Global Warming




Global Warming has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is Global Warming just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other oppressive policies?

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”

After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on […] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009

For an environmental insider’s view on the “Green Agenda” and its background and motivations check out The Green Agenda. Also read Lew Rockwell’s Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

Likes(0)Dislikes(1)

2,943 Comments:

  1. intemperate language- tucci128 your intellect is truly awe inspiring and I ,m not being sarcastic.However to whom much has been given,much is expected.You are a teacher and a very important and influential person in the world of ideas as exemplified by these writngs.Belittleing those who arent as smart as you mi,ght not help them to engage and up their game and rally to the cause,thinking back to my days at school as an example.

    The future of the human race all over the world is at stake and we need as many people on the side of liberty as possible.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • @Allan from Skye - "You are a teacher and a very important and influential person in the world of ideas as exemplified by these writings."

      Gawd, no. I'm a country GP. I've got a lifetime's experience with people who have really "awe inspiring" intellects, and it's more than enough to grind my muzzle into the fact that I'm no great shakes "in the world of ideas."

      What little qualification I have as a teacher is summed up by the words "Associate Professor of Family Medicine," meaning I'm considered competent to keep most medical students and resident physicians from killing innocent patients.

      I'm absolutely NOT disposed toward "Belittling those who aren't as smart as" even I think I am. Patients and lay caregivers have undeniable rights, and there's damn-all you can do as physician that can't be undone by such people unless you can convince them otherwise.

      That understood, these lying Watermelon leftists pushing the fantastic baloney of the AGW fraud are not my patients, but actually have predatory designs upon the lives, the liberties, and the property of the peaceable population at large, INCLUDING my patients and their families.

      How am I to look upon them - and address them in public fora such as this one - except as dastardly peddlers of duplicity with arguable criminal intent in their every utterance?

      Does one use a moderate language when warning people that a step or two beyond cover will expose them to an enemy sniper? Does one temperately tell an innocent bystander that he's walking into the blast radius of a terrorist's IED? Does one respond with mild milksop tones when communicating with somebody who's entrusting his money to Jon Corzine or has preferred stock in a "too big to fail" corporation being "rescued" by Odumbo and his little ACORN elves?

      Think back on your "days at school," and meditate particularly on bullies and thieves.

      I don't know about you, but I'm one of the guys who used to beat the crap out of them in the defense of other kids' right to be left unmolested on the playground.

      Prissy "polite" folks don't like guys like me, but disillusioned socialist Eric Blair certainly seemed to have perceived our value.

      "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  2. with regard to comments by tucci128 and somewhat intemperate language contained within,although I dont think the intemperate languagei in any way helps him to win hearts and minds,if I had to choose between a highly intelligent neighbour that used intemperate language but that was honest and true and a neighbour that was the soul of good manners but who was want to employ third parties to take my liberty and money away from me by force I,d pick the rude fellow every time.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • @Allan from Skye - "with regard to comments by [Tucci78] and somewhat intemperate language contained within, although I don't think the intemperate language in any way helps him to win hearts and minds..."

      As I'd pointed out in an earlier post where I'd discussed the angry "intemperate language" used by a character in the movie *As Good As It Gets* (1997) to express her rage and hatred for those "Fucking H.M.O. bastard pieces of shit!", there are definitely contexts in which the use of such terms is not only appropriate but such that nothing else will do.

      I appreciate your decision to go with what is "honest and true" (which is what I strive to be) in spite of the undeniable fact that I'm a "rude" son of a bitch when dealing with these leftie-luser Watermelon dorks.

      Entirely as an aside, have you noticed yet that the inappropriate employment of the expression "ad hominem" in place of the simple word "insult" appears with great reliability among these "Liberal" fascists' online posts when it's never seen in the comments of libertarian or conservative folks?

      It's as if the "green on the outside, red to the core" 'viro scum are all working off some single set of instructions and talking points.

      Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy of logic, wherein a position in argument is attacked on nothing more than the supposed or real character of the person voicing that position.

      In the AGW kerfluffle, for example, you'll find these alarmist assholes commonly claiming that a "denier" whose comments they cannot rebut has been motivated by money paid them by "Big Oil" or "Big Coal" or some such other mercantilist faction, and for that wholly unproven reason, the skeptical disputant's observations and/or conclusions are to be dismissed.

      That's argumentum ad hominem.

      It seems to me that the abjectly incorrect mock-"intellectual" use of a Latinate expression - ad hominem - is a proclivity reliable among these evidently uneducated putzes because somehow they conceive that it gives them an air of intelligence, and they're desperate to SEEM capable of reasoned thought and articulation.

      Considering the contempt in which these idiots hold scientific and other forms of intellectual integrity, and their stone-headed persistence in peddling demonstrated deceit, with what other than the saltiest language is it possible to convey to these dishonorable and worthless lying bastids how thoroughly hateful they are correctly perceived to be?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  3. well said david andrew howard! very clearly and rationally put.Using my common sense(although admittedly it doesnt in fact seem to be common) It certainly appears to me that the case for AGW is grossly exagerated for reasons of political control and an underlying objective of global communist /socialist government.One only has to read the materiel printed by the UN and the Fabians which is is the public domain to see what a usefull tool sustainable communities was for the Soviets and could be for the new world order fans in attempting to achieve their odjectives.However I am of the opinion that they will fail again as they already have with the USSR and the league of nations to name but a couple of wheezes tried to date at great cost in human lives and human suffering.

    My spirits have been greatly lifted by the magnificent effort made by Ron Paul to bring these issues under scrutiny and out into the open and giving us a chance for our vote to actually mean something.

    Now,no matter what the result of the republican nomination process,something is moving irrestistably in the hearts and minds of men and the eye of sauron,s days of dominiation are numbered.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  4. Will tucci78 ever shut up? Just likes to hear himself talk, you can tell by the liberal use of "I" in comments. Serious inferiority complex he's trying to get over by dominating comment section. Is this all you do?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    • @Hempest - "Will tucci78 ever shut up? Just likes to hear himself talk, you can tell by the liberal use of "I" in comments. Serious inferiority complex he's trying to get over by dominating comment section. Is this all you do?"

      Jeez, just a few honest defenders of individual human rights and the scientific method and it's got you lying Watermelon propaganda-pushers puking all over the place.

      Well, this is pretty much what you "Liberal" fascists encounter in any online forum where you can't censor, block, and otherwise obliterate the comments of people whose observations and arguments you're haplessly, incompentently, stupidly incapable of addressing, much less countering.

      Why don't you pitiful mental and moral cripples just stick to your own worthless warmista Web sites where you can do your futile jerking-off without any threat of encountering intellectually robust rebuttal such as keeps demonstrating the utter fraudulence of what we'll laughingly refer to as your excuse for "science"?

      As for my alleged "inferiority complex," what a wonderful demonstration of your psychoneurotic projection. I've spent over sixty-five years being admonished to "dumb it down" in the presence of uneducated dorks like you leftie-lusers, and even when I do so, you poor sons of bitches can't keep up.

      Putzie, you're not suffering from an "inferiority complex." You're just inferior.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  5. DavidAndrewHoward

    I've been narrowing down my research in the last few weeks, as the reality appears to be in sharp contrast with the IPCC expectations. I have traced this to a single source, from a 1981 Congressional hearing onwards, James Hansen. He has invented a theory which although I am unqualified to analyse besides the little physics I learnt at school, claims that CO2 will cause a 'tipping point' of runaway positive feedback, which is the only possible way even a quadrupling to around 1200ppm could do more than a couple of degrees C maximum. Bear in mind it also reduces its power with concentration as it uses up its spectrum, and no one on earth can say what this point will be as it's never happened while we've been there to see it.

    Anyhow, pull his theory apart, and it relies on the ocean storing up the heat and then suddenly releasing it into the atmosphere. My own physics tells me if I sit in a warm bath it cools steadily. The sea is a huge bath and presumably all water must behave in the same way. It does not store heat like a battery and then at a point even Hansen has not dared to calculate let it all go. Secondly he claimed the CO2 increase would cause the oceans to evaporate, cause a lot more clouds and trap heat like the difference between a clear and an overcast night. He did not however factor in any delay. So with a 50% increase there is no sign of the feedback and no one has said there would be a delayed reaction here either. If you watch puddles after the rain they do not wait and then let the water evaporate suddenly, it evaporates evenly. That must also apply to the sea using the same principle. Thirdly tipping points apply to objects with mass moving over 50% of the balance point and falling. They could also just be applied to flash points and boiling points. But none apply to adding gas to the atmosphere.

    I then passed this along to my small team of scientists in my Facebook group, and all confirmed just by going to basic principles Hansen's theory does indeed break the law of conservation of energy, matter and equilibrium. Basically all of them. What he is proposing is physically impossible and 30 years since his initial claims we've had around 20 years of a small rise (within normal parameters) and then no rise since around 2000, or a few years earlier without the El Nino peak in 1998. Every single climate policy around the world is based on one man's theory, and none yet have realised what I have that it isn't physically possible. He is comparing the climate with explosives and chemical reactions and the substances involved are all actually inert otherwise they couldn't last long without combining to form something else.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    • (I'm responding here) lmao, he's our president honey... and once everyone realizes it, we can actually work towards progress; instead, everyone wants to fight everything he stands for, just because it's him. Some of the very same things many of you were rooting for are now the worst ideas ever, because he's the face of them. Meaning, nothing any of you say is credible, your opinions sway with the wind (or the corporations providing the funding for your favorite candidates). Now as far as your silly question, which you couldn't bother to research for yourself, we are already at unsafe levels. It shouldn't be higher than 350ppm.
      http://co2now.org/
      We know CO2 can be deadly, there's no question about that... that's why people use to trap themselves in running cars in enclosed garages to kill themselves. CO2 poisoning is real, not some insane liberal fantasy. Deciding the exact line where it dangerous versus lethal, is impossible, since there are many factors that come into play. Trees and plants help to remove CO2 from the environment, so a place with lots of trees might be less affected by the same amount of CO2 than a place with less trees and/or more people. Like politics, our technology is suppose to be a forward movement, constantly setting the bar higher and thinking about our future. It shouldn't remain stagnant just because a bunch of conspiracy theorists think the basis of the argument is a crock of shit. Even if it were (which it isn't, and it's obvious that it isn't if you actually look around), why wouldn't you want the bar set higher? Save energy, reduce pollution, so that our kids and grandkids aren't cleaning up after us for the next 100 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_poisoning

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  6. Tucci78 you said in one of your comments "

    The Hansen infestation at NASA notwithstanding, it seems that the Agency has been kicking the guts out of the AGW fraud more recently.

