods, droughts,  heat waves and even an indirect threat, by cynically claiming one  benefit to the warming, will be easy transit through Arctic waters. They  base their position and claims on the Reports of the Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is not just that many scientists  disagree, but all IPCC predictions (projections) are wrong to date and  the IPCC was created by the WMO. In addition, they use UN money, mostly  contributed by developed nations, in their effort to make them pay for  causing the problem. But who decided they caused the problem? They did,  *using scientific methods that are clearly wrong because the predictions  are wrong*. It is a classic circular argument.

 There are leading environmentalists in every country who practice  political abuse of environmentalism, as Klaus defined it. These  individuals and their organizations have done great social and economic  damage with environmental  misinformation and false claims, for a political agenda of total  government control under the guise of saving the planet. They are  effectively a green fifth-column,  the enemy within. Sadly, their exploitation and misuse of  environmentalism is putting the entire paradigm in jeopardy, as people  stop believing anything they’re told. Something about crying wolf.

 Most of the organizations, despite a tax exemption that requires them  to be apolitical, are used for political objectives. Trying to  determine who and what is political is virtually impossible and fully  open to abuse by the user and the government making the determination,  as the recent IRS scandals in the US have demonstrated. What happens is,  taxpayers end up funding organizations with which they completely  disagree and those organizations use the money to attack and even  eliminate them. The illogic of forcing a taxpayer to pay for a gun that  another person uses to shoot them, is obvious.
...

Damage to reputation, financial loss, emotional stress, all those  things a court considers damage due to wrongful actions, were suffered  by people in various situations. What is even more galling is that their  taxes, either directly or through increased taxation to offset these  tax-exempt organizations not paying, are used.

 The Suzuki Foundation is entitled to its view, and the freedom to  express it, but there is a social responsibility that they appear to  abrogate. Celebrities and mainstream media, duped by the PR, or a  willingness to ignore facts and evidence, support him in this  abrogation. Witness the use of Leonardo DiCaprio by the UN Secretary General to  promote the New York Climate Conference. The cynicism of the  appointment is underscored by his title of Messenger of Peace. Global  warming has nothing to do with peace, but they couldn’t connect him with  science. No more than the Nobel Committee could connect the IPCC and Al  Gore with science, so they got Peace Prize. If the UN climate  conference requires a Peace Ambassador and the Nobel Peace Prize is  about climate science, it means they have declared war on global  warming. This makes the observation of Greek philosopher, Aeschylus, _“In war truth is the first casualty.”_

 It is one matter to get the science wrong, for which there is a  scientific culpability. However, when you use bad or deliberately false  science to direct public policy, there is a social responsibility for  which there should be total accountability. *A simple definition of  science is the ability to predict.* The UN meeting is based on the  predictions of the IPCC that were so wrong from the start that they  started calling them projections, but even those were wrong. It doesn’t  require an understanding of science to know that their predictions  (projections) failed, which raises the question, how much “due  diligence” did DiCaprio apply in his desire to bring peace? He has the  freedom to speak, but as Oliver Wendell Holmes said it must not be a  falsity, otherwise there is liability.

_Reprinted with the permission from Dr. Tim Ball._


Read more here.

----------


## PRB

> However, when you use bad or deliberately false  science to direct public policy, there is a social responsibility for  which there should be total accountability. *A simple definition of  science is the ability to predict.* The UN meeting is based on the  predictions of the IPCC that were so wrong from the start that they  started calling them projections, but even those were wrong. It doesn’t  require an understanding of science to know that their predictions  (projections) failed, which raises the question, how much “due  diligence” did DiCaprio apply in his desire to bring peace? He has the  freedom to speak, but as Oliver Wendell Holmes said it must not be a  falsity, otherwise there is liability.
> 
> _Reprinted with the permission from Dr. Tim Ball._
> 
> 
> Read more here.


1. I'm against making policy, with good or bad science.
2. Agreed, so what's Ball's predictions we should hear about? He's so sure other people are wrong ,he must have good reason he's right. 
3. DiCaprio, like Gore, are not scientists, so they're not expected to do $#@!, they don't claim to have done research. If you believe them, that's your problem. There's a liability for speaking? So much for a free country!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

There is liability for speaking lies that cause violation of private property. Man-made-CO2-causes-global-warming is just such lie, and policy and law costing billions in losses to businesses and individuals ARE being made based on it. In fact, if all the suggested policies of "sustainable development" and "human-caused-climate-change" were implemented it would result in starvation and death of literally millions of people in developing countries. So these lies are literally murderous, and there should be accountability for these lies.

----------


## PRB

> There is liability for speaking lies that cause violation of private property. Man-made-CO2-causes-global-warming is just such lie, and policy and law costing billions in losses to businesses and individuals ARE being made based on it. In fact, if all the suggested policies of "sustainable development" and "human-caused-climate-change" were implemented it would result in starvation and death of literally millions of people in developing countries. So these lies are literally murderous, and there should be accountability for these lies.


do you actually care about people in developing countries?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> do you actually care about people in developing countries?


Do you actually care about anything except your per post paycheck, troll?

----------


## PRB

> Do you actually care about anything except your per post paycheck, troll?


I don't get paid per post. But yes, I care about scientific facts, and I care about having less government.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I don't get paid per post. But yes, I care about scientific facts, and I care about having less government.


Then you must agree, that it is criminally insane to write laws based on incorrect science as demonstrated by incorrect predictions based on the so called "science." 

Simply stated: it is criminally insane to make laws based on a lie. But alas, that is what is taking place now with "climate" legislation and policy. It is fraud, wickedness, and plunder, sold as law.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I don't get paid per post.


So you get paid by the hour?






> ...I care about having less government.


Because you want more of it.

----------


## PRB

> Then you must agree, that it is criminally insane to write laws based on incorrect science as demonstrated by incorrect predictions based on the so called "science."


It's criminally insane to write laws period. In your mind, there's a place to write laws that's NOT criminally insane? Do tell!

----------


## PRB

> So you get paid by the hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you want more of it.


why do you keep saying I want more government?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> why do you keep saying I want more government?


Why do you keep pretending to be libertarian, while poking holes in libertarian positions?

----------


## PRB

> Why do you keep pretending to be libertarian, while poking holes in libertarian positions?


where did I say there's anything wrong with libertarian positions?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> So you get paid by the hour?
> ...
> Because you want more of it.


Nice one! Thanks.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> [To PRB:] Why do you keep pretending to be libertarian, while poking holes in libertarian positions?


Because PRB is paid controlled opposition, hired to do just that. He is a liar and is getting paid by liars.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> where did I say there's anything wrong with libertarian positions?


LOL.  Your lib trolling pretends to be liberty minded, while also attempting to poke holes in liberty arguments.  You claim to not care about peoples' plights, while also posing as liberty minded.  Your silly game is wanting so much to be a libertarian, but alas--it is just so impractical!

PRB, your problem is that your repetitive game has become exposed and impractical, just like the government intervention that you cite.

----------


## PRB

> LOL.  Your lib trolling pretends to be liberty minded, while also attempting to poke holes in liberty arguments.


Find an example where I said there's a hole in liberty arguments. 




> You claim to not care about peoples' plights, while also posing as liberty minded.  Your silly game is wanting so much to be a libertarian, but alas--it is just so impractical!


I do claim to not care, but where did I contradict that?




> PRB, your problem is that your repetitive game has become exposed and impractical, just like the government intervention that you cite.


I don't see that as a problem, is it for you?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Find an example where I said there's a hole in liberty arguments.


All of the threads in which you participate are examples.  





> I don't see that as a problem, is it for you?



Guess it's not a problem if your lying does not bother you.  Keep talking though.  I'd like to hear about the 4+ guns that you own but know nothing about.

----------


## Danke

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dCrkqLaYjnc

----------


## PRB

> All of the threads in which you participate are examples.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess it's not a problem if your lying does not bother you.  Keep talking though.  I'd like to hear about the 4+ guns that you own but know nothing about.


Not talking about my guns doesn't mean I don't own them. But luckily for you, I don't care what you think about my gun ownership. 

I do care, about your baseless accusations. So go ahead and quote where I poked holes in libertarian theory.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Not talking about my guns doesn't mean I don't own them.



No, but I can draw fairly reasonable conclusions based on what you say.  What you said in that thread indicates that you don't know the first thing about guns, let alone your claim of owning at least two Glocks and two shotguns.  You have already stated that your handguns are Glocks, so where is the privacy issue regarding the brand of your shotguns?  If you disclosed that your handguns are Glocks, then why not disclose your shotgun brands?

----------


## PRB

> No, but I can draw fairly reasonable conclusions based on what you say.  What you said in that thread indicates that you don't know the first thing about guns, let alone your claim of owning at least two Glocks and two shotguns.  You have already stated that your handguns are Glocks, so where is the privacy issue regarding the brand of your shotguns?  If you disclosed that your handguns are Glocks, then why not disclose your shotgun brands?


