Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Namewithheld, Feb 9, 2012.
Now that is a valid point. The oft repeated claims about 1970's science are not. There was no such consensus in the 70's. There probably is today, but the consensus is more limited than claimed by many (eh, I'll give you "most") environmentalists. That said, Jim Imhofe style debate by ridicule is not helpful.
We learned the last time DC wont actually prosecute these people
You are correct. I was being sarcastic. Like I've said before, I'm more of a climate change agnostic than a "denier" or an alarmist. I'd like to see the issue handled intelligently and rationally. However, I see a lot more alarmism than anything else, and it's counterproductive.
I'd even be ok with making some changes too, but we do have to act like adults about it. If one side is sending out 14-year old Swedish girls to shame people with slogans, I'm not going to take them seriously. If one side says the world is coming to an end in 12 years but won't go along with nuclear power because over thousands or millions of years, things can go wrong with the waste, I'm not going to take them seriously, especially if they are OK with nuclear power for Iran but not for the West. If one side is freaking out about emissions in the West but cares little for them in China and India (who are far worse), I'm not going to take them seriously. They do have to act like rational adults for me to do that.
She may not be mentally ill, in fact, she almost certainly isn't. But assuming she actually believes the **** she spouted at the UN, her brain has been poisoned by left wing hogwash.
Michael Mann now blaming global warming for the rise of ISIS (instead of say, Obama) --
"ISIS formed in Syria in an environment where there was an unprecedented drought that forced rural farmers into the city where they were competing for food, water, and space....."
Michael Mann is super dishonest. When did Eastern Syria become a desert? When and why did the farmers start to move to the cities? How did that lead to ISIS?
Answers: Long before CO2 levels were significantly affected by burning fossil fuels. Not sure but probably much more complicated than 'muh global warming'. It didn't. ISIS started, which is documented, by Obama giving weapons to Al-Qaeda in Iraq after they had been defeated by the Iraqi-US-Sunni tribal alliance in North and West Iraq. Obama wanted to weaken Shia in the area and taking down Assad was the prescription given to him by the Deep State.
Michael Mann is making so much money off of propaganda these days.
Funny But I also wanted to add the winner emoji
Greta is just the latest Obama. Both tools.
It is effectively a concession by them that even they recognize their own arguments are not enough to carry the day, politically. And so the left is constantly looking for someone new to sell their bad policy who is beyond reproach. They will use anyone to achieve their ends. Such as (a) the black guy who got into Harvard -- If you disagreed with Obama, it was because you were a racist, or (b) the child - If you disagree with Greta, you must be some type of cruel pervert.
Isn't it funny you never actually see Soros himself out there trying to convince everyone that his ideas are the better way to go? Compare this to say Milton Friedman who unhaltingly faced down his critics in public and took the time to explain why his ideas were better.
What liberal faces his/her critics in public? Ever? They dont. They hide. Why? Because they are afraid. Afraid of being exposed. So instead they create human shields to be used, like Greta and Barrack. Who's next?
Guess which one is complaining their childhood has been stolen?
Damn, that's a good point.
Hollandtx, they need to fly those other kids pictured to Sweden and bus them to Greta's house and tell them all that she wants to keep them poor so she can keep what she has without feeling a little guilt. I would buy that documentary.
Question: If Democrats are against Fossil Fuels why do all their kids work for Ukrainian gas and oil companies?
Turns out there is a physical limit to how much CO2 can increase temperature in the atmosphere. We are 87% of the way there already. Global warming is a non-issue folks.
What if there is no Climate Emergency?
Unless you are afraid of a max. possible additional 0.33deg C of warming.
I saw this meme on Facebook.
I'm suspicious of memes like this, so I looked up Judith Curry. (I didn't have to look up Greta. We know who she is and what her level of expertise is or isn't.) She doesn't say it's all a hoax, but she is a skeptic. Furthermore, she is critical of the hysteria and stomping out of dissent on the issue.
However, it is true that Curry gets virtually no media attention at all. In fact, in 20 years of following this issue, I don't think I've ever seen a skeptical scientist given a platform on the issue.
When the issue is discussed, the overwhelming majority of the time, we don't see a scientist at all. We see a politician or an activist, and that person cites to selected parts of some scientific report or just yells at us like Greta does. Usually no dissent of any kind is shown, but if it is, it comes from a politician who basically gets bullied and shouted down.
If the scientific consensus on all points is so strong, then why not let the actual scientists engage? If Dr. Curry and others like her are so wrong, then let her get discredited. It shouldn't be very hard.
Right there with you. I do believe CC is a thing that we need to deal with but I don't believe the hyperbolic timeline that the left puts forth. But I would say that right now, the right needs to take advantage of the positions we hold and give a platform to the scientist that can articulate why it's wrong or even overstated. I don't see that happening from the right, so it leads me to believe that we don't really have many of these scientist that can/will refute CC.
I think there are ways to manage this challenge without command economy government overreach but the GOP needs to quit sticking its collective head in the sand.
Emissions are never going down. Look to Europe.
Judith Curry used to run the IPCC or something like it but retired because she was getting death threats and generally ostracized by a vast majority of her colleagues. She still plugs along though. Doing science. If you don't know her or Bjorn Lomberg or Roy Spencer among many others you should familiarize yourself with them.
Hey BrntOrangeStampede, no need to worry about CO2. The physics shows that there isn't much more warming even possible due to CO2 concentration. Unless you are worried about a 0.33C increase or less.
Thanks for posting this. Too bad math is hard.
Only hard for stupid people and climate activists (or should I call them science deniers?) who purposefully ignore the facts in their quest to undermine America's economy.
This was worse. Link.
Afterward, they celebrated by abusing alcohol, criticizing their fellow tribesmen seeking a better formal education, and dancing to the "Sun God".
Whether you are concerned with CO2 levels or not. An interesting energy alternative is Thorium.
Flibe Energy – Power the World
Other forms of nuclear should be pursued too. There are just so many ways good ways to produce energy that don't include solar PVs and wind turbines.
Agreed. We need nukes for baseload, since coal is foolishly being phased out. Using wind for baseload is moronic, as Griddy customers learned this summer.