    See http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/"

    So many of your comments are well written and you seem to do a good job at providing links to support your statement. I personally am one who believes it's foolish and a bit dangerous to dismiss man's role in climate change as absolutely as you seem to, but I appreciate how well you articulate your argument. That is until I saw the above link you posted. I did not look at many of your links but happened to be familiar with that article by James Taylor at Forbes.com and know it to be based on a discredited study. Also, you make the same mistake in your comment that Mr. Taylor does repeatedly in his article by citing NASA as the ones dismissing global warming. It was their satellite and the data from it was interpreted by the authors of this discredited paper, not NASA "kicking the guts out of the AGW fraud". Mr. Taylor's article is quite silly and I was disappointed to see someone who had been making his argument relatively well throughout this thread use a poor source to support his view. It makes me question your other sources, as many of the others in this thread have already. I love healthy debate though so, even though I don't agree with you, keep fighting the good fight, just use more credible sources, there are plenty for both sides of this argument to use so we can avoid bullshit bloggers like James Taylor. If your interested here is a link talking about the junk paper Mr. Taylor used to write his garbage:

    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. Tucci78 you said in one of your comments "

    The Hansen infestation at NASA notwithstanding, it seems that the Agency has been kicking the guts out of the AGW fraud more recently.

    See http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/"

    So many of your comments are well written and you seem to do a good job at providing links to support your statement. I personally am one who believes it's foolish and a bit dangerous to dismiss man's role in climate change as absolutely as you seem to, but I appreciate how well you articulate your argument. That is until I saw the above link you posted. I did not look at many of your links but happened to be familiar with that article by James Taylor at Forbes.com and know it to be based on a discredited study. Also, you make the same mistake in your comment that Mr. Taylor does repeatedly in his article by citing NASA as the ones dismissing global warming. It was their satellite and the data from it was interpreted by the authors of this discredited paper, not NASA "kicking the guts out of the AGW fraud". Mr. Taylor's article is quite silly and I was disappointed to see someone who had been making his argument relatively well throughout this thread use a poor source to support his view. It makes me question your other sources, as many of the others in this thread have already. I love healthy debate though so, even though I don't agree with you, keep fighting the good fight, just use more credible sources, there are plenty for both sides of this argument to use so we can avoid bullshit bloggers like James Taylor. If your interested here is a link talking about the junk paper Mr. Taylor used to write his garbage:

    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @cazjax - "I personally am one who believes it's foolish and a bit dangerous to dismiss man's role in climate change as absolutely as you seem to...."

      I don't "dismiss man's role in climate change," but rather the unsupported contention that any such role is played by the emission of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) as the result of burning petrochemical fuels.

      The notion was extraordinary when it was first bruited about circa 1974, and I thought it preposterous when it was brought to my attention in 1981, an overstatement by at least three orders of magnitude (probably more) of any such possible effect of a trace increase in a trace "greenhouse" atmospheric gas.

      This is the mechanism by which the Watermelon alarmists seek the plunder of the world's economy and the destruction of industrial civilization.

      As for Taylor's use of "a discredited study," I appreciate your correction. I confess that I had been tickled by the notion that this manifestly corrupted federal agency had actually strayed into scientific rectitude.

      I should have known better, of course. As part of the federal executive branch, NASA was (and is) completely in the control of our Mombasa Messiah, and therefore as thoroughly untrustworthy a source of information as anything else influenced by our "Liberal" fascist Fraudulence-in-Chief.

      Anent "credible sources," look carefully on the AGW fraudsters' side, where you will find NOTHING upon which you can rely among these charlatans and their dupes for intellectual integrity in your examination of this subject.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      • @Tucci78 I apologize for suggesting that you dismiss man's role in climate change. You are quite clear in your posts and I should not have made that assertion.

        I consider myself very open-minded and always explore both sides of any issue I choose to find interest in. I've particularly enjoyed reading this thread as it is opening up a great deal of awareness for me personally on both sides of the issue of AGW. I'm a physical therapist and admittedly unqualified to debate from a scientific standpoint one way or the other. Ignorant in that regard, I have only the means to arrive at an opinion through writings and interpretations of those who are able to analyze the scientific data and relay it in ways a layperson, such as myself, will understand. You certainly seem to have a great deal of understanding about AGW and I have appreciated reading your opinions as you make your points in ways I can understand. However, as I mentioned in my original comment, I find myself on the side that believes aCO2 does play a role in climate change. You've mentioned in other comments there is not scientific evidence of the case, but it seems there is. The following is a link that offers several studies showing the absorption properties of CO2:http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

        So I can have a better understanding of this issue and if you don't mind, can you elaborate on your point that there is no evidence, perhaps provide a link to a site that is similar to the one I provided but with studies showing other conclusions. In questioning you I do not intend to offend you nor do I dismiss your opinions. My aim is to acquire an understanding of this issue greater my currently poor one attained through, most likely biased, media coverage and politicians with agendas. It may seem odd, but I often find I'm able to reach a greater understanding of an issue, not through articles, but rather the comments section of articles pertaining to fill-in-the-blank issue. Folks, such as yourself, that have not only an understanding, but a strong opinion, discussing/debating/arguing with those with an equal understanding but opposite opinion provides a nice opportunity to shed light on a subject, to see the "big picture". I apologize for asking you to play the role of educator, but your posts suggest you are passionate about this subject and I feel someone like yourself can help me become more knowledgeable about AGW. Thank you in advance for your time, I look forward to any and all information you are kind enough to offer.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • @cazjax - "I'm a physical therapist and admittedly unqualified to debate from a scientific standpoint one way or the other."

          Like hell you are. I'm just a country GP myself, and none of the physical therapists with whom I've ever worked have been dimwits.

          The Watermelon propaganda site you'd been suckered by is perpetrating suppressio veri, suggestio falsi (the suppression of complete and truthful information in order to lead the victim to a conclusion contrary to fact).

          The author of this 2009 (note: pre-Climategate, most recently updated in February 2010) Web page discusses nothing except what are effectively only LABORATORY measurements of carbon dioxide absorption properties. This really ought to have clued you in.

          The Earth's atmosphere is an extremely complex system with nonlinear responses to a great many interacting physical, chemical, and biological inputs, the majority of which you'll discern had been left unconsidered in the studies cited.

          While much is made by the coordinated cadre of climate charlatans about alleged positive feedback mechanisms amplifying the miniscule energy absorption induced by aCO2, NEGATIVE feedback mechanisms known to work in the atmosphere IRL are for the greatest part simply ignored.

          See for example http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-one-flaw-that-wipes-out-the-crisis/

          (Again I resort to Australian science educator Joanne Nova's work. On your cited Web site note one commenter's hatred and dread of Ms. Nova's efforts. Her pre-Climategate *Skeptic's Handbook* [available by way of http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/#handbooki ] is also well-suited to your purposes in trying to understand the real - and utterly insignificant - effects of aCO2 in atmospheric heat energy retention, putting the facts of the matter in language that doesn't require an undergraduate degree in meteorology to understand.)

          A physical therapist works at all times in the environment of the real world, and understands that the "laboratory" results machined for publication in the physiatry literature are commonly incongruent with what you see in your own practice, among your own patients.

          Same thing here.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          • Sorry to take so long to respond. Your comment struck a nerve as you inferred I, not only lied about my career, but am also dimwitted. Neither should matter if you were able to offer a sound argument. As I have mentioned, I have found your comments to be well stated, so much so that I dismissed the abusive nature in the tone you tend to speak with. I have followed plenty of threads on a variety of topics and know those who speak with passion and conviction occasionally come across as arrogant. Personally, that is not enough for me to dismiss the substance of what one is offering. However, I have also found that there are times where those who are truly arrogant passionately scream with conviction that any who disagree is wrong (in your case "wrong" is interchangeable with alarmist, fascist, supporting "watermelon propaganda", and whatever else you throw out there in place of sound argument). I will admit right now, I was very close to being sucked in by AGW propaganda, it's just not propaganda from the side you ignorantly bark those who disagree with you must have fallen for. It was from the skeptic side, your side, you. I spent a great deal of time over the past couple of days trying to grasp a better understanding of this issue, most of which I did with the nuggets of knowledge you've treated us with on this thread. No scientific support for AGW is your theme. WTF! That is absolutely false! Disagree with the studies that have shown it, but do not suggest there is none, there is quite a bit. I apologize for not providing links at this point but will do so tomorrow ( I've had a long day not being a physical therapist). I did check out the joannova link you provided as well as looked into her "skeptical handbook" you suggested. I admit, I have not read it her book. That being said, it does not seem to be a book with very much scientific support. In addition, you dismissed my "watermelon propaganda" site link, but offer a link that can be argued is AGW skeptic propaganda. Again, I apologize for not providing you with links but, after I get some sleep, I will provide them to hopefully get your thoughts what I've found. Please keep in mind in any response you provide, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND why you feel/know/dismiss AGW. James Taylor and Joann Nova seem to have agendas (Mr. Taylor for sure, I'm not sure about Mrs. Nova but from what I've found I feel it's fair to state). In addition to what I'm sure will include your typical abusive, name calling, childish fluff, pass on a site listing some studies debunking this AGW myth. Judging by your numerous posts, this will be extremely difficult for you. Perhaps it will help to keep in mind that I AM NOT SAYING YOU ARE WRONG. What I am saying is stop being a douche, calling all who question a (fill in the blank name those without sound argument pull out of their ass), and offer something more substantial. Saying something like there is no evidence (which there is, if there wasn't this wouldn't be an issue would it?) or any evidence provided clearly has an agenda, is weak sir. Anyway, I can hardly keep my eyes open but eagerly anticipate your response. I will put together some links for your consideration tomorrow morning and hope you provide some mine. Good night sir.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. I feel like this "consensus" argument needs to be posted again, as more than 31,000 scientists have signed the petition against the man-made global warming fraud, of which over 9,000 have PhDs. You have to wonder if they are all wacko scientists as the AGW proponents claim. Or is it an anti-AGW conspiracy? Ooh... This site lists names of these individuals and they are not ashamed of their positions like many AGW proponents who hide behind an institutional umbrella.

