Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13441 - 13460 of total 25932 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Sep 19, 2013 - 07:50pm PT
What core value of yours is the fulcrum from which you position yourself on climate change?
they are cheapskates
Doug Tomczik

climber
Bishop
Sep 19, 2013 - 07:57pm PT
I did not ask for name calling.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Sep 19, 2013 - 07:58pm PT
ArrrrG!

It"s Talk like a pirate day!

http://www.thepiratescove.us/2013/09/19/if-all-you-see-895/
dirtbag

climber
Sep 19, 2013 - 08:02pm PT
Skeptics? No, they're f*#ktards.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Sep 19, 2013 - 08:03pm PT
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Sep 19, 2013 - 08:10pm PT
I did not ask for name calling.
That's hardly name calling, and it is a good description.
Would you prefer one of:
miserly
spendthrift
tightfisted
avaricious
churlish
mean
parsimonious
penny-pinching
penurious
skinflint
?
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Sep 19, 2013 - 08:50pm PT
and I am NOT including the chief as he trolls for
pure personal entertainment

He pretty much gutted the summitpost forums, though I doubt he can succeed here.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 19, 2013 - 10:16pm PT
What core value of yours is the fulcrum from which you position yourself on climate change?

Excellent question!!!


Principal.

First of all I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Liberal nor Conservative.

Secondly, I never once stated that I do not believe in CC. I am of the standing that it is real and has been so for billions of years. We should have accepted this decades ago and began to implement changes in order to live with it. Not all these decades trying to find out why it is occurring and now fighting to see who is right and who is wrong. That is the premise of self-reliance that Emerson so effectively wrote about.

I believe that the AGW brigade have over time overwhelmed any process globally to motivate the "system" to find alternative fuels and energy sources with their politicizing and social power quest. I see the AGW (UN/IPCC) clan hiding behind this natural climate change event and using it all as a front to instill their one world socialist government agenda and claiming they can instill a utopian world where everyone can live equally. This evidenced here by several of the PhD's and other Pro AGWist here, admitting that they are of that mindset and believe it is the only manner that man can "fix" this dooms day event and save the future of mankind.

Fact is, their computer projecting science/models which they base so much of their premise on, has so obviously failed. Their modeling process has lost any credibility to be utilized in any policy making process. The new AR5 clearly indicates such to the point that many PRO AGW gov'ts are demanding that the 15 year "hiatus" be completely removed from any language in the upcoming report for fear that it will negatively affect the upcoming 2015 International C02 Emissions Treaty. Many of these gov'ts have a deeply vested economic interest in seeing that treaty signed.

Bottomline, I see it as nothing more than a move to shift the world to a new socialistic way of life. Dissolving any idea of, as ED H stated, independent way of living in a world that supposedly no longer contains nor affords any area nor resources to do so. And the only manner to "fix" this issue is to immediately implement their economic policies which include heavy taxation and penalizing the energy creating "Industries" as well as the FF producers. In doing so, this will drastically affect the consumers globally and very quickly turn the current worlds fragile economical structure, up side down. Fact.

I see that ideology as completely skewed and absolutely contrary to any premise and ideals in which this country was founded upon.
dirtbag

climber
Sep 19, 2013 - 10:42pm PT
I see the AGW (UN/IPCC) clan hiding behind this natural climate change event and using it all as a front to instill their one world socialist government agenda and claiming they can instill a utopian world where everyone can live equally

zzzzzz...dumbass

Stick to chasing trout, and leave thinking to the big boys and girls.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Sep 19, 2013 - 10:46pm PT
Bottomline, I see it as nothing more than a move to shift the world to a new socialistic way of life.

progress
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Sep 19, 2013 - 10:59pm PT
Good post The Chief. That really sums up so many people's denial of AGW, and for so many other issues as well.

An opposition based on a such a misrepresentation of the majority of the other side that it is really quite delusional.

If you think the majority of people on the other side think this way no wonder you are attempting to fight the good fight and do whatever it takes and think whatever it takes to support your position.

But in reality less than 5% of people (probably like 1-2%) in the US want a socialistic way of life. This whole global domination thing is really tin foil hat territory. Yes there a few percent of crazy liberals utopians who think like that but the vast majority of people concerned about global warming are normal people who believe it's less expensive to deal with lowering CO2 now than to deal with the effects of global warming later.

What's really frightening is not the less than 5% of the population that is far left liberal kooks. It's the 15% that are far right conservatives and the super rich, greedy bastards paying to get no compromising ideologues in government.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:08pm PT
What's really frightening is not the less than 5% of the population that is far left liberal kooks. It's the 15% that are far right conservatives and the super rich, greedy bastards paying to get no compromising ideologues in government.

Tin foil you say? If the above was the case, Mr. Obama would not been elected in 2008 nor re-elected again last year.

Goes both ways does it not.