I didn't want to say Glocks to begin with, so when I realized I did, I stopped, that's as much as I'm willing to tell.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I didn't want to say Glocks to begin with,...


What's the secret about owning a Glock?  Big deal; you own a Glock.

----------


## PRB

> What's the secret about owning a Glock?  Big deal; you own a Glock.


what's the big deal about knowing all the details of my guns?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> what's the big deal about knowing all the details of my guns?



How is the brand of gun a detail?  It's like a person saying if he owns a Ford or Chevrolet.  What's the big secret?

----------


## PRB

> How is the brand of gun a detail?  It's like a person saying if he owns a Ford or Chevrolet.  What's the big secret?


it's a secret because I want it to be. And I can tell you don't really care, you just want to prove i don't own guns.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> it's a secret because I want it to be.



But you did not make your gun ownership a secret.  You boldly announced in an earlier post that you "love" your guns, but later on your privacy kicks in about revealing the brand.  A private person revealing that he own guns seems to be a bigger disclosure than just revealing the brand.

----------


## PRB

> But you did not make your gun ownership a secret.  You boldly announced in an earlier post that you "love" your guns, but later on your privacy kicks in about revealing the brand.  A private person revealing that he own guns seems to be a bigger disclosure than just revealing the brand.


Sure, having guns vs not having guns is a bigger difference than one brand vs the other, that doesn't change the fact that I've decided not to discuss it further.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Sure, having guns vs not having guns is a bigger difference than one brand vs the other, that doesn't change the fact that I've decided not to discuss it further.



I find it odd that a great liberty minded person such as yourself would make it known to RPF how he "loves" his guns, but suddenly clam up when a discussion is pursued about that very subject.

----------


## PRB

> I find it odd that a great liberty minded person such as yourself would make it known to RPF how he "loves" his guns, but suddenly clam up when a discussion is pursued about that very subject.


I love my guns enough to want to keep them and not lose them. I'm not as obsessive and passionate as most people here. So yes, it's odd, but not impossible.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I love my guns... I'm not as obsessive as most people here.


Where are people on this board being obsessive about firearms?

----------


## PRB

> Where are people on this board being obsessive about firearms?


whoever thinks i need to say what make and model my guns are to prove I own them.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> whoever thinks i need to say what make and model my guns are to prove I own them.



You said you're "not as obsessive as most people here."  So who else is "most people" besides me?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

* In 2007, the UN's      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned 'with virtual certainty'      that high levels of CO2 (carbon dioxide) would cause global crop failures      and widespread starvation unless governments were given the power to limit      CO2 output from industry. * [CO2 levels did increase as predicted but,      instead of causing famine, worldwide crop production broke its highest      record. CO2 has created a greening effect over the globe, resulting in more      robust plants and more food.] _CNS News_ 2015 Jan 6 (Cached)


From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

----------


## Dr.3D

I just heard on TV that the terrorism is being caused by global climate change.   


Those folks will find anything they can think of to blame on climate change.

----------


## PRB

> I just heard on TV that the terrorism is being caused by global climate change.   
> 
> 
> Those folks will find anything they can think of to blame on climate change.


source? who are "these folks"?

If climate change, or extreme weather, led to food shortage, water shortage, oil resource disputes, droughts, floods destroying houses, is it too far a stretch to think some may commit crimes? Isn't terrorist just crimes the governent doesn't approve of? 

Were there no crimes after Katrina & Sandy?

----------


## PRB

> * In 2007, the UN's      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned 'with virtual certainty'      that high levels of CO2 (carbon dioxide) would cause global crop failures      and widespread starvation unless governments were given the power to limit      CO2 output from industry. * [CO2 levels did increase as predicted but,      instead of causing famine, worldwide crop production broke its highest      record. CO2 has created a greening effect over the globe, resulting in more      robust plants and more food.] _CNS News_ 2015 Jan 6 (Cached)
> 
> 
> From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html


Crop production increase could very well be due to GMOs, which many here oppose.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Crop production increase could very well be due to GMOs, which many here oppose.


It is known fact that higher CO2 levels lead to stronger and bigger plants, because plants eat CO2 and exhale O2. Geological record shows gigantic plants and massive vegitation when CO2 levels were 10 times what they are today. That was many thousands of years ago, BEFORE the GMOs. 

Go peddle your garbage somewhere else Mr. Paid Rothschild's Bamboozler.

----------


## PRB

> It is known fact that higher CO2 levels lead to stronger and bigger plants, because plants eat CO2 and exhale O2.


Tell that to California. 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/californ...rice-industry/




> Geological record shows gigantic plants and massive vegitation when CO2 levels were 10 times what they are today.


Yeah, back when humans were neither around to grow nor depended on agriculture to survive. 




> That was many thousands of years ago, BEFORE the GMOs.


Yeah, possibly before humans were eating plants. 




> Go peddle your garbage somewhere else Mr. Paid Rothschild's Bamboozler.


That's really all you got huh?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Al Gore, wrong again  Polar ice continues to thrive*
Rolf E. Westgard / January 13, 2015


*The South Pole,  Antarctic ice coverage is at the highest extent since radar measurement began 35 years ago.*


Science is defined as the power to accurately predict future based on current facts. 
Human made global warming crowd has been dramatically, grotesquely wrong in practically every prediction they've made, including this one about polar ice.

To base "public policy" on "science" such as this is criminally insane!

----------


## PRB

> *Al Gore, wrong again – Polar ice continues to thrive*
> Rolf E. Westgard / January 13, 2015
> 
> 
> *The South Pole,  Antarctic ice coverage is at the highest extent since radar measurement began 35 years ago.*
> 
> 
> Science is defined as the power to accurately predict future based on current facts. 
> Human made global warming crowd has been dramatically, grotesquely wrong in practically every prediction they've made, including this one about polar ice.
> ...


Al Gore is not a scientist, $#@! him.

Now, are you going to address my response? Or no? Or admit you don't know?

----------


## PRB

> Science is defined as the power to accurately predict future based on current facts.


I'll ask you again, who, if anybody, can accurately predict future weather or climate? Those who subscribe to AGW or those who subscribe to "it's the sun"? Those who say warming is coming or those who say cooling is coming? Or is it a complete toss that's everybody's guess? 




> Human made global warming crowd has been dramatically, grotesquely wrong in practically every prediction they've made, including this one about polar ice.


No, not every. Far more accurate than deniers ever came to. Which is why every time I ask who is a better predictor you STFU, because you don't have a better person you're willing to put to the test. Until you do, how about you admit that AGW proponents know more than deniers?




> To base "public policy" on "science" such as this is criminally insane!


Basing public policy on ANYTHING is criminally insane, I've said it every time you bring it up. I'm against government as much as you are, if not more. 

Tell me, since you're so knowledgeable, what SHOULD public policy be based on? my answer is nothing, you?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I'll ask you again, who, if anybody, can accurately predict future weather or climate? Those who subscribe to AGW or those who subscribe to "it's the sun"? Those who say warming is coming or those who say cooling is coming? Or is it a complete toss that's everybody's guess?


Since no one can accurately and reliably predict climate, no one can scientifically link it to human produced CO2. Since no such proof can reliably be demonstrated, no provable claim of property damage by human made CO2 via global warming can be made. And since no such proof can be reliably demonstrated, no force is justified against CO2 producers. And since no force is justified here, no just "law" can be made. Such laws are demonstrably unjust. That is the point of this thread.




> Tell me, since you're so knowledgeable, what SHOULD public policy be based on? my answer is nothing, you?


The only public policy that is just is the one that does not violate private property of anyone.

----------


## PRB

> Since no one can accurately and reliably predict climate, no one can scientifically link it to human produced CO2.


Ok. So people who deny global warming are equally wrong as people who say it's true, right? Since it's anybody's guess.

Next 10 years can be all drought no rain, OR it can be all snow no green, OR it can be all hurricane no sunny days. And it can happen anywhere, everywhere.

After all, NOBODY can predict climate, am I understanding you?

----------


## PRB

> The only public policy that is just is the one that does not violate private property of anyone.


That's easy, just deny something is private property and you're free to violate it. See example : People here who deny intellectual property is property, if you don't call it property, it's not property. Is it that simple? or do you have some objective way of measuring what is private property?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Ok. So people who deny global warming are equally wrong as people who say it's true, right? Since it's anybody's guess.
> 
>   Next 10 years can be all drought no rain, OR it can be all snow no green, OR it can be all hurricane no sunny days. And it can happen anywhere, everywhere.
> 
>   After all, NOBODY can predict climate, am I understanding you?


Since no one can definitively prove that human produced CO2 is causing damage to anyone's property via climate change, no force can be justified based on that claim. Law is force. Such force without proof of property violation linked to individuals is immoral. That is the point: Laws written on the basis of this hypothesis are immoral. That is my point. And if we agree on that we have nothing else to discuss here. Laws written based on this hypothesis are immoral, fraudulent and unjust, because they pretend that a direct proof of property damage by individuals exist where no such proof exist. (In fact there is massive evidence that extra CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climate will result in massive increase in agricultural yields and food supply on earth. For proof ask, where do you grow more food at the equator where it is hot, or at the north pole where it is cold?)

  Again, if we agree that such legislation is evil, as you already said you do, then we agree on the most important point, and have nothing else to discuss on the subject.

  I also noticed you respond with two post for every one of mine. I guess it makes sense since you get paid by the number of posts.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> That's easy, just deny something is private property and you're free to violate it. See example : People here who deny intellectual property is property, if you don't call it property, it's not property. Is it that simple? or do you have some objective way of measuring what is private property?


All property is private property. Even public property (defined as equal ownership of some property by individuals living within certain geographical area), is a subset of, and is based on private property. For detailed definition of private property please see The Fundamental Principles of Liberty.

----------


## PRB

> All property is private property. Even public property (defined as equal ownership of some property by individuals living within certain geographical area), is a subset of, and is based on private property. For detailed definition of private property please see The Fundamental Principles of Liberty.


But what's property? Does calling something property make it so?

----------


## PRB

> Again, if we agree that such legislation is evil, as you already said you do, then we agree on the most important point, and have nothing else to discuss on the subject.


Except we do. Because science is still helpful in helping us prepare for disasters and making investments, regardless of how policy ends up.

We agree on policy, but if we disagree on science, we'll invest our money differently. (None of my business if you do, but I prefer to share facts, I wonder if you invest according to your beliefs)

Knowing California is in a clean water shortage at the time, you may not invest your real estate dollars here, nor would you if you knew hurricanes would occur somewhere new. Whether global warming is natural or whether carbon taxes will do $#@! (I can tell you it won't), is irrelevant if you deny that global warming is even happening, which you clearly do if you keep citing cooling or snowing or "look, it's not iceless yet".

This is much like saying we can agree that Federal Reserve is evil, but if we don't agree whether hyperinflation is coming, we'll invest differently. I don't care if you do, but I'd tell people based on my belief, that hyperinflation ISN'T coming, do you do the opposite?




> I also noticed you respond with two post for every one of mine. I guess it makes sense since you get paid by the number of posts.


Sometimes i notice something after I post, sometimes I edit, sometimes I make another one, feel free to notice, because nobody pays me based on it.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Man-made Global Warming is Fraud*

                                                                                                           By Walter E. Williams

March 10, 2015

   
 
But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact,  said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address.  Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right  about climate change. GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate  change: Changes in average weather conditions that persist over  multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases  and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation,  changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to  other features of the climate system. That definition covers all  weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earths  existence.
* 
You say, Williams, thats not what the warmers are talking about.  Its the high CO2 levels caused by mankinds industrial activities that  are causing the climate change! Theres a problem with that reasoning.  Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million.  This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the  concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million  years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations  were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are  today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers,  the Earth should have been boiling.*

Then there are warmer predictions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina,  warmers, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, made all manner of  doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of  hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, no  Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine  years, and Earths temperature has not budged for 18 years.

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Lets look at  some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist  Nigel Calder warned, The threat of a new ice age must now stand  alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery  for mankind. C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said,  The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough  that it will not soon be reversed. In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich  predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that  in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve  to death. Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of  starvation between 1980  and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to  22.6 million. Ehrlichs predictions about England were gloomier. He  said, If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will  not exist in the year 2000.

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted,  Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is  taken against problems facing mankind. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look  magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, somewhere between 75 and 85  percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct.

Climate  change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the  statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the  U.N.s chief climate change official, said that her unelected  bureaucrats are undertaking probably the most difficult task they have  ever given themselves, which is to intentionally transform the  (global) economic development model. In 2010, German economist and  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer  said, One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worlds  wealth by climate policy. The article in which that interview appeared  summarized Edenhofers views this way: Climate policy has almost  nothing to do anymore with environmental protection.  The next world  climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the  distribution of the worlds resources will be negotiated.

The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the  statements by many that its settled science. There is nothing more  anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we  find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For  academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for  suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the  height of academic dishonesty.

The Best of Walter E. Williams

                                                                                  Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin  distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a  nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about Walter E.  Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and  cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page.

----------


## PRB

> * 
> You say, “Williams, that’s not what the warmers are talking about.  It’s the high CO2 levels caused by mankind’s industrial activities that  are causing the climate change!” There’s a problem with that reasoning.  Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million.  This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the  concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million  years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations  were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are  today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers,  the Earth should have been boiling.*


Ordovician period was not only an exception, but you've not established that all other factors are equal. So pointing out an exception without establishing all other factors are equal, is not how you break a rule. 

Again I ask, who is best at predicting climate patterns? Is it warmists or skeptics?

----------


## HVACTech

"climate change" explained. 




any questions?

----------


## PRB

> "climate change" explained. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any questions?


Yes. This is my question. I mean, it's all so simple to you, you can't possibly be wrong. 

So tell me, based on your understanding and certainty of climate change, global warming, or whatever you want to call it. 

How do you predict climate patterns in the next 5, 10, 50, 100 years? You can't possibly be wrong and you can't tell me you don't know, after all, it's SO simple. 

*I will listen to somebody who has the balls to say he knows his stuff and is willing to make predictions, put them to the test, and isn't afraid to be wrong.*

----------


## HVACTech

> Yes. This is my question. I mean, it's all so simple to you, you can't possibly be wrong. 
> 
> So tell me, based on your understanding and certainty of climate change, global warming, or whatever you want to call it. 
> 
> How do you predict climate patterns in the next 5, 10, 50, 100 years? You can't possibly be wrong and you can't tell me you don't know, after all, it's SO simple. 
> 
> *I will listen to somebody who has the balls to say he knows his stuff and is willing to make predictions, put them to the test, and isn't afraid to be wrong.*


I "know my stuff" about heat transfer.  
for each 1LB (16oz) of rainwater that falls, 970.3 BTU's of heat are transferred.
can you guess which direction this heat is traveling?  




> How do you predict climate patterns in the next 5, 10, 50, 100 years?


the video answers this question.

----------


## PRB

> the video answers this question.


where? point it out.

----------


## HVACTech

> where? point it out.


7.45 to 8.05

so, when it rains anywhere on earth. which direction is the heat flowing?

----------


## PRB

> 7.45 to 8.05


it said nothing about what'll happen in the next 5, 10, 50, 100 years. Try again, actually reading the question.

----------


## PRB

> so, when it rains anywhere on earth. which direction is the heat flowing?


rain is the result of condensation. meaning when it rains, heat leaves the center of the raining area. water vapor has to lose heat to become liquid water (the opposite is true when water vaporates). this is just on a local scale though, is that what you're asking? If I'm wrong, correct me, and tell me what this has to do with climate change.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I also noticed you respond with two post for every one of mine. I guess it makes sense since you get paid by the number of posts.


I don't think he actually gets paid by the post.  I think their Democrat employer just sort of turns them loose.  If his payer was watching, then that red bar would be a problem.  Same thing with TheCount http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?58229-TheCount.

I think ZippyJuan just does his posting as part of his job.  I notice he posts from work.  His organization even has a subscription to The Economist, a magazine known for its big government advocacy.  He told me about his access to that magazine.  I would bet they have a whole library where he works.  That's why he is often so efficient posting 2nd in a thread.  His goal is to discourage new members and visitors.

----------


## HVACTech

> rain is the result of condensation. meaning when it rains, heat leaves the center of the raining area. water vapor has to lose heat to become liquid water (the opposite is true when water vaporates). this is just on a local scale though, is that what you're asking? If I'm wrong, correct me, and tell me what this has to do with climate change.


I would have been happy with "up" 
it is a net rejection of heat and is NOT figured into the data. 

I am aware that we are NOT in an ice age. I am also aware that those happen. 
therefore, since the last ice age, the climate HAS changed. and in fact.... 
drum roll please...
"global warming" has in fact occurred.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

I always thought that heat rises.  No different here, right?

----------


## HVACTech

> I always thought that heat rises.  No different here, right?


true that. 
however, there is a reason why death valley is so hot. and up on a mountain it is colder.
it has to do with radiant heat, the surface is the evaporator. the condenser is the sky.
it is late and I need to sign off.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> true that. 
> however, there is a reason why death valley is so hot. and up on a mountain it is colder.
> it has to do with radiant heat, the surface is the evaporator. the condenser is the sky.
> it is late and I need to sign off.