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  9. The United States was founded upon the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Protection and conservation of the natural environment we ALL share is much more important than ensuring corporate shareholders. If your idea of happiness is fracking your way to billions at the expense of my life, happiness, and tax dollars, then you are violating these principles.

    No single person or company shall lay claim to our air and water- so why are we allowing big corporations to do just that? Want to talk about human rights? Corporations have been violating those for decades.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    • @robotron - "No single person or company shall lay claim to our air and water- so why are we allowing big corporations to do just that?"

      Oh, that's easy to answer.

      Because stupid sons of bitches like you have demanded that both federal and state politicians be given powers far in excess of those prescribed in the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of the several states, enabling those politicians to VIOLATE "the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (actually, in most of these charters and other documents, it's the rights to life, to liberty, and to property) because you "Liberal" fascists have - generation after generation - conceived it to be to your purposes to fuck your innocent neighbors out of everything they have.

      Politicians being almost without exception whores prepared to sell themselves to anybody with enough money, they've naturally snuggled up with those "big corporations" you claim to hate so much (though I'm sure you don't mind George Soros and David Suzuki and other similarly well-heeled "Liberal" fascists buying government influence to fuck over THEIR customers and competitors).

      You dickwads just don't seem to realize that when you disarm the protections built into the Constitution and the other bases of civil government under the rule of law in order to force your shit down your victims' throats, what you get is lawlessness by which YOU get fucked over, too.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      • @Tucci78
        John Locke came up with "... and property." Thomas Jefferson wrote "... and the pursuit of happiness" into the final copy of our Declaration of Independence. Know your shit before you spew it.

        Again, I will remind everyone that crony capitalism (not the Adam Smith kind) is precisely why we're stuck in a rut with fossil fuels- and why Monsanto has gobbled up the livelihoods of sustainable farmers.

        You're so full of shit it's coming out your ears. You're a corporatist fraud masquerading as a pro-market libertarian.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @robotron - "John Locke came up with "... and property." Thomas Jefferson wrote "... and the pursuit of happiness" into the final copy of our Declaration of Independence. Know your shit before you spew it.

          "Again, I will remind everyone that crony capitalism (not the Adam Smith kind) is precisely why we're stuck in a rut with fossil fuels- and why Monsanto has gobbled up the livelihoods of sustainable farmers."

          Much as I'd like to give my colleague, Dr. Locke, credit for having come up with "...and property," he wasn't the originator of the concept that human beings have an unalienable and necessary right to property. He was simply - in the *Two Treatises* he published anonymously in 1688 - responsible for one of the best-known articulations of the idea.

          I'm aware that Jefferson and the other members of the Second Continental Congress chose to re-word the statement in the Declaration of Independence despite the fact that "...and property" had been explicit in the Declaration of Colonial Rights (October 14, 1774) issued by the First Continental Congress as well as in the precedent Virginia Declaration of Rights authored by George Mason.

          As for "crony capitalism" and Adam Smith (*The Wealth of Nations*), what you're describing with the former expression is precisely the kind of mercantilism against which Dr. Smith inveighed in his 1776 book.

          It's not so much that we're "stuck in a rut with fossil fuels" but that petrochemicals fuel technologies continue to be the most cost-efficient means of providing an industrial civilization with energy generation. That's very much a function of the laws of thermodynamics, and when you've come up with a way to repeal those laws, you'll be sure to let all of us know, won't you?

          Oh, yeah, and this eternal Watermelon fixation on Monsanto (do you hate glypho specifically, or are you just brainfucked about their "Roundup Ready" genmod seed strains?).

          Insofar as I've been able to determine, most of what's objectionable about Monsanto is their "crony capitalism" employment of government influence to screw their consumers and their competitors, and there doesn't seem to be all that much in this regard that can't be much mitigated by getting Monsanto's bought politicians to hellangone out of the agricultural marketplace.

          Would you care to explain a bit more about your babbling animosity pertinent to Monsanto?

          Not that it has a goddam thing to do with "Global Warming."

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  10. @Swedish guy - "I understand that by just looking at carbon dioxide you can probably fool yourself into believing that global warming is a hoax."

    No, it's not a hoax. A hoax is "...a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth" ... "without the intention of gain or of damaging or depriving the victim."

    This "greenhouse" AGW hoo-rah is actually a fraud, defined in criminal law as "...an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.... The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent 'discoveries', e.g., in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain."

    As regards the "Cargo Cult Science" practitioners peddling the AGW fraud, it's definitely for "immediate monetary gain" as well as "prestige." See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf (and this item only catalogs their peculations up 'til 2009, pre-Climategate 1.0).

    Regarding both carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH3) greenhouse gas effects you're utterly and completely screwed. To whatever extent either of these atmospheric components induce such an effect, empirical evidence runs counter to the premises in which you've uncritically invested your confidence.

    For example, analyses of the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) satellite information has shown that the observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity.

    Not positive - as your AGW fraudsters have yammered, but NEGATIVE.

    Authors of the earliest (2009) analysis - Lindzen & Choi, GRL - even compared the ERBE satellite data to the behavior of 11 computerized atmospheric models based on the premise of "greenhouse" forcing by the same sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and demonstrated that the purely theoretical models displayed much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from the actual instrumental data obtained by way of the ERBE observations.

    The disconnection from objective fact among the AGW alarmist charlatans is simply a hideously BAD excuse for science, and what you're retailing is the result of "...an opposition between fact and bad theory, a case of empirical reality versus abstract principles that purport to define the way things work but don't." (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html).

    Dr. Simon wasn't discussing the AGW bogosity, but the interviewer's interpretation of Simon's position fits here quite nicely, doesn't it?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  11. Am a big supporter, but disagree strongly with Fox News lies. The National Academy of Sciences is like the Sports Hall of Fame for scientists. Check out their position on climate change issues.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    • @rhess595 - "The National Academy of Sciences is like the Sports Hall of Fame for scientists. Check out their position on climate change issues."

      This is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

      Were you familiar with the history of the sciences (and especially the history of medicine), you'd realize that you've gotten hold of one of THE most bogus excuses for an argument imaginable.

      I've already recommended the example of obstetrician Ignatz Semmelweis (you're online; look it up) and the iatrogenic conveyance of infectious disease in the years before Pasteur's germ theory was developed and accepted.

      "Established" authorities in the sciences tend reliably to be invested professionally, politically, emotionally, and - if we can use the word - intellectually in what they perceive to be "the consensus." Vanishingly few of them will ever be genuinely innovative or hospitable to ideas that run contrary to their prior work and/or their meal tickets.

      Especially (in this era of politically-dictated government funding for almost all "pure" scientific research in atmospheric physics and allied disciplines) those who know that they'll have to continue their reliance on taxpayer dollars allocated by whores in public office.

      Better to look to scientists with experience in the APPLICATION of scientific principles and investigative efforts that have to get correct results of they get fired.

      Physicist Jeff Glassman is one such, having worked for Hughes Aircraft in the development of missiles for the U.S. military (see http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/12/the-denizens-of-climate-etc/#comment-58816). Now retired, he's something of a regular in online discussions of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraud, and I recommend to you his Web log, http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/ where he archives and discusses his research on the subject.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      • @Tucci78@rhess595 Except that governments have been dragging their heels on he scientific consensus for years. The US/Canadian/British/Russian/Chinese etc etc etc etc have paid token gestures to the problem as outlined by these evil forces of established scientists. So your logic hurts my brain. It just doesn't compute. Science Academies and universities etc etc are towing a governmental line by perpetrating the climate change lie - but yet the governments continue to ignore the treaties and carbon ceilings etc.... Very bizarre way to conduct a conspiracy don't you think. Very uncoordinated.

        But let's leave that to one side for a second. Consistently to the point of deathly boredom you have asserted that this scientific consensus is a purposeful, willful lie. Correct? That is - it's a lie that they know to be untrue. Correct? Please a short answer for once on this question alone. thank you in advance.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        • @Shaman4@rhess595 - "Consistently to the point of deathly boredom you have asserted that this scientific consensus is a purposeful, willful lie. Correct? That is - it's a lie that they know to be untrue. Correct?"

          Yep. Vide infra, and then go dig through the C.R.U. correspondents' e-mails, especially those most recently made available in the open tranche of FOIA2011.zip ("Climategate 2.0").

          The "consensus" fraudsters not only had powerful doubts as to the validity of their cement-headed excuse for conjecture as to putative mechanism and effects of "man-made global climate change" but concerted the suppression of those doubts in order to ensure that their various allegedly independent statements were free of any admission of these misgivings, and keep their concerted politically motivated "message" devoid of any potentially disquieting deviations into honest scientific method.

          "Except that governments have been dragging their heels on he scientific consensus for years."

          Not really. The politicians (and their bureaucratic servitors) have never had any real interest in the factual aspects of the AGW scam.

          Heck, the overwhelming majority of them are lawyers.

          Almost without exception, said government thugs have acted on this issue out of nothing more than their perceptions of political expediency and personal advantage, endorsing or opposing the fraudsters' "We're All Gonna Die!" yowling as best served their respective purposes and the priorities of their "contributors."

          What, you expected anything better from people who have made the aggressive violation of individual human rights the purpose of their sordid, evil little lives?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        • @Tucci78@Shaman4@rhess595 Oh for fuck sake man. CAN YOU KEEP IT Straight for once in your miserable lonely basement dwelling life. Look Johny-no-mates just because your wife killed herself by inhaling next to her Sicilian in-laws don't take it out on the rest of us. STRAIGHT ANSWER - ONE SENTENCE PLEEEEEEEEASE!!!! Your position is 'the scientists know Climate Change to be a lie and are willfully perpetuating it with made up evidence that they also know is criminally fraudulent'. CORRECT?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        • @Shaman4@rhess595 - "...the scientists know Climate Change to be a lie and are willfully perpetuating it with made up evidence that they also know is criminally fraudulent'. CORRECT?"

          As I'd said, yep. Both the honest ones who've been speaking out in critical consideration of this preposterous alarmist crap AND the climate fraudsters themselves - among themselves - as can be seen in their email communications which make up the open tranche of FOIA2011.zip ("Climategate 2.0").

          Not "Climate Change" per se, of course, because ever since the work of meteorologist Hubert Lamb (see below) gained acceptance, it's been understood that the Earth's climate has changed - and will continue to change - within the scope of recorded human history, but rather the idiotic contention that the release into the atmosphere of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) has had or could ever have any statistically significant effect on such global "Climate Change."

          Do try to get all your shit in one sack, will you?

          What is it about what I'd posted above that keeps sliding past that dense knob of bone you use in lieu of a skull, doofus?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        • @Tucci78@Shaman4@rhess595 Jeez That's your idea of one sentence - you really are an old bag of putrid wind aren't you. Anyway try again - now PLEEEEEEASE just one concise sentence. What is their motive for perpetuating this criminal fraud en masse?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        • @Shaman4@rhess595 - "What is their [the AGW charlatans masquerading as "climate scientits"] motive for perpetuating this criminal fraud en masse?

          Lots and lots of taxpayer money as well as the undeserved prestige accorded these incompetent clowns in the dominance of an allegedly scientific discipline that had gained great prominence by way of politically-induced public hysteria.

          Are you familiar with the writings of H.L. Mencken, you flaming dipshit?

          "...the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."

          This gaudy AGW scam is merely a modern instantiation of this principle.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        • @Tucci78@Shaman4@rhess595 That is truely truely pathetic. You are charging them with criminal acts and that's what you claim is the motive??? Great prominence - If you were honest you'd know most scientists work in total anonymity even when they make great contributions to their field? Name 5 world famous (to the man in the street) climate scientists? Prestige - death threats, being accused by half the nut fucks like you out there of criminality & fraud, who the fuck would put themselves in that position unless it was a vocation? Money - The head of the IPCC gets paid exactly nothing for his work. You REALLY are stretching it now. Very fucking thin buddy. Come on now give us something substantive, how is it organised in such secrecy or do you have real evidence of mass communication? I want real tangible concrete motive why thousands of scientists all over the fucking planet would willfully take part in an elaborate coordinated criminal fraud of their own people? Give us your best shot you absolute waffler....

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        • @Tucci78@Shaman4@rhess595 Global Warming reduction efforts will:

          -Kill jobs in one area, while creating jobs in another area

          -Cost more now, be more cost effective long-term

          -Reduce pollution

          -Reduce deforestation

          -Reduce diseases that pollution such as coal dust, contaminated water, and radiation cause.

          -Reduce our dependency on foreign oil

          -Reduce our need to destroy land for things such as oil and coal.

          The benefits are astounding, yet you would rather die from a pollution induced brain tumor caused by coal mining, than allow your government to regulate the same corporations who have screwed the people of this country for far too long. You have fallen for their fear tactics, such as, 'we'll have to raise our prices, we'll move out of the country, we can't afford it.' lol, they got you.

          You say that people "created" this global warming myth, because they had something to gain. I say that people deny this global warming truth, because they have something to lose. Alot of the same people who refuse to acknowledge it, are invested in Big Oil and Coal or are finaced by big oil and coal companies or companies closely affiliated with them. Who's truth seems more reasonable? These scientists that you say are lying, can definitely be part of fixing the problem, so either way, they'd still have jobs. So, in other words, you make no sense. At the end, it seems you are the one that has been profoundly brainwashed.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        • @Shaman4@rhess595 - "That is truely truely pathetic. You are charging them with criminal acts and that's what you claim is the motive??? Great prominence - If you were honest you'd know most scientists work in total anonymity even when they make great contributions to their field?"

          Why do people like you rape dogs and sodomize corpses? Criminal mens rea varies so much among moral degenerates like you "Liberal" fascists....

          Not that I'm "charging them with criminal acts." It's agreed among H.M. government in the United Kingdom that Prof. Jones of the C.R.U. did very much commit a felony in evading the obligations of the prevailing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but that the absurdly short statute of limitations - 18 months - had already run before the crime was brought to the attention of the appropriate officers of the law.

          Now on the matter of CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY to violate the provisions of that law - revealed to the general public last November in the FOIA2011.zip email archive - there's been no expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, and there have been calls in the U.K. to pursue the criminal investigation of Prof. Jones and his accessories over the past couple of months.

          But scientists do NOT "work in total anonymity," you wonderful ignoramus. A critical element in each such person's curriculum vitae ("resume" to an asshole like you) is the creator's bibliography and other publication credits, and these very public credits are so important to reputation in all regards that it's quite common for many such credentialed critters to claim credit as authors in articles and textbooks to which they actually contributed no work whatsoever.

          It's something of a running sick joke in academic circles. Of course you, being a friggin' dolt, wouldn't know dick about what goes on in academia.

          Prestige and reputation determine promotion prospects AND facilitate the approval of government grants-in-aid for the alleged "research" undertaken by the AGW fraudsters. The ability of such a fraudster increases the value of even a complete hack like "Hockey Stick Graph" perpetrator Dr. Michael Mann to whatever institution carries him on the payroll, and helps to conceal the reeking smell of their incompetence.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        • @Ace81@Shaman4@rhess595 - "

          Global Warming reduction efforts will:

          -Kill jobs in one area, while creating jobs in another area

          -Cost more now, be more cost effective long-term

          -Reduce pollution

          -Reduce deforestation

          -Reduce diseases that pollution such as coal dust, contaminated water, and radiation cause.

          -Reduce our dependency on foreign oil

          -Reduce our need to destroy land for things such as oil and coal."

          All utterly unsupported assertions, with evasion of facts pertaining to the environmental as well as the financial costs of "creating jobs in another area" (unstated but obviously from the various "renewables" boondoggles, all of which have adverse environmental effects).

          And it's marvelous how you casually boast about your desire to "Kill jobs in one area" (offering those people whose "jobs" you want to "Kill" no goddam choice whatsoever) while "creating jobs" that objectively cannot survive except by way of political chicanery "in another area."

          You really are a fucking cement-head when it comes to the laws of economics, aren't you?

          As for how you idiotically propose to "Reduce our dependency on foreign oil," you betray even more hapless stupidity in that aspect of human action than you do otherwise. You know abso-friggin-lutely nothing about the petrochemicals reserve subject to extraction with available technology within the continental United States, do you?

          You're online, dipshit. As just one example of what we've got in our own country, look up "the Bakken."

          This "foreign oil" bullshit just won't wash anymore, putzie.

          There being no "truth" behind your fraud - because, of course, you assholes still cannot cite any EVIDENCE of statistically significant global warming as the result of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) emissions - just what the fuck do you keep spewing about?

          I'd say that you were yourself "brainwashed," but there's no indication that you ever had anything between your ears to work with.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          • Oh, so you don't believe we are fighting wars over foreign oil, because we don't want to dip into our reserve. So, now you believe that this country is so righteous and noble, that they really did go to war to try to help the people who were being held hostage by their own government. Lol, there are genocides taking place in Africa, slave labor all over China and U.S. territories, but, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, yeah those are the countries we focus on. smh.

            As far as your silly assertion that I'm okay with killing jobs in one area, that is what advancements in technology do. Everyday, people are creating things that destroy the need for other things and/or people. If going greener means one field dies while another prospers, oh well, that's life. Let's shoot automobile companies, because they killed the horse trade industry. Let's kill computer companies because they killed typewriter companies, or better yet, let's kill factory workers who put farms out of business. What you said, doesn't even make sense, and was a lame attempt at an attack towards me. Try again.

            It's funny that one of your arguments was, that if the climate is changing we need to adapt, but you don't seem to think we should adapt to technological changes. No, that should remain stagnant so that everyone can stay in the same exact jobs they currently hold, because Tucci says so. You are a babbling contradiction.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        • @Ace81@Shaman4@rhess595 - "'Liberal Fascists', huh? You really like to use that term."

          Well, you've quoted it incorrectly, doofus. "Liberal" (in quotation marks and capitalized at all times) because these authoritarian scum are the anthesis of genuine political liberals - who established the definition of the term in the 19th Century as denoting those who advocated the defense of individual civil rights against the usurpations and other transgressions of government thugs - and you've inappropriately capitalized the word "fascists," which was most notably appreciated to be the real political position of these "progressives" who had made the term "Liberal" a stench in the nostrils of honest men and women.

          This had been brought most prominently to recent public attention by conservative writer Jonah Goldberg in his 2008 book *Liberal Fascism*, of which I suspect you'd idiotically heard because of your use of inappropriate capitalization above.

          Write it simply as "Liberal" fascism and you've got it correctly.

          I employ such usage first because it is undeniably technically correct, and second because (as Mr. Goldberg demonstrated) it causes you advocates of government thuggery to squeal and howl and bleed from your nostrils and soil your skivvies.

          Disgraceful and ugsome, but everything else about you friggin' fascisti is so qualified.

          As for you in particular, you're really quite the completely predictable target, aren't you, doofus?

          For further

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  12. I agree 100% very well put as we have come to expect fromthe outstanding figure of our times