Again, it is all been sooooo over politicized globally, that the "real" long lasting viable solution making process has been dropped somewhere along the way. I say some 15 or so years ago when it went political. What we currently have in the way of alternatives are just a bunch of temporary band aids. Nothing more.

The current obvious battle of who is right and who is wrong has indeed taken over the solution finding process that ALL humans on planet earth can live with. No just the select "5%" or so that are claiming their way is the only viable solution in saving mankind and no discussion to the opposite is allowed.


But in reality less than 5% of people (probably like 1-2%) in the US want a socialistic way of life.

Today's House vote on the "Food Stamp" issue pretty much says different.

"A near-record 47.76 million people, or one of seven Americans - received food stamps at latest count."
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:26pm PT
Chiloe it is good to see you taking your turn to repel the barbarians at the gate. Once again, I think it indicative of the dire straights the CAGW gang finds itself in that working scientists involved in, or in sympathy of this troubled excuse for a science, spend considerable time and effort defending it on this relatively backwater blog. I see you cited abstracts of three comparatively recent papers that attempt to cast doubt on the accepted lag of CO2 to temps. I also see the lag still stands. Ian Plimer and other earth scientists write extensively of many different proxies, from all over the world, confirming the lag, so even if is explained away by nonglobal warmings and coolings in antarctica, or transient bubbles of air in the ice cores, their is still a world full of proxies still in want of explanation. It is generally agreed that the mythical molecule is both a forcing agent (sensitivity declining) and feedback which acknowledges that temps precede increased atmospheric quantity. Which brings in to question the ratio of the increased atmospheric CO2 from natural feedback versus that than can reasonably attributed to man. I know you guys say this is all settled, but their has been several challenges to this ratio as well as residence time in the atmosphere-one paper reduces it to 5.4 years. Finally, is their adequate explanation of the oddity of past glaciation periods with very high (like 3000 to 8000 ppm) Co2 concentrations, like the Ordivician?

JEleazarin- I don't think it is such a devilishly difficult equation. If you suddenly abandon the energy mix powering modern civilization in favor of wholly inadequate renewables you will have an economic catastrophe of biblical proportions. Thank god the Aussies recognized and rejected it in time. The Spanish, German and British people have all had about enough too. So also goes part of eastern Europe. Did you know that the good old U.S. has reduced emissions far more than any country without ever ratifying the treaties? This is a result of a mixture of CO2 awareness coupled with the NG boom. If we return to sensibility this country will have a booming industrial economy again if we go completely CO2 crazy it is a return to the stone age.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:33pm PT
what would we be without wishful thinking?
just apply antiscientism principles. <br/>
just apply antiscientism principles.

Credit: robogeisha
jonnyrig

Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:35pm PT
Wow. I dint realize it was a choice between being a liberal socialist or a christian conservative.

Tell you one place where the effort to clean things up is a ridiculous compromise- diesel engines. Did you know some of them directly inject fuel into the exhaust pipe in order to heat the catalyst and the exhaust filter? It burns the soot, converting it to ash that plugs the filter much more slowly than soot. So now you have an engine capable of 20mpg getting 10mpg. But hey, the air is cleaner. We trade that for burning twice the fuel.

Its ok though, because if you believe what SOME scientists say, its really not fossil fuel. Its still growing today. Sure, fine. Just one question- is it growing at a faster rate than consumption? No? Best buy a horse and some grazing land for yer great grandkids, cause some day the oils gonna run out. Then the sh#t really starts, and people will be so worried about other issues they wont have time for climate change.

Ok, maybe not in your lifetime, but hey... screw your progeny. They can figure it out for themselves.

In summary, we're doing it wrong.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:38pm PT
I have a question for the climate change denialists posting on this thread:

What core value of yours is the fulcrum from which you position yourself on climate change?

Jeezuz H christ I've been trying to squeeze this out of them for ages and you pop it to them like that and all of a sudden Chuff starts singing like a mocking bird! Excellent. Good work. You see everybody? The science don't mean jack. They are raving lunatic wing nuts and we'll have to pry their guns out of their cold little claws.
jonnyrig

Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:41pm PT
Tell me there arent wingnuts on both sides...
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:42pm PT
This is a revelation for you? That these guys put their ideology ahead of everything? That they're unhinged, gone round the bend??????

Don't argue with madmen.

DMT
jonnyrig

Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:43pm PT
How do you decide which science is bullshit and which is, well, scientific?
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:50pm PT
How do you decide which science is bullshit and which is, well, scientific?

If it's from a blog surreptitiously funded by a large corporation, it's likely BS
If it's from a scientist outside his/her field, it's likely BS
If it can't be reproduced by other scientists, it's likely BS

If it's published in a good, peer-reviewed journal, it's likely good science
If the authors are from a good university, it's likely good science
Messages 13441 - 13460 of total 25932 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews