NASA’s Hansen Exploits Hot Summers to Push Carbon Fascism

[Nickels]

Can you explain how? Thanks.

Of course. It's my pleasure. According mises.org and Lewrockwell.com, true capitalism solves every problem. In the case of why capitalism will solve the environment, well you see, if somebody DID own the air and water, people would care. So the solution is to let people own the planet, every bit of it. Or, even if they don't own, real humans have something called compassion, and they will magically care for the environment even if it doesn't benefit them. You don't seriously think capitalists only care about money, do you? Nah, that's bankers.

As I mentioned, nobody owns water or air so there is no incentive (cost to the producer) not to pollute it. It is the cheapest method for a profit seeking enterprise to get rid of waste. Where does the economic incentive to polute less come in in a totally free capitalist market?

The market does not always take care of everything.

Market takes care of everything, because socialism takes care of everything wrong. So the only alternative is the market.

The incentive is, that good people will buy from good companies because competition forces them to not pollute, consumers don't like pollution because they have to live with it, so they won't pay people to hurt themselves.

(I don't agree with "carbon taxes" but do feel that we did need some forms of laws to reduce pollution).

CO2 is not a pollution though

 

[Travlyr]

And they're wrong, at least wrong enough to misleading. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Boy, read. The science is proven.

You seem to think "CO2 can't ever cause warming, it only causes cooling or has no effect whatsoever". Not so, facts and research tell us "CO2 isn't the sole cause of warming, but always amplifies it".

CO2 causes neither warming or cooling. CO2 levels follow climate change. Study some science.

That is more true than saying it has no effect or causes cooling.

You really don't have to believe whatever Oprah says. She is an entertainer.

No, it doesn't.

They're pseudo scientists because you decided they're wrong to start?

No. They believe that CO2 levels cause global warming when history proves that CO2 levels follow climate change. It is not that hard to understand. CO2 levels rise with global warming and shrink with global cooling. That has been proven throughout time.

Everybody wants free money. Global warming is not a hoax, it's a fact, the tax may be unnecessary or unfair, but that doesn't make global warming a hoax.

Then why is the Earth currently in a cooling stage? Why was it in a cooling stage from 1940 to 1970?

Wait, WOW, DID I JUST MISS THAT? You abandoned your argument again? This is gonna be fun.

Why do you want to believe their lies?

When people say climate change they mean artificial climate change. If you are going to say global warming is real, but unfixable, fine, but don't say it's not happening in the next breath.

Global warming was real from 1970 until around 2000. It is now cooling which is why the liars call it climate change these days instead of global warming. Do your own research. Oprah is selling entertainment.

Decide already, which argument are you going with?

1. Global warming isn't happening
2. It's not bad, it's actually a good thing
3. It's not avoidable
(You can only have one, any 2 will be contradictory)

Climate Change is a Fact Of Life. It is a constant.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Climate Change is a Fact Of Life. It is a constant.

Which does not rule out the possiblity that man can contribute to changes as well.

It is interesting to see that a couple of years ago when we had a cold winter people shouted that this was proof that global warming was a sham. Now some of the same people are saying that the hottest summer on record is not proof (in truth, neither were proofs or disproofs of climate change- change needs to be observed over a long period of time- there is too much variation in weather over a few year to be able to say much).

If climate warming is true and we try to reduce pollution, it may or may not help. But at least we can have cleaner air to breathe and water to drink.

 

[awake]

Can you explain how? Thanks.

As I mentioned, nobody owns water or air so there is no incentive (cost to the producer) not to pollute it. It is the cheapest method for a profit seeking enterprise to get rid of waste. Where does the economic incentive to polute less come in in a totally free capitalist market?

The market does not always take care of everything.

(I don't agree with "carbon taxes" but do feel that we did need some forms of laws to reduce pollution).

Water can be owned like land...Rivers, lakes and sections of oceans notwithstanding. The government currently abolishes any property right here for its own selfish exploitations. Once water becomes a private ownable resource, it will become managed and protected like any other...private owners on guard for trespassers and destruction in its value.

Air pollution must be proved in a measurable way...not some collective assertion that the pollution is out there somewhere and hurting us in unclear ways...Prove CO2 is killing any individual and take it to the courts.

The courts need to become private as well...monopoly courts are notorious for injustice in these matters. If there is soot on your cloths coming from a factory by all means haul them in to court...But the real problem is the quality of justice we receive from monopoly privilege is poor at best..They have set the precedent in the past to side with the factory because it is a valuable economic GDP contributor - to hell with the property rights of the complainant...It's kind of like emanate domain laws, which is legalized theft, but allowed because the company using these laws are going to create jobs.

Our justice system sucks, it needs to be open to competition and the market.

 

[Travlyr]

Which does not rule out the possiblity that man can contribute to changes as well.

Very minute changes. A South American butterfly can change the wind in the Arctic, but that change is not measurable or noticeable.

 

[Nickels]

And they're wrong, at least wrong enough to misleading. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Boy, read. The science is proven.

Just because you say so?

CO2 causes neither warming or cooling. CO2 levels follow climate change. Study some science.

That's where you are wrong. CO2 amplifies warming. Where do you study your science from and with?

You really don't have to believe whatever Oprah says. She is an entertainer.

Don't watch Oprah, don't listen to Al Gore either.

No. They believe that CO2 levels cause global warming when history proves that CO2 levels follow climate change.

History doesn't prove that.

It is not that hard to understand.

No, it's not, it's hard for you to accept you're wrong, apparently

CO2 levels rise with global warming and shrink with global cooling. That has been proven throughout time.

That would be true if CO2 never amplified warming, you keep ignoring this.

Then why is the Earth currently in a cooling stage?

It isn't. That's not what temperature records say.

Why was it in a cooling stage from 1940 to 1970?

Was it really?

Why do you want to believe their lies?

I don't want to believe anybody's lies

Global warming was real from 1970 until around 2000. It is now cooling which is why the liars call it climate change these days instead of global warming. Do your own research. Oprah is selling entertainment.

I'm not the idiot who thinks GW was renamed CC because we went from warming to cooling. IPCC stands for what? It was founded in 1988. That's right, 30 years ago we've been using the term CC.

Climate Change is a Fact Of Life. It is a constant.

Do you mean global warming is unavoidable? Or have you zero predictions of the future climate? Is next year just as likely to be global snowfall as it is global drought?

 

[Travlyr]

Just because you say so?



That's where you are wrong. CO2 amplifies warming. Where do you study your science from and with?



Don't watch Oprah, don't listen to Al Gore either.



History doesn't prove that.



No, it's not, it's hard for you to accept you're wrong, apparently



That would be true if CO2 never amplified warming, you keep ignoring this.



It isn't. That's not what temperature records say.



Was it really?



I don't want to believe anybody's lies



I'm not the idiot who thinks GW was renamed CC because we went from warming to cooling. IPCC stands for what? It was founded in 1988. That's right, 30 years ago we've been using the term CC.



Do you mean global warming is unavoidable? Or have you zero predictions of the future climate? Is next year just as likely to be global snowfall as it is global drought?

You obviously have not done any research on global warming or climate change. Do some research.

 

[Nickels]

The courts need to become private as well...monopoly courts are notorious for injustice in these matters.

so I go out and form my own private court, where does my authority to govern you come from? Explicit consent? That doesn't help me when somebody violates me and doesn't recognize my court, its rules and maybe even the rights we supposedly expect to agree on.

 

[Dr.3D]

I found it interesting to note from this web site, the history of this March temperature rise and the March 9th solar flare we had.
http://www.wunderground.com/weather...1&year=2011&monthend=4&dayend=31&yearend=2012

You will notice from the data, the temperature rise following that flare in March of this year. You can also check previous years to see if the data correlates with a March rise in temperature and see a difference.

I'm still under the impression it's all about solar activity.

 

[Travlyr]

I found it interesting to note from this web site, the history of this March temperature rise and the March 9th solar flare we had.
http://www.wunderground.com/weather...1&year=2011&monthend=4&dayend=31&yearend=2012

You will notice from the data, the temperature rise following that flare in March of this year. You can also check previous years to see if the data correlates with a March rise in temperature and see a difference.