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Let's get one thing straight here. The biggest fraud of this century was the way the financial industry sucked trillions out of the real economies of the world to pay for gambling debts based on fraudulent financial devices and illegal practices of the most respected men in town. Non of whom will ever be held accountable for plunging millions of people into a lifetime of extreme poverty and all the humiliations and social erosion that goes with it. NOT the scientists who present Climate Change as a possible threat based on their research. (IF these scientists were involved in planned intergovernmental conspiracy to wrestle away your liberties they are doing a horrible job of it as the main governments seem to be ignoring climate treaty's as a matter of course and firing on ahead with oil wars, corporatism etc etc). So let's be big here and admit one thing. NONE OF US HERE know for 100% certain whether climate change is real or not. If you claim to you are a FUCKING FRAUD and a charlatan. No single scientist on either side has that breath of knowledge. So let's disregard the fantasist like Tucci78 and the likes that say people who are worried about what the scientists are telling us are involved in some kind of orchestrated lie that they knowingly peddle as a violence against their fellow man. Let's look at the dilemma itself as reasonable adults. I ask you reasonable adult commentators here to ignore the likes of Tucci's insults and posts completely as I believe they are a horrible waste of energy and time. So can we begin our debate by adressing this dilemma - Even if the scientific community was split 50 - 50 on the issue wouldn't that be enough to err on the side of extreme caution and do something about our fossil fuel dependency?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Let's get one thing straight here. The biggest fraud of this century was the way the financial industry sucked trillions out of the real economies of the world to pay for gambling debts based on fraudulent financial devices and illegal practices of the most respected men in town. Non of whom will ever be held accountable for plunging millions of people into a lifetime of extreme poverty and all the humiliations and social erosion that goes with it. NOT the scientists who present Climate Change as a possible threat based on their research. (IF these scientists were involved in planned intergovernmental conspiracy to wrestle away your liberties they are doing a horrible job of it as the main governments seem to be ignoring climate treaty's as a matter of course and firing on ahead with oil wars, corporatism etc etc). So let's be big here and admit one thing. NONE OF US HERE know for 100% certain whether climate change is real or not. If you claim to you are a FUCKING FRAUD and a charlatan. No single scientist on either side has that breath of knowledge. So let's disregard the fantasist like Tucci78 and the likes that say people who are worried about what the scientists are telling us are involved in some kind of orchestrated lie that they knowingly peddle as a violence against their fellow man. Let's look at the dilemma itself as reasonable adults. I ask you reasonable adult commentators here to ignore the likes of Tucci's insults and posts completely as I believe they are a horrible waste of energy and time. So can we begin our debate by adressing this dilemma - Even if the scientific community was split 50 - 50 on the issue wouldn't that be enough to err on the side of extreme caution and do something about our fossil fuel dependency?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Let's get one thing straight here. The biggest fraud of this century was the way the financial industry sucked trillions out of the real economies of the world to pay for gambling debts based on fraudulent financial devices and illegal practices of the most respected men in town. Non of whom will ever be held accountable for plunging millions of people into a lifetime of extreme poverty and all the humiliations and social erosion that goes with it. NOT the scientists who present Climate Change as a possible threat based on their research. (IF these scientists were involved in planned intergovernmental conspiracy to wrestle away your liberties they are doing a horrible job of it as the main governments seem to be ignoring climate treaty's as a matter of course and firing on ahead with oil wars, corporatism etc etc). So let's be big here and admit one thing. NONE OF US HERE know for 100% certain whether climate change is real or not. If you claim to you are a FUCKING FRAUD and a charlatan. No single scientist on either side has that breath of knowledge. So let's disregard the fantasist like Tucci78 and the likes that say people who are worried about what the scientists are telling us are involved in some kind of orchestrated lie that they knowingly peddle as a violence against their fellow man. Let's look at the dilemma itself as reasonable adults. I ask you reasonable adult commentators here to ignore the likes of Tucci's insults and posts completely as I believe they are a horrible waste of energy and time. So can we begin our debate by adressing this dilemma - Even if the scientific community was split 50 - 50 on the issue wouldn't that be enough to err on the side of extreme caution and do something about our fossil fuel dependency?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Friedlon7 - "Let's get one thing straight here. The biggest fraud of this century was the way the financial industry sucked trillions out of the real economies of the world to pay for gambling debts based on fraudulent financial devices and illegal practices of the most respected men in town."

      No, not really. If we're discussing financial chicanery, the recently flourishing Vampire Squid types (at whose collective crotch the "Liberal" fascists' beloved Hubshi Halfling greedily suckles) are pikers compared to the Jeckyll Island coterie who shoved the Federal Reserve System down the nation's throat in 1913, with Richard Nixon thrown in courtesy of his 1971 "Nixon Shock" finalizing the decoupling of the U.S. dollar from even the illusion of specie payment.

      Let's keep some proper perspective in that regard, okay?

      As a person trained in the scientific method and in the practice of the medical profession (which depends heavily upon methodological integrity in scientific and clinical investigation), I suppose I'm inclined to consider the AGW fraud as particularly heinous because nothing of its like - and certainly nothing on the same scale - has ever happened in any of the sciences.

      The general economy has been manipulated, raided, hoaxed, pillaged, and generally screwed to death by government goons since records were being kept in cuneiform, and will always be so treated as long as mankind succumbs to the fantasy that government is a "necessary evil" as opposed to simply pure and absolute villainy.

      But the sciences were supposed to be kept grounded in objective reality, and thereby forced by confrontation with hard facts into a condition of honesty.

      By contrast, the damages done to the integrity of science by the AGW fraudsters over the past thirty years makes John Wayne Gacy look like Father Damien.

      Not to mention the exquisitely real international monetary damages inflicted, which have long since been calculated in the multi-trillion-dollar ranges and which are still ongoing despite the overwhelming tide of evidence demonstrating that the "greenhouse gas" blunder of the mid-1970s had become a thorough and undeniably concerted fraud well before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the scheming predators of the United Nations in 1989.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • @Friedlon7 - Oh, yeah. "Even if the scientific community was split 50 - 50 on the issue wouldn't that be enough to err on the side of extreme caution and do something about our fossil fuel dependency?"

      Nope. Your proposed forcible and viciously aggressive violation of individual human rights in order to compel innocent people to suffer your blankly idiotic error "on the side of extreme caution" completely, callously, and criminally dismisses the VERY real costs (both direct costs and opportunity costs) you and your co-religionists want to force upon your neighbors like the morally rotten rabid dogs you keep proving yourselves to be in this forum.

      Again and again, you "Liberal" fascist fucktards keep pushing this "precautionary principle" bullshit as if there were any justification whatsoever for the concept of "man-made climate change" by way of greenhouse gas effects induced by the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (aCO2) into the atmosphere.

      This in spite of the fact that all empirical (and validated) EVIDENCE continues to run contrary to the unspeakably brain-dead conjecture that's supposed to be the "scientific" basis of this whole preposterous flaming idiocy you keep squealing about.

      Were there a shred of demonstrably confirmed EVIDENCE that your concern were based in factual reality, you unspeakable asswipes have yet to pull it forth from between your flabby buttocks and wave it about.

      This is strong presumptive indication that you've got no basis upon which you can ever hope to persuade your intended victims to impoverish themselves and their families on the basis of your "precautionary principle" bullshit, and all you've got left is your confidence that government goons will do it for you by way of armed thuggery.

      Had you anything resembling reasoned argument to offer, I've got to conclude that you stupid sons of bitches would've tried it.

      You haven't, ergo you never will. And therefore to hell with you.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • @Tucci78 @Friedlon7 Human rights violations? You're full of shit. Between deforestation removing trees that would reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, population increases, and technoligical advances that call for the burning of fossil fuels, its obvious we're screwing with mother nature. Reducing degorestation, becoming less dependent on fossil fuels and setting stricter guidelines as far as population is not an attack on human rights, it's healthier for the environment, no matter what you say (which isn't much other than insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you), the attempt to reduce global warming is good for our planet, and definitely not an attack on human rights. You're an extreme lunatic.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Human rights violations? You're full of shit. Between deforestation - removing trees that would reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, population increases, and technological advances that call for the burning of fossil fuels, its obvious we're screwing with mother nature. Reducing deforestation, becoming less dependent on fossil fuels and setting stricter guidelines as far as population is not an attack on human rights, it's healthier for the environment, no matter what you say (which isn't much other than insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you), the attempt to reduce global warming is good for our planet, and definitely not an attack on human rights. You're an extreme lunatic.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81
          Word!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 - "Human rights violations? You're full of shit. Between deforestation - removing trees that would reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, population increases, and technological advances that call for the burning of fossil fuels, its obvious we're screwing with mother nature."

          Yet another of your spectacularly stupid bad choices, doofus. In the factual reality from which you and your co-religionists have decoupled yourselves, "deforestation" does not occur without REforestation, and in fact purposeful human action to cultivate more trees has tended reliably - all over the planet - to have resulted in increases in forested area.

          I had directed attention to a 1993 interview with "doomslayer" Julian Simon (at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html ) who spent much of his life really pissing off Watermelon assholes like you and your co-religionists by examining catastrophist caterwauling and proving it invariably wrong.

          Discussing in that interview the reforestation of - for example - 90%-deforested Puerto Rico which has re-forested quite nicely:

          ===

          "It's the difference," [Dr. Simon] says, "between a speculative analysis of what must happen versus my empirical analysis of what has happened over the long sweep of history."

          The paradox is that those abstract principles and speculative analyses seem so very logical and believable, whereas the facts themselves, the story of what has happened, appear wholly illogical and impossible to explain. After all, people are fruitful and they multiply but the stores of raw materials in the earth's crust certainly don't, so how can it be possible that, as the world's population doubles, the price of raw materials is cut in half?

          It makes no sense. Yet it has happened. So there must be an explanation.

          ===

          Thus your "deforestation" yammering has similarly been shown to be bullshit, and none among your zombie ranks have yet been able to challenge any of the observation of EVIDENCE which runs counter to your beloved blank idiocy.

          Even though Dr. Simon died in 1998, he's still plaguing you blithering idiots.

          Ain't that just delightful?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • @Tucci78 Once again you prove how hypercritical you are. I posted a link from 2007 and you acted as though it was too old to be vaild,m but here you go posting crap from before 98 and it's suppose to be credible. lmao, you fool!! http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 Once again you prove how hypercritical you are. I posted a link from 2007 and you acted as though it was too old to be valid, but here you go posting information from before 98 and it's suppose to be credible. lmao, you fool!!

          http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 - "Human rights violations?"

          Yep. What else can be the results of your "Liberal" fascist Watermelon bullshit pushing for the implementation of government policy - in other words, aggressive violent force used in coercion against innocent human beings to compel them to make changes in their activities which are neither of benefit to their well-being nor ever likely to be undertaken voluntarily - except violations of their unalienable human rights to life, to liberty, and to property?

          Now, we all know that "Liberal" fascist fucktards like you grabby, smarmy, stupidly self-absorbed Watermelon assholes wander through life with wholly unjustified delusions of competence and a sense that nobody is ever allowed to question your psychotic noise, but - just as with "man-made global climate change," objective reality trumps your sick, twisted, perverted little fantasies.

          Your "attempt to reduce global warming" by forcing your neighbors at government gunpoint to pay increased costs for literally everything they and their families need to live (food, clothing, housing, heat, clean water, EVERYTHING) because you arrogant little ignoramuses believe - in the religious sense - that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) induces "global warming" is demonstrably both impossible and damaging to your victims.

          As a matter of fact, should they turn on you and do to you what you so richly deserve, libertarian though I am, I'd have to consider it both justifiable homicide and a needful promotion of public health.

          Starvation and other forms of material privation, y'see, predispose people to all kinds of morbidity and mortality, and that's what you alarmist assholes are trying to inflict upon the whole species of H. sapiens.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • @Ace81 - "...here you go posting information from before 98 and it's suppose to be credible."

          No, asshole, it was published in 1993. Dr. Simon passed away in 1998. His observations and predictions, however (unlike those of your "consensus" AGW fraudsters masquerading as climate scientists) continue to prove robust.