A little off the subject, but I need to put some radiant heat in my house.  Have yet to look into it.  I can't stand blower heat.  I used to love living in those houses with radiators.  I know it's all a tradeoff, but I still prefer radiant.

----------


## PRB

> I don't think he actually gets paid by the post.  I think their Democrat employer just sort of turns them loose.  If his payer was watching, then that red bar would be a problem.  Same thing with TheCount http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?58229-TheCount.
> 
> I think ZippyJuan just does his posting as part of his job.  I notice he posts from work.  His organization even has a subscription to The Economist, a magazine known for its big government advocacy.  He told me about his access to that magazine.  I would bet they have a whole library where he works.  That's why he is often so efficient posting 2nd in a thread.  His goal is to discourage new members and visitors.


Reading a magazine that advocates big government means you're an advocate of big government?

----------


## PRB

> I would have been happy with "up" 
> it is a net rejection of heat and is NOT figured into the data. 
> 
> I am aware that we are NOT in an ice age. I am also aware that those happen. 
> therefore, since the last ice age, the climate HAS changed. and in fact.... 
> drum roll please...
> "global warming" has in fact occurred.


There we go again, vague response after vague response. So you admit you have no ability to predict what'll happen in the next 5, 10, 50, 100 years? 

Not in an ice age means almost nothing. Did "not being in an ice age" tell Arizonans & Michiganers they were going to face a big flood (I should add, some Detroiters couldn't even pay for their clean water at the same time). Did "not being in an ice age" tell Californians they're going to be in a drought? And for how long?

----------


## PRB

> it is a net rejection of heat and is NOT figured into the data.


Oh, so you have new ways to calculate and predict weather and data that experts and scientists are missing? Or can you cite a good one that uses your "heat figured into data" with better predictions than the rest? 

When you have a prediction you're willing to test, I'll be listening, otherwise saying you have a video about tilt and we're not in an ice age doesn't tell us anything about the next 5, 10, 50, 100 years. It doesn't tell any people in the US how to expect hurricanes, floods, droughts, snow storms. I take it you're expecting all of them? After all, "we can't even predict tomorrow's weather", right? Or you're expecting nothing out of the norm, because "global warming is totally natural and nothing is impossible"?

----------


## PRB

> A little off the subject, but I need to put some radiant heat in my house.  Have yet to look into it.  I can't stand blower heat.  I used to love living in those houses with radiators.  I know it's all a tradeoff, but I still prefer radiant.


why? smell?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Again I ask, who is best at predicting climate patterns? Is it warmists or skeptics?


It is IRRELEVANT, because neither have the right to make "laws" (enforceable by violence) based on such guesses. 

*That is the point*, and you always seek to escape that MAIN point of the thread and to divert discussion into irrelevant directions. I guess misdirection is your job description, isn't it?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I think ZippyJuan just does his posting as part of his job.  I notice he posts from work.  His organization even has a subscription to The Economist, a magazine known for its big government advocacy.  He told me about his access to that magazine.  I would bet they have a whole library where he works.  That's why he is often so efficient posting 2nd in a thread.  His goal is to discourage new members and visitors.


Yep I notice Zippy long time ago. He is very offended by the incontrovertible public domain evidence of 9-11 fraud. He even tried to rewrite the laws of physics to prove government's lie true. It didn't work of course. Most everyone can see him for the liar that he is. Just another paid shill.

----------


## PRB

> It is IRRELEVANT, because neither have the right to make "laws" (enforceable by violence) based on such guesses.


Agreed completely that neither have any right to make laws. However, are you completely uninterested in future climate patterns? does it not change how you'd invest your money in land, crops, housing, survival supplies?




> *That is the point*, and you always seek to escape that MAIN point of the thread and to divert discussion into irrelevant directions. I guess misdirection is your job description, isn't it?


No. I separate facts and science from policy. I am against making laws based on climate, but I am also against denying scientific conclusions. I am not like you , who thinks facts justify policy. I am not delusional enough to believe people lie about climate and then try to create policy when they can just as easily make policy without lying.

----------


## PRB

> Yep I notice Zippy long time ago. He is very offended by the incontrovertible public domain evidence of 9-11 fraud. He even tried to rewrite the laws of physics to prove government's lie true. It didn't work of course. Most everyone can see him for the liar that he is. Just another paid shill.


anybody who doesn't believe 9/11 is a fraud, is a paid shill?

----------


## HVACTech

> There we go again, vague response after vague response. So you admit you have no ability to predict what'll happen in the next 5, 10, 50, 100 years? 
> 
> Not in an ice age means almost nothing. Did "not being in an ice age" tell Arizonans & Michiganers they were going to face a big flood (I should add, some Detroiters couldn't even pay for their clean water at the same time). Did "not being in an ice age" tell Californians they're going to be in a drought? And for how long?


I was talking about.



> Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!


what are YOU talking about?

----------


## PRB

> I was talking about.
> 
> what are YOU talking about?


I'm talking about : I don't buy this number, nor does this number actually help make any climate predictions. If it does, please share.

----------


## HVACTech

> I'm talking about : I don't buy this number, nor does this number actually help make any climate predictions. If it does, please share.


you DO know who you are talking to.. right?

one should not discuss these matters without SOME inkling about thermodynamics. 
your position seems to be one of increased global heat retention. 
ergo, the earth is not actually heating up on it's own, it is simply retaining more of the heat. 
correct or incorrect?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> why? smell?


Efficiency.

----------


## HVACTech

> Efficiency.


north Carolina is not that cold dude. 
it is only good for heating. (and it is the best)
if you need cooling. (A/C) at all. it is really not an option.
A/C does not just cool the air, it dehumidify's it.
what I am saying is this. "Radiant" cooling does not exist. you will need two separate systems.

PRB is the expert on relative humidity however. 
our bodies cool themselves the same way an A/C system does.... right PRB?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> north Carolina is not that cold dude. 
> it is only good for heating. (and it is the best)
> if you need cooling. (A/C) at all. it is really not an option.
> A/C does not just cool the air, it dehumidify's it.
> what I am saying is this. "Radiant" cooling does not exist. you will need two separate systems.
> 
> PRB is the expert on relative humidity however. 
> our bodies cool themselves the same way an A/C system does.... right PRB?



Oh, I know NC is not cold.  I grew up in the north.  Radiant heat is just more efficient than blower.  And I don't need air conditioning.  That's for fat people.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

HVACHTech, Can you install some radiant heat in my house?

----------


## HVACTech

> HVACHTech, Can you install some radiant heat in my house?


truth is, I am a cooling specialist. 
heat is too freaking easy. (depending on who you are talking to.)

when it comes to residential work, I only do service.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> heat is too freaking easy. (depending on who you are talking to.)


I am one of those people where it not be easy.  The cooling part is easy for me.  I like to take advantage of cross breezes, roll down the car window, etc.  Most people however, don't even like these things.  There is this one damn grocery store that cools their store like an ice box.  Can't stand going in there.  They are too high priced anyway, probably from their AC bill.

Heating is the thing I can't stand.  Dries out the air.  I refuse to buy a humidifiers, so I have these shallow plates of water sitting around the house.  Stuff like this drives my wife nuts, but it's just easier for me.  

I never thoroughly looked into the details of all this.  I once saw at those coils or whatever in the floor as radiant heat.  Did not seem like the greatest idea, but maybe I am missing something.  That is why I talk about the details.  I liked those old houses with the radiators.  I'm sure they could be trouble sometimes, but everything is a tradeoff.

We even have a fireplace, but, of course, never use it.  I just wonder how the Injuns of old washed their hair in the winter.  You go on top of the mountain and freeze to death before the wind blow you over.

----------


## PRB

> you DO know who you are talking to.. right?
> 
> one should not discuss these matters without SOME inkling about thermodynamics. 
> your position seems to be one of increased global heat retention. 
> ergo, the earth is not actually heating up on it's own, it is simply retaining more of the heat. 
> correct or incorrect?


Yes, overall increased heat retention, however, it does not mean all areas will always and only heat up (therefore, citing the fact that some places have record snow or record low is not an argument against it).

----------


## PRB

> I am one of those people where it not be easy.  The cooling part is easy for me.  I like to take advantage of cross breezes, roll down the car window, etc.  Most people however, don't even like these things.  There is this one damn grocery store that cools their store like an ice box.  Can't stand going in there.  They are too high priced anyway, probably from their AC bill.
> 
> Heating is the thing I can't stand.  Dries out the air.  I refuse to buy a humidifiers, so I have these shallow plates of water sitting around the house.  Stuff like this drives my wife nuts, but it's just easier for me.  
> 
> I never thoroughly looked into the details of all this.  I once saw at those coils or whatever in the floor as radiant heat.  Did not seem like the greatest idea, but maybe I am missing something.  That is why I talk about the details.  I liked those old houses with the radiators.  I'm sure they could be trouble sometimes, but everything is a tradeoff.
> 
> We even have a fireplace, but, of course, never use it.  I just wonder how the Injuns of old washed their hair in the winter.  You go on top of the mountain and freeze to death before the wind blow you over.


I guess we have that much in common. I like to cool and heat naturally if possible. I too don't like turning on heat unless I must, because I'm cheap. I used dehumidifiers before, but I actually never heard of humidifiers, I thought people just drink water if they're too dry.

Fireplaces are great if your house is small enough, or if you have easy access to firewood.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Agreed completely that neither have any right to make laws. However, are you completely uninterested in future climate patterns? does it not change how you'd invest your money in land, crops, housing, survival supplies?


The only thing I am interested enough to discuss here is the unacceptability of basing public policy, especially seeking to excuse taxation, on the basis of lies and fraudulent science. This is the only thing I will discuss. We are demonstrating fraud in the false claim that "science is settled, let's tax everybody based on our conclusions," because that is exactly the claim banksters and governments make, which fraud you indirectly are helping by trying to make it appear that there is a conclusive proof of MAN-MADE CO2 caused global worming. To say this is conclusively proven is to commit fraud. To try to justify taxation or government violence based on this fraud is a crime. That is our point. If you agree, than stop supporting the lie, which is of course is not easy for you because your paycheck depends on the lie, Mr. payed Troll.




> I am against making laws based on climate, but I am also against denying scientific conclusions.


We are showing here that the "conclusions" that there is a proof of MAN-MADE CO2 causing global warming is a blatant FRAUD. That is the point of the thread. There is no such proof. That is the point. To assert otherwise is to lie, which you are doing.




> I am not like you , who thinks facts justify policy. I am not delusional enough to believe people lie about climate and then try to create policy when they can just as easily make policy without lying.


That is where you are wrong. They HAVE TO lie to make policy, because for this fraudulent system to work, majority must believe the system is just and fair. When this illusion is dispelled, and fraud is exposed, people will refuse to participate and to voluntarily support the system that is designed to hurt and destroy them. Therefore the devil has to lie to recruit his followers, because if he told them the truth, that in the end they will be as miserable as himself, no one would follow him, and he would cease to be devil. So truth is treason in the empire of lies. But truth is unconquerable, just as God is unconquerable.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> anybody who doesn't believe 9/11 is a fraud, is a paid shill?


No. Anyone who rejects incontrovertible public domain evidence that proves that government's story is a lie, and writes page after page lying against facts, is a paid shill. I think he knows that he is lying, but is doing it anyway for "the greater good" and for a paycheck I think.

----------


## PRB

> We are showing here that the "conclusions" that there is a proof of MAN-MADE CO2 causing global warming is a blatant FRAUD. That is the point of the thread. There is no such proof. That is the point. To assert otherwise is to lie, which you are doing.


Then you're wrong, and you're lying.

----------


## PRB

> The only thing I am interested enough to discuss here is the unacceptability of basing public policy


Lie. Or else you'd just say "I don't care if global warming is true or man caused, as long as there's no policy made, laws enacted, or taxes created". Instead, you insist on claiming man made global warming is a fraud, implying that if it were not fraud, it'd somehow justify policies and taxation.

----------


## PRB

> To try to justify taxation or government violence based on this fraud is a crime. That is our point. If you agree, than stop supporting the lie, which is of course is not easy for you because your paycheck depends on the lie, Mr. payed Troll.


I am against all taxation and government violence, based on ANYTHING. 

I am not supporting any lie, and I have no paycheck that depends on any lie.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Lie.


Oh my, the irony of it all.

----------


## PRB

> Oh my, the irony of it all.


Nope. Not ironic, if you want to actually show where I have lied, go ahead. 

Oh, let me guess, you'll just say "It's been shown so many times", no kid, that doesn't work, *ACTUALLY SHOW IT.*

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Nope. Not ironic, if you want to actually show where I have lied, go ahead. 
> 
> Oh, let me guess, you'll just say "It's been shown so many times", no kid, that doesn't work, *ACTUALLY SHOW IT.*



Already did a million times.  Your trick however, works wonders with new members and guests because they don't know your posting history.  Of course, you count on that.

By the way, did you whine to get your three rep bars back?

----------


## PRB

> Already did a million times.


Prove it.




> Your trick however, works wonders with new members and guests because they don't know your posting history.  Of course, you count on that.


I count on people not lying about me.




> By the way, did you whine to get your three rep bars back?


Yeah. I whined, I tried talking to you, I've never wanted any problems with you. I gave you reps as deserved, you simply neg rep me nonstop with the sole intention of making me look like you're not acting alone. I applaud you for persistence, but if you can abuse the system for your entertainment and continue to lie about me, I think I can exercise my right to report some of it.

to be specific, I didn't whine "to get my green bars back" but just to have your reps removed as it was clearly spamming.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Yeah. I whined, I tried talking to you, I've never wanted any problems with you. I gave you reps as deserved, you simply neg rep me nonstop with the sole intention of making me look like you're not acting alone. I applaud you for persistence, but if you can abuse the system for your entertainment and continue to lie about me, I think I can exercise my right to report some of it.
> 
> to be specific, I didn't whine "to get my green bars back" but just to have your reps removed as it was clearly spamming.



Wow, I am surprised you actually fessed up to something.  That's a first.  Guess I should commend you, but you probably figured I'd find out anyway.  

No, those neg reps were totally deserved.  And I was hardly the only one negging you.  You first claimed 98% of negs from me, but then later you said you "exaggerated" that number. 

A good number of people were negging you, and even said so right on the forum.  Others would + rep me and even tell me that you were lying.  

You know that I noted "disingenuousness" in a great number of my neg comments to you.  All in response to your repeated fibbing on this board.

----------


## PRB

> Wow, I am surprised you actually fessed up to something.  That's a first.  Guess I should commend you, but you probably figured I'd find out anyway.  
> 
> No, those neg reps were totally deserved.


Tell mods I'm wrong then, or if they were deserved, it wouldn't be (mostly) just you.




> And I was hardly the only one negging you.  You first claimed 98% of negs from me, but then later you said you "exaggerated" that number.


You were practically the only one who would repeatedly do it in the same day. 




> A good number of people were negging you, and even said so right on the forum.  Others would + rep me and even tell me that you were lying.


Everybody is free to prove I lied. 




> You know that I noted "disingenuousness" in a great number of my neg comments to you.  All in response to your repeated fibbing on this board.


Which is the same as calling me a liar, saying it a million times doesn't make it so.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Tell mods I'm wrong then, or if they were deserved, it wouldn't be (mostly) just you.


No, I don't do that.  I never go to the moderators about any issue whatsoever.  Never have; never will.  I prefer to discuss it in the open.  Your ilk usually prefer not to openly discuss because then more people will know about your little game.






> You were practically the only one who would repeatedly do it in the same day.


You were the only one repeatedly fibbing in the same day.

----------


## PRB

> No, I don't do that.  I never go to the moderators about any issue whatsoever.  Never have; never will.  I prefer to discuss it in the open.  Your ilk usually prefer not to openly discuss because then more people will know about your little game.


You've failed to provide any proof whatsoever about me lying. Every time I ask, you simply say "I did already", that's hardly discussing in the open. You desperately abuse the neg rep tool. 

But yes, feel free to post what you need about me, that'll hurt my reputation much faster than a red bar. I'm asking for it, go ahead and show it. You can't, so you rely on people looking superficially looking at the rep bar without knowing anything about what I post.




> You were the only one repeatedly fibbing in the same day.


Only according to you.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Only according to you.


And dozens of other members who have openly posted the same things about you for the past year.

----------


## PRB

> And dozens of other members who have openly posted the same things about you for the past year.


if anybody has, I've openly asked the same question. 

*Why do you believe I am lying, and if you believe I am disingenous, please explain or provide proof.*

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> if anybody has, I've openly asked the same question. 
> 
> *Why do you believe I am lying, and if you believe I am disingenous, please explain or provide proof.*



You're like these whiny cops who get busted and cry in court upon conviction.  They go to jail and claim the usual _I didn't do it, man!_

----------


## PRB

> You're like these whiny cops who get busted and cry in court upon conviction.  They go to jail and claim the usual _I didn't do it, man!_


saying this doesn't prove anything. How about you just present proof? How many times need I ask you?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> How many times need I ask you?


That's up to you.  How many times will you try to fool new forum members/vistors?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Instead, you insist on claiming man made global warming is a fraud


No, so called "scientific" proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is a fraud. See the difference? No such proof exists. In fact, evidence strongly suggests no such causation exist.




> implying that if it were not fraud, it'd somehow justify policies and taxation.


If you can conclusively prove that someone is damaging the property of another, this constitutes justification for the use of force to neutralize/offset such aggression.

Politicians and banksters falsely claim that such conclusive proof exists in the case of man-made CO2. They are either misinformed or lying. No such conclusive proof exists. No proof means no force is justified. It is that simple.

----------


## PRB

> No, so called "scientific" proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is a fraud. See the difference? No such proof exists. In fact, evidence strongly suggests no such causation exist.


No, the best you have is pointing out a few exceptions. And whenever asked who is best at predicting climate, you manage to clam up or give a million excuses why you don't know. Because, you know you actually can't point to one "non-fraud" scientist that has the balls to make predictions on climate. You're so convinced somebody is committing fraud, yet when asked "present the honest case" you're unable to. 

"evidence strongly suggests" is just not true. 




> If you can conclusively prove that someone is damaging the property of another, this constitutes justification for the use of force to neutralize/offset such aggression.


No force is justified anyway, since climate isn't property.

----------


## PRB

> That's up to you.  How many times will you try to fool new forum members/vistors?


*Quite the opposite, every time I ask, you post the answer and what can you expect me to say? That you're lying? You cooked up evidence? 
*
No, I only say you're lying because you CAN'T present evidence. You simply SAY you proved it, that's why you allow me to deny what's not true. 

PROVE ME WRONG. SHUT ME UP. When did you present evidence and I accused you of lying or denied it? Unless you actually did lie. 

*No excuses now, just answer and prove it. Then you can call me a liar and denier, it's up to YOU.*

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Quite the opposite, every time I ask, you post the answer and what can you expect me to say?


Sorry, already been posted.  I'm not posting it every time you yell like a jailbird and say, _"I didn't do it!"_    The trial is over.

----------


## PRB

> Sorry, already been posted.  I'm not posting it every time you yell like a jailbird and say, _"I didn't do it!"_    The trial is over.


Excuses, excuses. 

That's just going to allow me to deny it even further, and call YOU the liar. I understand you made up your mind, but the readers know better, readers aren't going to just believe you because you say so. (or if they do, I guess I'll start lying about you)

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...readers aren't going to just believe you because you say so.


They can make up their own minds.  All they have to do is look at your posting history.  Where there's smoke, there's fire.  
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck--you know how it goes.

----------


## PRB

> They can make up their own minds.  All they have to do is look at your posting history.  Where there's smoke, there's fire.  
> If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck--you know how it goes.


Then you can keep claiming you have evidence, at least we agree on one thing, we trust the audience to make their own judgment. I've asked you many times to present evidence to shut me up, you chose not to. You want everybody to "not be lazy" and "search themselves".

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> No, the best you have is pointing out a few exceptions. And whenever asked who is best at predicting climate, you manage to clam up or give a million excuses why you don't know. Because, you know you actually can't point to one "non-fraud" scientist that has the balls to make predictions on climate.


I do not need to make predictions on climate to point out that their climate "proof" is fraud, just like I do not need to be able to predict the weather to show that the claim that the color of your underwear is causing rain-storms is fraudulent. I do not need to predict weather to prove this. I also do not need to predict a coin toss to prove to you that shooting an innocent person based on a coin toss is unjust. I do not need to predict the result of a coin toss to prove this. Do you see this? So I do not need to be able to predict climate change to show that no conclusive link between human produced CO2 and global warming exists.




> You're so convinced somebody is committing fraud, yet when asked "present the honest case" you're unable to.


You are wrong. I posted multiple evidence showing that temperature data has been systematically falsified by so called "scientists" under political and financial pressure to prove causation where non exists. (I mean funding is given to them only if they support the government lie of man-made-CO2-is-causing-global-warming-fraud. How is that for objectivity. I think you would fit right in with them because you are unfortunately doing the same thing.)




> "evidence strongly suggests" is just not true.


Prove it. 





> No force is justified anyway, since climate isn't property.


Force is only justified if a conclusive proof exists that one person is violating the property of another, including his air, water, soil, and environment in general. If you are polluting the property of your neighbor, you are responsible for it. No such proof for human-made-CO2 exists. Assertions to the contrary made by the banksters are a blatant fraud. (I hope you agree that falsifying temperature data as they were repeatedly caught doing is a fraud?)

----------


## PRB

> (I hope you agree that falsifying temperature data as they were repeatedly caught doing is a fraud?)


I agree, if only it were true. 

Let me guess, you're thinking about climategate?

----------


## PRB

> I do not need to make predictions on climate to point out that their climate "proof" is fraud, just like I do not need to be able to predict the weather to show that the claim that the color of your underwear is causing rain-storms is fraudulent.


So you admit you don't have a better way to predict weather or climate?




> I do not need to predict weather to prove this. I also do not need to predict a coin toss to prove to you that shooting an innocent person based on a coin toss is unjust.


We already agree shooting a person is unjust. So the coin toss is a separate question.

Similarly, can we agree on how accurate/inaccurate coin toss predictions are, and also agree that shooting a person based on the outcome is always wrong?




> I do not need to predict the result of a coin toss to prove this. Do you see this? So I do not need to be able to predict climate change to show that no conclusive link between human produced CO2 and global warming exists.


Do you admit there's nobody other than those which use human produced CO2 to predict climate that's made better predictions? Yes or no?

----------


## PRB

> "scientists" under political and financial pressure to prove causation where non exists.


Do scientists usually lie? Or only on climate? 
Is science usually wrong? Or only on climate?

I can only hope you have an honest and consistent standard for judging.

Unless your answer is "I don't care what scientists say, just don't make policies based on whatever they say", which is totally fine with me.

----------


## HVACTech

> Do you admit there's nobody other than those which use human produced CO2 to predict climate that's made better predictions? Yes or no?


this thread is about predicting climate? 

my bad, I thought we were talking about greenhouse gasses. and their thermodynamic properties.

----------


## HVACTech

> I am one of those people where it not be easy.  The cooling part is easy for me.  I like to take advantage of cross breezes, roll down the car window, etc.  Most people however, don't even like these things.  There is this one damn grocery store that cools their store like an ice box.  Can't stand going in there.  They are too high priced anyway, probably from their AC bill.
> 
> Heating is the thing I can't stand.  Dries out the air.  I refuse to buy a humidifiers, so I have these shallow plates of water sitting around the house.  Stuff like this drives my wife nuts, but it's just easier for me.  
> 
> I never thoroughly looked into the details of all this.  I once saw at those coils or whatever in the floor as radiant heat.  Did not seem like the greatest idea, but maybe I am missing something.  That is why I talk about the details.  I liked those old houses with the radiators.  I'm sure they could be trouble sometimes, but everything is a tradeoff.
> 
> We even have a fireplace, but, of course, never use it.  I just wonder how the Injuns of old washed their hair in the winter.  You go on top of the mountain and freeze to death before the wind blow you over.





> Heating is the thing I can't stand.  Dries out the air.


warm air is able to hold more moisture than cold air is. 
this is why the relative humidity drops when cold air is heated. 

PRB can explain relative humidity, I am SURE of that.
he knows bubble point, dew point and he could probably even explain what "glide" is if you are dealing with a blend of refrigerants.
after all, water, (H2O) is the earths refrigerant, right PRB?

----------


## PRB

> this thread is about predicting climate? 
> 
> my bad, I thought we were talking about greenhouse gasses. and their thermodynamic properties.


Yes, we are talking about greenhouse gases, and thermodynamic properties, in the context of climate. 

I am open to hearing what climate scientists are right/wrong about, after all, you know what they're not accounting for, you know your basic thermodynamics, you probably know more than they do. I just wanted to know whether your knowledge of thermodynamics and greenhouse gases helps us in proving scientists wrong or making better predictions. 

If the best you can say is "I dont know who's right, I just know who's wrong" that's fine too, I hope you're able to admit that. 

And I'll say again if you're not sure. *I am completely against climate policies, carbon taxes or any regulations based on climate predictions.* I am only interested in climate predictions for scientific knowledge and practical preparation (if I knew in advance when and how severe droughts, floods, hurricanes were, I'd adjust my home insurance policy accordingly, I don't want the government taxing me for it, but I want to know as much facts as possible).

So if somebody's going to tell me global warming either isn't happening or is natural, I want to know if I can still rely on apparent consensus, or must I listen to a better expert. I sure don't want to be unprepared like all the other people who listened to the wrong predictions.

----------


## PRB

> he knows bubble point, dew point and he could probably even explain what "glide" is if you are dealing with a blend of refrigerants.


No, I can't.




> after all, water, (H2O) is the earths refrigerant, right PRB?


In the sense that water goes through phase changes and adjust temperatures, yes.

----------


## HVACTech

> Yes, we are talking about greenhouse gases, and thermodynamic properties, in the context of climate. 
> 
> I am open to hearing what climate scientists are right/wrong about, after all, you know what they're not accounting for, you know your basic thermodynamics, you probably know more than they do. I just wanted to know whether your knowledge of thermodynamics and greenhouse gases helps us in proving scientists wrong or making better predictions. 
> 
> If the best you can say is "I dont know who's right, I just know who's wrong" that's fine too, I hope you're able to admit that. 
> 
> And I'll say again if you're not sure. *I am completely against climate policies, carbon taxes or any regulations based on climate predictions.* I am only interested in climate predictions for scientific knowledge and practical preparation (if I knew in advance when and how severe droughts, floods, hurricanes were, I'd adjust my home insurance policy accordingly, I don't want the government taxing me for it, but I want to know as much facts as possible).
> 
> So if somebody's going to tell me global warming either isn't happening or is natural, I want to know if I can still rely on apparent consensus, or must I listen to a better expert. I sure don't want to be unprepared like all the other people who listened to the wrong predictions.


fair enough. 
the way that I see it, the earths orbit is not only eccentric, but it also wobbles. the solar constant has been proven wrong. 
the earth is about 75% liquid water, (surface) we all live on the other 25%. rainfall patterns are dictated by dewpoint. 
meaning, warm air, when it is suddenly chilled, is why it rains. 
(it falls out of suspension because it HAS to)
plate tectonics affect positioning. and also ocean currents. 
throw in barometric pressure and you REALLY have a mess of conflicting data.
to suppose, that a very minor component of the gaseous phase of the atmosphere.. 
can have such a pronounced effect... 

let it ride man.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Do scientists usually lie? Or only on climate? 
> Is science usually wrong? Or only on climate?
> 
> I can only hope you have an honest and consistent standard for judging.
> 
> Unless your answer is "I don't care what scientists say, just don't make policies based on whatever they say", which is totally fine with me.


Scientists, that are on government payroll or depend on government funding are under political and financial pressure to do governments bidding. Examples would be: lying NIST lying through its teeth that there was no molten steal in WTC wreckage; or HIV/AIDS lie (since HIV does not cause AIDS), but because the government has poured billions into HIV research, the scientists are lying that causation exists; the same happened with governments guidelines on nutrition i.e. eating-fat-makes-you-fat-and-eating-grains-makes-you-sliim lie; or vaccines prevent disease and are good for people (including infants) which is also a lie; or "GMO foods are just as nutritious as organic" lie; energy, space, economics, healthcare, cancer, education, the list goes on; and now we have the human-made-CO2-causes-gloal-warming lie. Anywhere the government gets involved by offering stolen money to bribe scientists into compliance you get corruption of scientists and of science, and lies flow as freely as the money used to buy the said "scientists." Well did the thieving Rothchild say: "Allow me to counterfeit a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws." The evidence and precedent of scientists on government's payroll lying about science is overwhelming and conclusive. Are you lying now to deny this? 

Are you also on government's payroll, Mr. paid troll?

----------


## PRB

> Scientists, that are on government payroll or depend on government funding are under political and financial pressure to do governments bidding.


Are there any that are not? Do you trust them more? For context of this discussion, for climate, are there any non-government scientists that we can trust?

----------


## jllundqu

Science and politics have always been controversial.  Anyone who would deny that in the recent past, scientists from all stripes have lied, manipulated data, and perjured themselves in front of congress for whatever the issues of the day were.  Smoking is good for you.  Lead in paint and gasoline is healthy.  Xrays to treat acne are perfectly fine.  On and on and on throughout history.  Scientists should be questioned and the issues are never really "settled".  For me, there is enough evidence out there of blatant data manipulation and lying to try and 'pump up' the global warming story, as well as readlily available objective data on the climate from various scientific groups that I am not convinced the AGW theory is valid.

When they can provide solid data and causation, I'll listen.  But not at the end of the State's gun and taking the king's coin.

----------


## PRB

> Smoking is good for you.


Is smoking good or bad for you? How do you know? Let's start there.

----------


## PRB

> For me, there is enough evidence out there of blatant data manipulation and lying to try and 'pump up' the global warming story,


No, there isn't, not unless you think climategate was that, what am I missing.




> as well as readlily available objective data on the climate from various scientific groups that I am not convinced the AGW theory is valid.


There's such thing as readily available objective data? Do tell where that is! I'm glad there's data not tainted by corrupt scientists!

What are these "various science groups" and how do you know they're not paid off? 




> When they can provide solid data and causation, I'll listen.  But not at the end of the State's gun and taking the king's coin.


Again, who is the best at predicting climate? How solid do you need the data to be? I'll listen to who makes the most vindicated predictions. Denying another's prediction doesn't tell us anything.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Science and politics have always been controversial.  Anyone who would deny that in the recent past, scientists from all stripes have lied, manipulated data, and perjured themselves in front of congress for whatever the issues of the day were.  Smoking is good for you.  Lead in paint and gasoline is healthy.  Xrays to treat acne are perfectly fine.  On and on and on throughout history.  Scientists should be questioned and the issues are never really "settled".  For me, there is enough evidence out there of blatant data manipulation and lying to try and 'pump up' the global warming story, as well as readlily available objective data on the climate from various scientific groups that I am not convinced the AGW theory is valid.
> 
> When they can provide solid data and causation, I'll listen.  But not at the end of the State's gun and taking the king's coin.


Brilliant! Thanks.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Denying another's prediction doesn't tell us anything.


It tells us that the so called "science" behind these predictions is false. That is an important conclusion that helps to end the fraud of the politicians that are using such "science" as excuse to oppress and tax.

----------


## HVACTech

a few quotes from the article...   




> Most scientists say the sun currently plays little to no role in the global warming





> The Earth has been gradually warming since the end of the last ice age beginning about 11,000 or 12,000 years ago.





> "We know that the Sun is very important for our climate, but the impact is not clear,"


Fluctuations in the Orbit of the Earth Can Impact Global Warming

http://www.sciencetimes.com/articles...al-warming.htm

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Catastrophic Failures in Science Then and Now*

                                                                                                           By Alvin Lowi, Jr.
                                                                                    June 5, 2015
 
. . .


The Anthropogenic Global Warming Phobia
 Now about a century after the ultraviolet catastrophe, a similarly  catastrophic theoretical situation has brewed in the scientific  community. I refer to the popular anthropogenic global warming (AGW)  theory that predicts that the human emissions of carbon dioxide from  fossil fuel burning will cause global temperatures to run wild and  eventually melt the polar ice caps, flooding coastal populations,  acidifying the oceans, killing marine life and turning the fertile Earth  into a desert.  One could ask how such a radical theory could prevail  in view of the fact that it so obviously fails to conform to reality, as  can be seen in a simple graph of the year-to-year change in mean  surface temperature of the Earth. An example is the following chart  prepared by climatologist John Christy  of the University of Alabama. Christy himself presented these results  to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources on  May 15, 2015. Despite his revelation that the theory upon which congress  was relying for its Draconian carbon control legislation had crashed  and burned, no reaction was reported. Could this be evidence of denial?
 The following graph shows the remarkable disagreement between the  generally-accepted global warming predictions of the government’s  academic climate modelers using powerful computers, and the real-world  evidence obtained by observational scientists using only thermometers on  balloons and radiometers on satellites. The computer-calculated  projections (red line) are from the government’s Coupled Model  Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5).   http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/


 
 Compounding  the predictive error is the fact that the magnitudes of the  temperatures under study vary year-to-year by an amount less than the  error band of the temperature measurements (± 0.2˚C). This means that  the temperature changes measured or computed are unreliable, uncertain  and possibly insignificant. Furthermore, the government’s climate  modelers have been caught red-handed “correcting” historical temperature measurements  downward to exaggerate the heating trend. Even so, the computed  temperatures for the past 20 years overstate the actual ones by only  0.4˚C, so what’s the beef? Although there may have been a slight warming  of the Earth over the past several decades, this may have been nothing  more than the Earth’s continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age, which can hardly be blamed on human industry.
 Perhaps most discrediting to the AGW theory, however, is the history of atmospheric CO2  concentration, presented for the past sixty years in the following  chart. This chart shows that during the same 40-year period covered by  Christy, the atmospheric CO2 increased by a whopping 40%.   Meanwhile, the mean surface temperature of the Earth changed by less  than 0.4˚C. Where’s the correlation?
 Regardless, 400 ppm CO2 is only 0.04 % of the atmosphere.  This compares with a water vapor concentration (humidity) of over 2.0 %.  Moreover, water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2,  and its presences there cannot be blamed on human industry. This  finding not only falsifies the theory that anthropogenic CO2 causes the  Earth to warm irreversibly, it also denies that there is even a  correlation between the theory and the observations.



Conclusion
 In spite of the outrageous disagreement between the government’s  expert’s computer simulations of the Earth’s climate and predictions of  its surface temperature distribution and the peer-reviewed measurements  collected by Prof. Christy, the government in collaboration  with the  mainstream media continue to broadcast pseudo-scientific Earth-warming  propaganda. As this propaganda is regularly reduced to absurdity by such  skeptical scientists as John Christy, the catastrophic failure of the  AGW theory will gain wider recognition. One can only hope that this  catastrophe will be recognized in time for the public to prevent the  government from blundering into an actual economic catastrophe brought  on by economically destructive regulation and taxation of the private  use of fossil fuels mistaken as the cause of adverse climate change.


The Best of Alvin Lowi, Jr.

----------


## PRB

> It tells us that the so called "science" behind these predictions is false. That is an important conclusion that helps to end the fraud of the politicians that are using such "science" as excuse to oppress and tax.


So the opposite is true? What's stopping politicians from oppressing and taxing anyway? What if they taxed based on global cooling, would you be saying global warming is true again?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

You missed the point. Neither cooling nor warming is the issue here, but the fact that man's CO2 is not controlling either. 
Therefore legislation based on this imaginary CO2 aggression is a fraud. That's the point.

----------


## PRB

> You missed the point. Neither cooling nor warming is the issue here, but the fact that man's CO2 is not controlling either. 
> Therefore legislation based on this imaginary CO2 aggression is a fraud. That's the point.


I already agreed with you, legislation against CO2 is wrong. I don't need to deny whether CO2 causes anything to say that I'm against regulations and taxes.

Saying that CO2 regulations based on bad science is fraud implies that if it was good science, you'd be OK with it, I'm not, I'm against government regulations regardless of how much CO2 causes warming or cooling. Therefore I won't challenge what science says, I challenge what legislators say, *EVERY SINGLE TIME. 

If you honestly believe neither cooling nor warming will justify regulations, I suggest you stop posting about how warmists are wrong as if you care. 
*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty



----------


## PRB

https://boingboing.net/2017/04/17/in...lex-jones.html 

you trust a guy who admits he's a liar and actor.

----------


## RJB

It looks like Foundation of Liberty has a stalker.

----------


## HVACTech

> It looks like Foundation of Liberty has a stalker.


the last time that I looked...
we are not in an ice age. therefore. I pontificate thus, 
the climate has changed. and it is warmer now.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> the last time that I looked...
> we are not in an ice age. therefore. I pontificate thus, 
> the climate has changed. and it is warmer now.


Climate change is not the point. Global warming said to be caused by human made CO2 (greenhouse gas) is. As I pointed out water vapor constitutes 97% of greenhouse gases, and human CO2 less than 1%. That is the point.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Bottom line: man made pollution must be reduced, but not via a global carbon tax which makes no sense, and attempts to justify such tax by blaming human produced CO2 as the cause of global warming is nonsensical, illogical, and if enforced, unjust and immoral.

----------


## Schifference

> Climate change is not the point. Global warming said to be caused by human made CO2 (greenhouse gas) is. As I pointed out water vapor constitutes 97% of greenhouse gases, and human CO2 less than 1%. That is the point.


The real question that must be asked is, what is man doing that is causing water vapor to be 97% of greenhouse gasses?

----------


## PRB

> The real question that must be asked is, what is man doing that is causing water vapor to be 97% of greenhouse gasses?


CO2 is caused by burning fuels, which almost always causes water emissions. That's for starters, there's naturally occurring water vapor also. 

The fact water is 97% (by volume or weight, I never got a good answer) doesn't change these facts
-CO2 concentration continues to grow
-Greenhouse effect is well supported
-global warming (or climate change, a phrased used for decades) hasn't stopped.

Whether methane or water vapor are more abundant or more intense in causing global warming, doesn't change human contribution. 

All that said, just because humans cause global warming, doesn't justify taxes, if you believe it does, you're no better than a liberal.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

War with carbon, is war with LIFE on planet Earth!

Full article: https://www.infowars.com/environment...-planet-earth/

*Environmentalists who are at war with carbon are at war with LIFE*

Just about every molecule you value — and nearly every molecule you’re made of — is made out of carbon. *If you are at war with carbon, you are at war with LIFE* on  planet Earth. If you want to eliminate carbon dioxide, you are working  to exterminate life. Yet probably 90% of college students today believe  that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” and they would politically support  any effort to eliminate it, even if doing so resulted in global  ecological collapse and the extinction of humanity. 

Astonishingly, environmentalists have been so deeply brainwashed  and deliberately mis-educated that they actually think carbon is bad.  They must also hate themselves, since 96% of the human body is made of  just four elements: Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen. Roughly 18% of your body is carbon, by molecular weight. If you hate carbon, you hate yourself. 

Maybe that’s why environmentalists are so full of hatred and  ignorance: They are made of the very element they’ve declared war  against. If you’ve ever wondered why Leftists are so angry all the time,  it’s because they’re made of the very element they hate: Carbon. 

*Hydrocarbons release fresh carbon into the atmosphere where plants can use it to create valuable molecules that support life*

Burning  fossil fuels, by the way, means combusting hydrocarbons to release  energy. One of the byproducts of burning fossil fuels is the release of  CO2 into the atmosphere, providing fresh CO2 that plants are starving to  harvest from the air. CO2 levels in the atmosphere right now are at  near-emergency low levels of barely above 400 ppm. Forests, food crops  and indigenous plants across the globe *would flourish at double or triple the current level of CO2*. If we had, for example, 1200 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, *the Earth would be greener and more lush*. 


Yet for some reason, environmentalists hate the thought of plants  having more nutrients. They want the Earth to be “green,” they say, by  eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere, taking away the single most  important nutrient for photosynthesis and plant metabolism.

Read more:https://www.infowars.com/environment...-planet-earth/


...

Simply put, there is no future for the human race if the current  breed of lunatic environmentalists are allowed to run their “death cult”  programs that would shut down photosynthesis and exterminate all  recognizable life on our planet. Thank God carbon dioxide is produced by  every living mammal on the planet — including you — meaning that you  can help save the planet by taking a jog and simply exhaling. 


In the spirit of that simple, inescapable truth, I propose a new bumper sticker: *Piss off a liberal. Just BREATHE.
* 
*The war on sunlight and the new scheme of “global dimming”*

Waging  war on carbon isn’t the end of the lunacy of whacko environmentalists.  They also think there’s something wrong with sunlight, another key input  for photosynthesis. They’ve launched a program of “global dimming” that  seeks to literally *pollute the atmosphere* by  dispersing millions of tons of smog (sulfur dioxide) into the  atmosphere, running 4,000 flights a year over the next 15 years, all in  the name of “geoengineering” the atmosphere. (These are the same  lunatics who said “chemtrails” were a conspiracy theory; now they’ve  re-named it “Stratospheric Aerosol Injection” and claim it will save the  world.) 


In essence, they are *terraforming the Earth* and  making it uninhabitable by humans. Are they completely insane, or are  they prepping the planet for colonization by something that isn’t human?  (Coming soon: *Terraforming.news*) 


See full coverage of that crucial issue at this story on Natural News called “Terraforming has begun: Global dimming is a plot to exterminate humanity.”

*
Read full article*: https://www.infowars.com/environment...-planet-earth/

----------


## Voluntarist

> Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth! Man Made CO2 is less than 1% !!!


I'll post an excerpt, below, from *Steve Koonin's new book, "Unsettled"* ... which explains the contributions to atmospheric warming made by water vapor vs CO2.




> The most common of the gases making up the earth’s atmosphere are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent). Combined, then these two account for 99 percent of the dry atmosphere, and because of the peculiarities of molecular structure, heat passes through them easily. The largest part of the remaining 1 percent is the inert gas argon. But while even less abundant, some of the other gases—most signiﬁcantly water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone—intercept, on average, about 83 percent of the heat emitted by the earth’s surface.“ So the earth does indeed emit energy equivalent to what it absorbs from the sun, but instead of directly ﬂowing off into space, cooling our planet to a chilly average of 0°F, much of that energy is intercepted by the atmosphere blanketing us.
> 
> Water vapor is the most important of the greenhouse gases. Of course, the amount in the atmosphere at any given place and time varies greatly (the humidity changes a lot with the weather). But on average, water vapor amounts to only about 0.4 percent of the molecules in the atmosphere. Even so, it accounts for more than 90 percent of the atmosphere’s ability to intercept heat. John Tyndall, the Irish physicist who was the ﬁrst to study the infrared properties of gases, eloquently expressed its importance in an 1863 public lecture:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...

----------