I'm still under the impression it's all about solar activity.

It truly is. And the global alarmists deny that the Sun has any bearing on Climate Change. It is really silly.

 

[Nickels]

You obviously have not done any research on global warming or climate change. Do some research.

No. I have. Let's just list the things I know more than you, which you ignored and abandoned your arguments for.

Global warming Swindle movie is debunked.
CC is a 30 year old term.
CO2 amplifies and worses warming, it doesn't simply lag and have no effect.
You can't explain the graph you posted, you can't justify the claim we are in cooling phase, so you drop your argument.
I don't listen to what Oprah or Al Gore says, contrary to your ignorance.
I'm actually more familiar with skeptic arguments than you are, which is why I can respond to everything you say, while you don't even know your arguments are outdated and answered.

 

[Nickels]

It truly is. And the global alarmists deny that the Sun has any bearing on Climate Change. It is really silly.

If you were talking about the sun giving us a cooling phase, you are correct, for 35 years, but the globe is still warming, so it's not attributable to the sun. At least not fully and primarily.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

 

[Zippyjuan]

Water can be owned like land...Rivers, lakes and sections of oceans notwithstanding. The government currently abolishes any property right here for its own selfish exploitations. Once water becomes a private ownable resource, it will become managed and protected like any other...private owners on guard for trespassers and destruction in its value.

Air pollution must be proved in a measurable way...not some collective assertion that the pollution is out there somewhere and hurting us in unclear ways...Prove CO2 is killing any individual and take it to the courts.

The courts need to become private as well...monopoly courts are notorious for injustice in these matters. If there is soot on your cloths coming from a factory by all means haul them in to court...But the real problem is the quality of justice we receive from monopoly privilege is poor at best..They have set the precedent in the past to side with factory because it is a valuable economic GDP contributor - to hell with the property rights of the complainant...It's kind of like emanate domain laws, which is legalized theft, but allowed because the company using these laws are going to create jobs.

Our justice system sucks, it needs to be open to competition and the market.

Rivers, lakes, and oceans would be most of the water on the planet. And as you point out, there would be a very high burden of proof required by an individual against a bigger and wealthier company to prove first that you were harmed and secondly that this particular company was the source of the pollution which harmed you. If many companies are dumping waste into water or air, how do you decide which is to blame for what problem? The chances of an individual prevailing would be difficult at best.

The other problem with "ownership" of water or air is that it cannot be contained- it moves around. I can build a fence around my land to keep people from either coming onto it or if they cause damages it is easy to determine if it occured on my land but the same cannot be said of air or water. I can't control or even define or protect what is "my" water or air- it is a shared resource. Things mix and mingle. You cannot contain polluted air on your own property but you can attempt to stop creating the pollution in the first place- and in a free market, that adds costs your competitors don't have to face if they don't want to so your being "clean" could price you out against your competitors. Thus you have no economic incentive to stop polluting. The market is saying you should continue to dump waste into air and water.

 

[Travlyr]

No. I have. Let's just list the things I know more than you, which you ignored and abandoned your arguments for.

Global warming Swindle movie is debunked.

Baloney.

CC is a 30 year old term.

Or 30,000 year old term.

CO2 amplifies and worses warming, it doesn't simply lag and have no effect.

Total bullshit. CO2 levels lag the climate by nearly 800 years. That is a well known proven fact.

You can't explain the graph you posted, you can't justify the claim we are in cooling phase, so you drop your argument.
I don't listen to what Oprah or Al Gore says, contrary to your ignorance.
I'm actually more familiar with skeptic arguments than you are, which is why I can respond to everything you say, while you don't even know your arguments are outdated and answered.