          The observation of such reliable predictions is the definition of a scientific assertion's validity, and such validity is precisely what is lacking in your beloved and utterly bogus "man-made global warming" conjecture.

          To the surprise of nobody except those duped by you Watermelon idiots, the places where reforestation is being curtailed tend to be those where the "biofuels" scam is being perpetrated (see http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/biofuel_issues.pdf ) and where poor people in the Third World have been prevented from "decarbonizing" - which results reliably from the substitution of petrochemical fuels like methane for firewood and dried animal dung - by the political machinations of you "Liberal" fascist transnational progressives.

          To quote again from that interview with Julian Simon:

          "What's unstated in all this is that when you deforest, you go to zero, that you go to pavement. That's how I put it, that 'you go to pavement.' This is why people get mad at me, because at this point in my talks I show a slide of pavement, but the pavement has weeds growing through it. I can take you to places of abandoned roads in the rain forest that have trees growing out of them."

          To the extent that people are not interfered with in their efforts to gain access to energy by way of means like petrochemical fuels, the benefits more than justify the costs (both direct and opportunity costs) they sustain as the result of purposeful and/or simple laissez-faire reforestation.

          Not that you blithering jerkwads will ever get that simple fact.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 Oh so now cost of living is your defense? lmao, you're priceless and reaching. Fossil fuels are actually more expensive than renewable energy sources long-term, and, bonus, we won't be going to war over oil anymore, so another big expense avoided.

          Your reading comprehension is lacking, I said "before 98" and you quoted it correctly and then proceeded to make an ass of yourself, which has become the norm with you.

          You seem to want to murder anyone who doesn't believe your lies, and they are, everything you state is opinion, everything you post links for, is also opinion. Just because a few people have the same opinion, doesn't make it fact. However, seeing forests being cut down, seeing and feeling the crazy behavior of the weather, seeing the pollution caused by car exhausts, trash that can't be recycled, factories releasing black smoke into the air... that's real. Nothing you say is evident, but you want indisputable scientific evidence that global warming doesn't exist. Get your head out your ass, go outside and see the damage being caused. There will always be disputes in science, we are disproving what was once known to be scientific fact on a regular basis. And sorry, but adapting to the global warming you say doesn't exist isn't an option, if we can slow it down. You want us to adapt to the pollution, disease, loss of land, etc., it's not just about the temperature idiot, it's about what the rise in temperature will cause as well as what will happen if the pollution gets out of hand. Real simple, your whole argument is ridiculous, you're wrong, I'm right, have a nice life.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78

          Oh so now cost of living is your defense? lmao, you're priceless and reaching. Fossil fuels are actually more expensive than renewable energy sources long-term, and, bonus, we won't be going to war over oil anymore, so another big expense avoided.

          Your reading comprehension is lacking, I said "before 98" and you quoted it correctly and then proceeded to make an ass of yourself, which has become the norm with you.

          You seem to want to murder anyone who doesn't believe your lies, and they are lies, everything you state is opinion, everything you post links for, is also opinion. Just because a few people have the same opinion, doesn't make it fact. However, seeing forests being cut down, seeing and feeling the crazy behavior of the weather, seeing the pollution caused by car exhausts, trash that can't be recycled, factories releasing black smoke into the air... that's real. Nothing you say is evident, but you want indisputable scientific evidence that global warming doesn't exist. Get your head out your ass, go outside and see the damage being caused. There will always be disputes in science, we are disproving what was once known to be scientific fact on a regular basis. And sorry, but adapting to the global warming you say doesn't exist isn't an option, if we can slow it down. You want us to adapt to the pollution, disease, loss of land, etc., it's not just about the temperature idiot, it's about what the rise in temperature will cause as well as what will happen if the pollution gets out of hand. Real simple, your whole argument is ridiculous, you're wrong, I'm right, have a nice life.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78

          Oh so now cost of living is your defense? lmao, you're priceless and reaching. Fossil fuels are actually more expensive than renewable energy sources long-term, and, bonus, we won't be going to war over oil anymore, so another big expense avoided.

          Your reading comprehension is lacking, I said "before 98" and you quoted it correctly and then proceeded to make an ass of yourself, which has become the norm with you.

          You seem to want to murder anyone who doesn't believe your lies, and they are, everything you state is opinion, everything you post links for, is also opinion. Just because a few people have the same opinion, doesn't make it fact. However, seeing forests being cut down, seeing and feeling the crazy behavior of the weather, seeing the pollution caused by car exhausts, trash that can't be recycled, factories releasing black smoke into the air... that's real. Nothing you say is evident, but you want indisputable scientific evidence that global warming doesn't exist. Get your head out your ass, go outside and see the damage being caused. There will always be disputes in science, we are disproving what was once known to be scientific fact on a regular basis. And sorry, but adapting to the global warming you say doesn't exist isn't an option, if we can slow it down. You want us to adapt to the pollution, disease, loss of land, etc., it's not just about the temperature idiot, it's about what the rise in temperature will cause as well as what will happen if the pollution gets out of hand. Real simple, your whole argument is ridiculous, you're wrong, I'm right, have a nice life.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 - "Oh so now cost of living is your defense?"

          What d'you mean "now," shit-for-brains? Applying the intellectual integrity of scientific method to the examination of economic reality is congruent with the same principles with which I've approached the pure fraudulence of the AGW contention.

          Your parroting of the "peak oil" panic is completely at odds with the realities of petrochemicals exploration, discovery, and extraction.

          But you certainly know that already, don'tcha?

          One of the reasons why you "Liberal" fascist fucktards keep sputtering and squealing about dirigible deep hard-rock drilling, fractional casing perforation, and hydraulic fracturing (subsumed under the slang term "fracking"). That half-century-old technology employed on the expanding range of discovered reserves - especially in the Bakken - promises so reliably to drop the consumer costs associated with petrochemical fuels and feedstocks that your bullshit about "renewable energy sources" becoming cost-competitive is simply flushed off the board without leaving more than your stench behind.

          As for any desire on my part to "...to murder anyone who [keeps pushing] your lies" (correction applied), it's not MY wish that you get what you deserve.

          Just my prediction that it could well happen. It's a risk you Watermelon assholes don't seem to realize that you're taking.

          Threaten people's well-being by deliberately, maliciously, and to no possible benefit pushing up their "cost of living," and they'll continue in increasing numbers coming to the conclusion that social comity and good civil order will benefit substantially by your precipitous removal.

          My personal inclination is to lean back and watch it happen to you, though I'm not beyond cheering them on.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • @Tucci78 If cost of living is your biggest issue, wake up, cost in living has been artificially rising for decades, due to a lot of other things. And stop acting like trees and oil aren't issues, they are, they do not produce as rapidly as they are being used, therefore, if we don't slow down our dependency on fossil fuels and trees, the cost of anything affiliated with these things will rise dramatically, thereby increasing the cost of living... but what makes it worse, is that now we'll be fighting even harder for basic necessities, not just paying more. You are fighting a fight you can't win. Cost of living will rise either way, so, do we allow it to rise a bit now and save our earth, or do we allow it to rise later and do nothing about the damage? The former, seems to be more sensible. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a better environment, and asking that the government hold the corporations (not individuals) to higher standards. Our cities do it regularly, some require recycling, taxes pay for that... and that's okay, definitely better than the alternative. You seem to think that anyone who thinks something should be done about global warming, should be shot, because they are essentially allowing the government to control their lives, it's an absurd analogy. I don't speak for everyone, but I;m sure I speak for many... we want stricter regulations on the corporations, we want less dependency on fossil fuels, we want clean and renewable energy, we want them to stop cutting down forests, it's not that difficult to comprehend. Believing we need to do something about global warming, doesn't mean we are looking for more taxation on pollution, it means we don't want the excess pollution or the loopholes that often come when there is too much money in government.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78Needless to say, that doesn't mean we should ignore the situation altogether. It is a very real situation. Our government should regulate corporations, through labor laws, pollution laws, sexual harassment laws, etc. We the people, should be more involved in making sure they aren't passing laws with loopholes for these corps, but that's the other side of this topic. Global warming, is real and evident to anyone who looks around. Mountaintops are being cut off for coal mining, icebergs are being used for bottled water, trees are being cut down for everything (even though there are many alternatives such as hemp and bamboo), technology is killing us, everything requires energy, but we're using bad energy, energy that pollutes, creates disease, destroys land, and isn't renewable (which means it will get more expensive as it runs out). Seriously, you are a threat to the health of this world, you should be shot. lol, smh. You should get out more.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 But herein lies the reason why the likes of Tucci get so mad. The Libertarian ideology at some point must clash with Climate Change philosophically. The puritan ethic of libertarianism evolved out of radical individual responsibility before God. The opposite to Catholic vision where rich men could not enter the kingdom that the poor would inherit. In Puritanism the rich were virtuous and deserved and the poor were wretched because of their immorality and sinfulness. Eventually this evolved to the extreme American traditional value on property rights and the sacrosanct ownership by the individual whereby any damage or encroachment to said property was a most severe violation. If the tea party and the libertarians admit to GW - corporations, factories, industrialists will be guilty of an extreme violation of this basic puritanical principle. They will be breaking their own most dearly held law. THEY CANNOT face this dilemma so they expend heaps of dollars and energy distracting, waylaying, delaying, blurring the argument. As I keep saying to understand the likes of Tucci forget the psuedo-science argument. It's a total waste of your time and energy looking up his ancient out of date sources and wacky experts. (The first reference he pointed me towards were a fucking economist and a fucking guy who worked for the mining industry. Conflict of interest anyone?). Just look at their ideology and you'll understand everything you need to know. Creationists are the same. They have a belief and they fashion the science to fit that rather than looking at the science and forming your opinion form there.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Shaman4@Ace81 - "But herein lies the reason why the likes of Tucci get so mad. The Libertarian ideology at some point must clash with Climate Change philosophically. The puritan ethic of libertarianism evolved out of radical individual responsibility before God."

          Schmucklet, just what the hell do you THINK (if you think at all) you know about libertarianism, anyway? Have you read anything of our literature, either online or in print?

          Surely not Heubert's recent (2010) *Libertarianism Today* (http://blog.mises.org/13292/huebert-is-here/) or any of the many other books (see Stephen Kinsella's listing and links at http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2010/07/16/the-best-introduction-to-libertarianism-ever/ ) readily available.

          No such tie-in with any sort of dedication to the Great Sky Pixie or any other hallucination of divine ordination.

          Writer L. Neil Smith boils the whole libertarian philosophy down to this:

          ===

          A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

          Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

          ===

          The way in which I "clash" with the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraud "philosophically" is in these pseudoscientists' violations of scientific method - in other words, the philosophy of science.

          Again and again and again - as you keep squirming and whining and shitting your pants to evade - your idiocy has no EVIDENCE behind it. None thirty years ago, none today, and no sign of anything remotely like EVIDENCE coming forth at any time in the next thirty or forty or a hundred years.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • @Ace81 - "Needless to say, that doesn't mean we should ignore the situation altogether. It is a very real situation."

          Okay. If it's "real" (much less "very real"), you've got to have objectively verified EVIDENCE of both the existence of the "situation" and the comparatively less pathogenic higher-priced alternative sources of chemical feedstocks and fuel derived from petrochemical sources.

          "Global warming, is real and evident to anyone who looks around."

          Sure, it's "real and evident." It simply isn't man-made.

          It's the real cause of the global warming that's been going on all over the solar system at a slow, more or less steady rate for the past three centuries or so. See http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_JGlassman_SolarGlobalWarming.pdf

          If you're proposing that your victims - i.e., the majority of the innocent human population of our planet - be forced by government thugs to abandon the presently most cost-efficient means of accessing the material and energy resources provided by petrochemicals, you're obliged to demonstrate that you've got something that fulfills the requirements of a real cost-benefit analysis to replace petrochemicals extraction and uses.

          If you have such a proposition - instead of just the frothing, senseless, Watermelon asshole hysteria you keep screeching - you're obliged to trot it out and present it persuasively.

          Persuade, you stupid putz.

          I know that anything other than extortion and pillage is beyond your pitiful excuse for a skills set, but let's presume that you vest any value in voluntary choice among the people you're trying to fuck over, and see what you've got in the way of persuasive discourse.

          Not that there's a nitrocellulose hound's chance in hell that you can do it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • @Ace81 - "Needless to say, that doesn't mean we should ignore the situation altogether. It is a very real situation."

          Okay. If it's "real" (much less "very real"), you've got to have objectively verified EVIDENCE of both the existence of the "situation" and the comparatively less pathogenic higher-priced alternative sources of chemical feedstocks and fuel derived from petrochemical sources.

          "Global warming, is real and evident to anyone who looks around."

          Sure, it's "real and evident." It simply isn't man-made.

          It's the real cause of the global warming that's been going on all over the solar system at a slow, more or less steady rate for the past three centuries or so. See http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_JGlassman_SolarGlobalWarming.pdf

          If you're proposing that your victims - i.e., the majority of the innocent human population of our planet - be forced by government thugs to abandon the presently most cost-efficient means of accessing the material and energy resources provided by petrochemicals, you're obliged to demonstrate that you've got something that fulfills the requirements of a real cost-benefit analysis to replace petrochemicals extraction and uses.

          If you have such a proposition - instead of just the frothing, senseless, Watermelon asshole hysteria you keep screeching - you're obliged to trot it out and present it persuasively.

          Persuade, you stupid putz.

          I know that anything other than extortion and pillage is beyond your pitiful excuse for a skills set, but let's presume that you vest any value in voluntary choice among the people you're trying to fuck over, and see what you've got in the way of persuasive discourse.

          Not that there's a nitrocellulose hound's chance in hell that you can do it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@Shaman4 lol, so now we're arguing about libertarianism? You are deluded. I in no way, shape or form am affiliated with any one party. The idea that your thoughts are predefined for you by the party you associate yourself with is beyond comprehension the most ridiculous thing you've said. I make my decisions based on the facts of each situation, I make them for myself. You should refrain from making assumptions about people. Go to sleep, you have just embarrassed yourself.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@Ace81 There you go again rewriting history in your own image. Why don't you answer the fucking question I asked you - "That is truely truely pathetic. You are charging them with criminal acts and that's what you claim is the motive??? Great prominence - If you were honest you'd know most scientists work in total anonymity even when they make great contributions to their field? Name 5 world famous (to the man in the street) climate scientists? Prestige - death threats, being accused by half the nut fucks like you out there of criminality & fraud, who the fuck would put themselves in that position unless it was a vocation? Money - The head of the IPCC gets paid exactly nothing for his work. You REALLY are stretching it now. Very fucking thin buddy. Come on now give us something substantive, how is it organised in such secrecy or do you have real evidence of mass communication? I want real tangible concrete motive why thousands of scientists all over the fucking planet would willfully take part in an elaborate coordinated criminal fraud of their own people? Give us your best shot you absolute waffler...."

          By the way interesting that an advocate like yourself of extreme anal-centric injury to people with opposing opinions should suddenly start quoting non-violent tracts. You are one confused and lonely individual. You're life is summed up by this whole thread in which you've been entirely abandoned to fight your mad little corner like the frothing mad-dog that you are. What happens when you're in a bar with your friends and one disagrees with you? Do you call them dip-shit, immediately try to ram your beer bottle up their ass? Disregard that question as it's too fantastic a scenario to imagine you have anyone would willingly put themselves in that situation. You are ALWAYS at our beck & call, aren't you mad-dog? No Friends? No wife? No Life? Endlessly sitting in front of your screen frothing...

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 - "If cost of living is your biggest issue, wake up, cost in living has been artificially rising for decades, due to a lot of other things."

          Nope. As I've made it quite clear again and again, my "biggest issue" is the rank duplicity of the "consensus" con artists violating scientific method by way of their "Cargo Cult Science" antics.

          That notwithstanding, the political economics of the AGW fraud are inescapable, and I'm perfectly willing - as you "Liberal" fascists are not - to discuss them. In this as in all else, you're completely screwed.

          The funny thing about "cost of living...artificially rising for decades" is that such is true primarily if one fails to adjust for - among other things - the rate of currency counterfeiting by the Federal Reserve System and the tax gouges perpetrated by federal, state, and local government thugs exceeding their lawful scope of activities under the various charters which prescribe their authorities and responsibilities.

          As human ingenuity has kept effecting improvements in productivity (only to have such productive improvements in material well-being thieved away by government and the crony "capitalists" working schwanze-in-condom to screw the citizenry), the real costs - as opposed to inflated dollar-denominated prices - of goods and services has continued to experience declines.

          Those of us in the general population don't see the benefits of these productivity increases because they've been accompanied by increasing rates of thievery by way of taxation, currency inflation, and restrictive regulations all of which have profoundly adverse impacts upon our quality of life.

          YOU may claim to "...want stricter regulations on the corporations, ...less dependency on fossil fuels, ...clean and renewable energy" and the rest of your Watermelon masturbation factories, but what is it that your fellow Americans want?

          Or are you so sure of what they DO want that you dare not give them any chance to voice their objections to your arrogant scheming?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • @Shaman4@Ace81 "I want real tangible concrete motive why thousands of scientists all over the fucking planet would willfully take part in an elaborate coordinated criminal fraud of their own people?"

          Interestingly enough, the AGW charlatans making up the magical "consensus" make up only a small and relatively well-defined cadre of credentialed con artists. Pry your head out of your ass and look into the details of the "Climategate" communications (you're plainly too stupid to know what you're reading in the "hockry stick graph" climate simulation programming or the doctored datasets), particularly the open tranche of emails in the FOIA2011.zip archive released a couple of months ago. Fascinating stuff, and the word "incriminating" is not used unreasonably.

          That these conniving incompetents should "willfully take part in an elaborated coordinated criminal fraud" isn't at all difficult to understand. There's simply no way that they could gain professional prominence in any objectively valid scientific investigation, and one only has to have some insight into the motivations of anybody seeking a career in academia to understand what drives such people to the perpetration of duplicity in order to falsely gain the respect and other rewards associated with the appearance of real achievement.

          You're obviously such a blithering idiot that nobody could mistake you for someone with academic experience or even an education of any kind, but the history of academia is rife with such fraudsters. We've suffered a bunch of 'em in medical research, and that's not even mentioning the deviations from scientific integrity perpetrated by the clinical investigators working for the pharmaceuticals manufacturers.

          Care to look up a guy named Andrew Wakefield sometime?

          As for your perpetual evocation of shitty incontinence, is that MY fault?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • @Tucci78@Ace81 "'deforestation' does not occur without REforestation, and in fact purposeful human action to cultivate more trees has tended reliably - all over the planet - to have resulted in increases in forested area."

          ARE YOU FOR REAL?? You're a lying sack, or incredibly ignorant of reality. I have SEEN massive deforestation with my own eyes- both recent and from a century ago. Temperate forests are meant to encounter fire to rengenerate, but are not meant to be clear cut. You apparently do not know anything about sustainable forestry- which is a much better way of harvesting lumber. The US lumber industry has moved towards sustainability which has not only saved forests, but increased yields- while preserving these precious resources for the future. The Amazon is incredibly different. It has, and is continuing to be clear cut and burned for agriculture. This practice is incredibly destructive. The Amazon accounts for nearly half of the planet's remaining rainforest and is being cut down at a rate of over 8,000 sq mi /yr. About 18% of the forest has been destroyed for short-term agriculture and turned into cattle pasture- which also increases the amount of methane released into the atmosphere. In additon, the Amazon has experienced severe 100-year droughts in 2005 and 2010.

          Humans DO have an effect on the environment. Sometimes good and sometimes bad. Sometimes we don't know the difference until somebody notices or finds out by mistake. You're intentionally pooh-pooing environmentalism for no other reason than to get "cheap" gas out of shale and to ignore the plight of the world's forests guilt-free. Calling AGW a fraud and saying fracking has no detrimental impact to the public is outright bullshit. Get your head out of your ass. Seems you're already used to the smell.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @robotron@Ace81 - "The Amazon is incredibly different. It has, and is continuing to be clear cut and burned for agriculture. This practice is incredibly destructive."

          And, of course, if experience with the tropical rainforest in Puerto Rico is demonstrative of the natural process of reforestation, the clear cutting and burning undertaken in Brazil (where the people have a government that we Americans do NOT control) can be swamped swiftly by jungle re-growth with a few years of forbearance.

          More rapidly if the locals have any incentive to purposefully facilitate that reforestation. Now, how d'you think that the Brazilians might get such an incentive? Would denying them access to cheap petrochemical fuels do that?

          Heck, the Brazilians are growing sugar cane on much of that cleared land just to create "biofuel" ethanol with which to run their cars and other motor vehicles.

          Nobody on the skeptical side of this discussion denies that "Humans DO have an effect on the environment."

          It's simply that with regard to the AGW fraud, there is no EVIDENCE that we induce any significant global climate change by way of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) emissions.

          Interestingly, one of the observations made by way of scrupulously honest economic study is that as resources become more accessible at lower real cost (as opposed to prices denoted in fiat currency units), the "luxury" of environmental improvement becomes more practicable of attainment, and the benefits of Amazon reforestation will be perceived as relatively more valuable than the clear-cutting of such lands for agricultural purposes.

          Why, you nominally environmentalist Watermelon scum really ought to be doing everything you can to increase access to (and lower the costs of) petrochemical fuels all over the world.

          It's good for the planet you hypocritically profess to love so much.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • DavidAndrewHoward

          @Ace81 OK, can you answer this question (one your president has so far managed to avoid), at what point does CO2 in the atmosphere go from being an essential factor for life in the carbon cycle and become a pollutant? I insist you answer this with a clear figure or range as without such information what have you based your assertion on?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. After all as Carl Sagan said we can't afford to conduct an experiment with the planet because we have only one. Even if it was 70 - 30 in favour of denial wouldn't it still be logical to be cautious? If 30% of experts in the field said that in 2 years a huge comet would hit the earth and cause mass extinction if we did not spend trillions on a defense system. Of course there would be those who would say it would be a total waste of time and money and it's some kind of conspiracy to defraud us of hard earned money via a 'comet tax'. Would you say 'let's take our chances that the 70% are right'? How reasonable is it to ignore all this evidence and all these warnings from the profession that in all other aspects of our lives from quantum physics, energy, medicine, communications etc etc etc we trust implicitly. That is the noblest of all professions - SCIENCE. Since when did they become so malevolent??? Since they have dared to stumble into the arena of politics with this unfortunate discovery that may possibly shake up the way we do things? Since they encroached on the ideology of consumerism? Remember the last time they were vilified so violently was when they encroached on religious belief and inherent in that fact is the core, for instance Ron Paul's stance. This science feels like an attack to those who hold dearly the ideology of capitalism. And before you waste your time calling me a communist. I am a capitalist but I also trust scientists to have the best intentions even when they are sometimes wrong. Are we willing to take the chance that the comet is a lie?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Friedlon7 - "After all as Carl Sagan said we can't afford to conduct an experiment with the planet because we have only one. Even if it was 70 - 30 in favour of denial wouldn't it still be logical to be cautious."

      As stated, this is the error of the precautionary principle, advance to evade the obligation to provide EVIDENCE-supported proof of your manifestly insane desire to obliterate industrial civilization and consign to poverty and death the majority of the human race.

      How the hell long do you think that the present human population can be sustained without the combustion of petrochemical fuels?

      I know that you Watermelon assholes have neither intellectual nor moral integrity, but have you any sense of self-preservation? Do you appreciate the fact that what you are proposing to do to innocent people is more than sufficient justification for them to seek you out - privatim et seriatim - and dismember you slowly in public ceremonies of vengeance?

      "If 30% of experts in the field said that in 2 years a huge comet would hit the earth and cause mass extinction if we did not spend trillions on a defense system," they'd be obliged by skeptical critics to provide EVIDENCE of their contention before any such expenditures were undertaken.

      Were they genuine "experts in the field" of orbital mechanics, they'd have locked down that EVIDENCE before uttering the alarm of which you speak, and would be expected to present it in full.

      Contrast this with the utterly fraudulent "consensus" of shamans and charlatans upon whom you Watermelon sons of bitches rely - in psychotic denial of everything to be examined in the FOIA2009.zip and FOIA2011.zip "Climategate" archives - who have systematically coordinated the purposeful refusal to let anyone outside their coterie get access to the raw data upon which they'd supposedly predicated their alarmist bullshit.

      Not only criminally violating prevailing Freedom of Information laws in the U.S. and the U.K. but - in Prof. Jones' and Dr. Mann's email communications - demonstrably directing the destruction of such data as well as the emails they were using to coordinate these criminal activities.

      Hm. Have you warmista scum anything remotely resembling a conscience?

      I know you haven't got a brain to share among you, but I'd be interested to learn if there's even the least spark of morality flickering feebly anywhere in your ranks.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  17. @Grant Goldberg - [Much frothing rage, including:] "...but the Republican party has been hijacked by mental patients."

    Calm yourself, Mr. Goldberg. The Republican Party, in the main, is still controlled by scheming mercantilists whose priorities are the same as those of Henry Clay's "American System" of corporate welfare, currency debauchment, and systematic violation of individual human rights, with a sop thrown to the religious whackjobs.

    Dr. Paul's continuing career effort has been to contest these machinations, and it's only due to the "progressive" moral and political rottenness of the Democrat Party that he's been obliged to work within America's "court party" faction.

    Interestingly, when recently asked in an interview which prior American president he most admires, Dr. Paul immediately mentioned Grover Cleveland, a "Bourbon Democrat," and the man who rescued America from the Silver Panic of 1892, the worst secular depression to hit our country in the course of the 19th Century.

    On the subject of "man-made global climate change" (also known as the anthropogenic global warming fraud), be also consoled. It's an utter and schemingly concerted falsehood without either factual validation or any trace of sound scientific method in the whole gaudy multi-trillion-dollar edifice of theft and corruption.

    Scroll down a few pages in this thread and struggle through my previous posts. I particularly recommend links I'd recently re-posted to some layman's-level online publications created by Australian science educator Joanne Nova before the first of the continuing Climategate exposures (in 2009) of the clumsy flim-flam men masquerading as "climate scientists" in what our "Liberal" fascists have trying to peddle as "the consensus" in this scam.

    ===

    N.B.: the line in my post above should read: "...As has been observed in this forum and in other online venues where the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraudsters CANNOT censor and otherwise suppress...."

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  18. @Grant Goldberg - "And, for all you morons on here that think global warming is a hoax. Guess what? You're actually retarded. Carbon dioxide traps the suns heat, we burn fossil fuels that have as a byproduct carbon dioxide and the warming on planet matches the amount of greenhouse gases we are pumping into the atmosphere."

    Would that it were so simple.

    As has been observed in this forum and in other online venues where the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraudsters censor and otherwise suppress, the greenhouse phenomenon - to the trivial extent that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) induces such an effect in the Earth's atmosphere - has been noted and remarked to be of no significant consequence whatsoever.

    There has been no demonstrated EVIDENCE that proves aCO2 ever to have caused global warming, or to be capable ever of causing such "traps the suns heat" effect, and much genuinely scientific investigation demonstrating that the real drivers of the planet's changing climate are chiefly extraterrestrial (by way of variations in the sun's activity or the mechanics of the Earth's movement around the sun) or otherwise beyond the current ability of the human race to influence.

    As regards "the warming on planet matches the amount of greenhouse gases we are pumping into the atmosphere," you're succumbing to an earlier error (that correlation implies causation) and are obviously unaware of the fact that even correlation no longer obtains.

    Despite acceleration in the rate of aCO2 increase (look up "Keeling curve"), global average temperatures over the most recent past decade have either stabilized or have shown a decline, and the "trapping" of insolation thermal energy has dropped off significantly.

    Look beyond the AGW fraudster propaganda and you'll come to the happy discovery that you've been suckered.

    But you're right that it's not a "hoax." PIltdown Man was a hoax. This AGW duplicity is properly characterized as a fraud, a criminal theft of value by way of the knowing utterance of falsehoods.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  19. I've heard it from all sides, and am unequivocally convinced that AGW proponents' days are numbered. The farcical smokescreen which they conjure out of a Hegelian dialectic uses a boilerplate of fear and cult-like witchcraft to recruit an army that is seemingly void of cognitive abilities as even the most basic contradictions that even a child can understand cannot be fathomed. The last decade has seen a cooling trend in spite of increasing greenhouse gases. The sites below does a great job of discrediting this propaganda in simple language and easy to understand diagrams. It clearly shows that there is no science behind AGW and i'd laugh at this farce if it wasn't so intrusive in my life. It just angers me that these eco-zombies inhabit all corners of the globe trying to rape me of my liberty. I probably care about this planet more than most of these so-called eco-zombies because I like to bring to attention the more harmful environmental pollutions such as Round-up, GMO corns that produce its own Round-up and contaminate non-GMO crops, corexit, a banned substance which was used in the Gulf of Mexico, sunk the BP oil spill to the bottom contaminating all sea life, aerosolized aluminum oxide which can cause alzheimers, hormone disruptors in our foods and water, and hundreds if not thousands of known carcinogens allowed by the FDA and EPA to be manufactured by corporations which end up in our lands, air, water and food. Our individuality has been eroded by ineffective government agencies and this needs to change. These environmental violators would have long since disappeared if it wasn't for the very agencies which was there to protect us, but I hope we have learned through this experience that protection afforded by the US Constitution can work better as long as individuals were given proper attention to violations against them and not marginalized by corporate interests of the government. More regulations mean more problems. I prefer the doublespeak "less is more".

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    This book especially woke me up to Al Gore's lies. "The First Global Revolution" by Club of Rome,ca.1990~91, pg.75 "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the TREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING,...would fit the bill...The real enemy then is humanity itself." - The authors are probably laughing at the all the suckers that are buying into this charade.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. @john galt - "Having libertarian views it is a tough pill to swallow that manmade global warming does exist and is an issue."

    Console yourself. Anthropogenic global warming does NOT exist, and it's never been a scientifically valid issue in any way at all.

    The only thing that "should be done with [regard to] global warming" (if and when it happens; it seems to be pretty much in abeyance, probably for the next decade or two) is adapt to it.

    I invite you to start running through the posts aggregated on http://wattsupwiththat.com/ and other responsibly skeptical Web sites (Mr. Watts is pretty good at providing active links to other skeptical discussion sites as well as to the abjectly bogus "warmista" buckets of bilge onine) and read through science educator Joanne Nova's 2009 publications:

    1) http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf

    2) http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

    3) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

    ...as worthwhile introductory material for the honest layman not as yet familiar with the lack of factual support for (and the absence of theoretical validity in) the preposterous contentions at the root of the AGW fraud.

    Your "denial" of this intellectually and morally bankrupt conjecture is eminently sound on a scientific as well as a political basis.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× 6 = twenty four

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>