We were in a cooling phase when I was in grade school and the "fear was freezing" my children grew up in a time of "fear of warming" and the fact is that climate change is constant. We are now in a global cooling phase and the Sun is the primary factor. Science dude. Study science.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I found it interesting to note from this web site, the history of this March temperature rise and the March 9th solar flare we had.
http://www.wunderground.com/weather...1&year=2011&monthend=4&dayend=31&yearend=2012

You will notice from the data, the temperature rise following that flare in March of this year. You can also check previous years to see if the data correlates with a March rise in temperature and see a difference.

I'm still under the impression it's all about solar activity.

Solar flares happen all of the time.

 

[awake]

so I go out and form my own private court, where does my authority to government you come from? Explicit consent? That doesn't help me when somebody violates me and doesn't recognize my court, its rules and maybe even the rights we supposedly expect to agree on.

You probably wouldn't...Free market insurance companies could and would run policing and justice services... Competition for customers would lower the costs and improve the quality of security and justice...If the other guy did not want to respect your insurance company justice, than a 3rd party independent justice from another insurance security/ justice firm could be brought in...The decision could be binding through the insurance company "repo-men". Professional, currently labeled, thieves would have gainful above under the law employment. If they abuse their collections role they too could be subject to the law and collections.

Justice would come affordable and quality would improve drastically...bad justice firms would be washed out of the market to make way for the fairest and best justice providers...You could look upon an ex IRS agent with pride that his task now is to not take from everyone, just those who have collections levied by law against them through the market courts - he would go from tax collector to law collections officer or agent - also subject to the very system he works for if he abuses his role..

 

[Nickels]

Total bullshit. CO2 levels lag the climate by nearly 800 years. That is a well known proven fact.

The part where you say "has not effect" is not a proven fact.

We were in a cooling phase when I was in grade school and the "fear was freezing"

There you go again changing the subject when I correct you. So now it's about what you heard when we were in grade school. Not today?

my children grew up in a time of "fear of warming" and the fact is that climate change is constant.

We still do.

We are now in a global cooling phase and the Sun is the primary factor. Science dude. Study science.

You are correct that the sun activity is not increasing and continuing to cause warming, but, warming is continuing here on Earth. What science? You're not even looking at the data. What data are you looking at that tells you we're in a cooling phase? Show me please.

 

[Dr.3D]

Solar flares happen all of the time.

Yes, and some are bigger than others. Some are not directed in the direction of Earth either. Those that are cause a rise in temperature. We had a rather large one or actually a number of large ones in March, starting around the 9th that were directed at Earth and the temperature rise followed that just like a little puppy follows a person around.

We have had a larger number of flares directed toward Earth this year than in the past few years and the higher temperatures are the result.

 

[Nickels]

You probably wouldn't...Free market insurance companies could and would run policing and justice services.

Only to people who recognize them?

.. Competition for customers would lower the costs and improve the quality of security and justice...If the other guy did not want to respect your insurance company justice, than a 3rd party independent justice from another insurance security/ justice firm could be brought in.

And what if I don't accept that 3rd party's justice? And what if he wants to use his own?

..The decision could be binding through the insurance company "repo-men".

Wait, that's after we agree, what if we don't agree?

Professional, currently labeled, thieves would have gainful above under the law employment. If they abuse their collections role they too could be subject to the law and collections.

And what if they too never agreed to a justice system?

Justice would come affordable and quality would improve drastically...bad justice firms would be washed out of the market to make way for the fairest and best justice providers...

You seem to assume that there's at least one justice system everybody will happily accept. What if 99% of the people accepted system A, and 1% denies whatever the 99% wants? What do you do to the 1%? Are you going to force them to accept your system or let them violate you and get away with it?

 

[Travlyr]

The part where you say "has not effect" is not a proven fact.

And this kind of proves that you are full of it. Resorting to childish pictures to advance your debate.

There you go again changing the subject when I correct you. So now it's about what you heard when we were in grade school. Not today?

You did not correct me in any way.

We still do.



You are correct that the sun activity is not increasing and continuing to cause warming, but, warming is continuing here on Earth. What science? You're not even looking at the data. What data are you looking at that tells you we're in a cooling phase? Show me please.

But not in the Troposphere. That is the problem with your propaganda. It is bullshit.

Just read.