Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30923 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31498 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, PHD, then POST the LINKS to these putative errors. And as I said elsewhere, the only references that count are to actual articles in scientific journals, not to denier (or supporter, FTM) blogs.
I'll tell you one prediction that's been modified: I remember when the prediction was that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free in September (peak melt) in 2050; then it was 2040, then 2030. Now it's 2020, & if you look at the raw volume data, it looks like it'll be gone by 2016 or 2017.
https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegro...
When do YOU think it'll be gone? Hmmm?
They have more graphs, but they don't change things:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepingui...
There's a whole thread on this forum on the fact that the Arctic permafrost is melting more quickly than expected. Of course because of the methane & its potency as a GHG, this is BY FAR the most worrisome sign we've seen anywhere in the world.
So - when the truly scientific predictions have been wrong, they've seriously underestimated how bad things are.
All the references have been posted over and again. Therefore- when the truly scientific "predictions" are correct we are back to scientific science fiction. Sorry unlike those out there with their crystal ball I could not venture a guess that would be scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31499 Feb 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>All the references have been posted over and again. Therefore- when the truly scientific "predictions" are correct we are back to scientific science fiction. Sorry unlike those out there with their crystal ball I could not venture a guess that would be scientific science fiction.
Perrhaps you don't feel you can venture a guess because you haven't bothered to learn the science. It's all there if you take the time to learn it.

BTW, my 2nd link wasn't posted before in exactly that form because they'd just updated it a few days before.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31500 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Perrhaps you don't feel you can venture a guess because you haven't bothered to learn the science. It's all there if you take the time to learn it.
BTW, my 2nd link wasn't posted before in exactly that form because they'd just updated it a few days before.
Sorry I don't have the time like you may have to learn scientific scienc fiction. Again thanks for the link will study if it's real science.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31501 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The main fantasy in play here is the hallucinatory, psychotic delusion that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It most assuredly is NOT free. It is potentially an almost incalculable future cost that our progeny will have to pay, potentially orders of magnitude larger than the national debt.
This psychotic delusion is shared by far too many people, & certainly by our governments. It has led government to impose horrendously distorting policies into the energy market.
In fact, ONLY government can mitigate climate change, & it's only way not to kill billions of people & avoid the loss of countless trillions of dollars in infrastructure. It's GOVERNMENT that gives billions of dollars annually to the oil industry. It's GOVERNMENT that fights trillion-dollar oil wars in the Middle East.
And, of course, it's errant government policies that don't allow the cost of burning fossil fuels, including emitting carbon into the atmosphere, into their prices. We've never had a free market for energy because the costs of burning FFs aren't included in the price: those costs will have to be paid by people in the future.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax would finally allow a free market for energy, making sure the cost of burning FFs would be included in their prices. It would remove ZERO money from the economy & add ZERO to the cost or size of government. In fact, government would potentially be much smaller & cheaper: no need for oil wars!
A carbon tax would mean the government wouldn't have to choose Solyndra vs another company; the market would decide. FINALLY, renewable energy technologies would be able to compete with FFs on a level playing field.
So, if we want to kill our children, we should just keep doing what we're doing.
How much does it cost you to exhale? You might fly once a year, but you always breathe, adding carbon to the atmosphere. So do your children and pets, humans must emit greenhouse gases or die.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas; don't hate chemicals. Use your mind, look at the experimental data, see how well the theory works. Climate change mitigation works perfectly in computer models but fail in the real world. The physical data shows climate change from man made greenhouse gas is insignificant, computer models use climate 'feedbacks' to amplify the greenhouse gas effect.

Don't be a fool, don't let your government sell you, they can mitigate climate change. Don't let government mitigate climate change on borrowed spending. Don't let politicians near your climate, if you have an ounce of sense.

Don't let them sell you, taxes are revenue neutral. Taxes are taxes and government spends money wastefully, one doesn't balance the other. A real revenue neutral carbon tax is what we have now, zero tax on emitted carbon dioxide. If you can create green, renewable energy, wonderful. If you can produce and use oil, coal and gas, that's even better. Don't be an energy dilettante, we need energy and fuel to produce, survive and grow.

Make your own decisions, if you believe reducing carbon emissions can sell, then sell it. I'm not buying, but your free to peddle pseudo science hype to your heart's content.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31502 Feb 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>How much does it cost you to exhale? You might fly once a year, but you always breathe, adding carbon to the atmosphere. So do your children and pets, humans must emit greenhouse gases or die.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas; don't hate chemicals. Use your mind, look at the experimental data, see how well the theory works. Climate change mitigation works perfectly in computer models but fail in the real world. The physical data shows climate change from man made greenhouse gas is insignificant, computer models use climate 'feedbacks' to amplify the greenhouse gas effect.
Don't be a fool, don't let your government sell you, they can mitigate climate change. Don't let government mitigate climate change on borrowed spending. Don't let politicians near your climate, if you have an ounce of sense.
Don't let them sell you, taxes are revenue neutral. Taxes are taxes and government spends money wastefully, one doesn't balance the other. A real revenue neutral carbon tax is what we have now, zero tax on emitted carbon dioxide. If you can create green, renewable energy, wonderful. If you can produce and use oil, coal and gas, that's even better. Don't be an energy dilettante, we need energy and fuel to produce, survive and grow.
Make your own decisions, if you believe reducing carbon emissions can sell, then sell it. I'm not buying, but your free to peddle pseudo science hype to your heart's content.
So we agree its all scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31503 Feb 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>How much does it cost you to exhale? You might fly once a year, but you always breathe, adding carbon to the atmosphere. So do your children and pets, humans must emit greenhouse gases or die.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas; don't hate chemicals. Use your mind, look at the experimental data, see how well the theory works. Climate change mitigation works perfectly in computer models but fail in the real world. The physical data shows climate change from man made greenhouse gas is insignificant, computer models use climate 'feedbacks' to amplify the greenhouse gas effect.
Don't be a fool, don't let your government sell you, they can mitigate climate change. Don't let government mitigate climate change on borrowed spending. Don't let politicians near your climate, if you have an ounce of sense.
Don't let them sell you, taxes are revenue neutral. Taxes are taxes and government spends money wastefully, one doesn't balance the other. A real revenue neutral carbon tax is what we have now, zero tax on emitted carbon dioxide. If you can create green, renewable energy, wonderful. If you can produce and use oil, coal and gas, that's even better. Don't be an energy dilettante, we need energy and fuel to produce, survive and grow.
Make your own decisions, if you believe reducing carbon emissions can sell, then sell it. I'm not buying, but your free to peddle pseudo science hype to your heart's content.
Nobody's talking about reducing our carbon emissions to zero; that's physically impossible. But a reduction of ~25% would be good,~50% would be very good, & ~75% would be outstanding. It'd only work if all of us did it, though.

I don't hate chemicals; I love them. I just want to understand what they'll do. Science helps us understand & predict what'll happen in the future.

EVERYBODY knows mitigation will be problematic after the CO2 is already emitted. Putting hydrates of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, e.g., in an attempt to increase reflective aerosols, could cause more harm than good. That's why it's so important to avoid emitting the CO2 in the 1st place.

You're just dead wrong when you say "...the physical data shows climate change from man made greenhouse gas is insignificant..." On the contrary, careful study has allowed us to understand the climate system & prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we are now the primary drivers behind climate change. Any other idea is PROFOUNDLY ignorant & arrogant at the same time, surely a dangerous condition.

My government is most assuredly NOT telling me to institute a carbon tax; I'm telling THEM. It may be the only way to reduce the numbers of our children we'll kill.

Let's imagine a large carbon tax that people pay during production or at the pump. ALL of that money can be returned to all legal residents on a monthly basis.

The government already has computers that spit out monthly checks. They already have inspectors to make sure people are paying taxes. The bureaucracy is already in place. They may not always know exactly who is where, but if people are getting money they'll be happy. At MOST, the overhead would be ~1%. OK, so it's "only" ~99% revenue neutral. Big deal.

People who are heavy carbon emitters would pay thru the nose, while low carbon emitters would literally get free money. It'd stimulate creative entrepreneurs to work on renewabe energy. There'd be no need for the government to try to choose a successful Solyndra; the market would choose, because renewable energy would FINALLY be competing on a level playing field.

Lastly you say "...a real revenue neutral carbon tax is what we have now, zero tax on emitted carbon dioxide..." This is the height of PROFOUND anti-scientific ignorance. It's just WRONG.

You are forcing our children to pay for your selfish waste. You are psychotically hallucinating that it's "free." What you are doing is orders of magnitude worse than our national debt. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31504 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody's talking about reducing our carbon emissions to zero; that's physically impossible. But a reduction of ~25% would be good,~50% would be very good, & ~75% would be outstanding. It'd only work if all of us did it, though.
I don't hate chemicals; I love them. I just want to understand what they'll do. Science helps us understand & predict what'll happen in the future.
EVERYBODY knows mitigation will be problematic after the CO2 is already emitted. Putting hydrates of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, e.g., in an attempt to increase reflective aerosols, could cause more harm than good. That's why it's so important to avoid emitting the CO2 in the 1st place.
You're just dead wrong when you say "...the physical data shows climate change from man made greenhouse gas is insignificant..." On the contrary, careful study has allowed us to understand the climate system & prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we are now the primary drivers behind climate change. Any other idea is PROFOUNDLY ignorant & arrogant at the same time, surely a dangerous condition.
My government is most assuredly NOT telling me to institute a carbon tax; I'm telling THEM. It may be the only way to reduce the numbers of our children we'll kill.
Let's imagine a large carbon tax that people pay during production or at the pump. ALL of that money can be returned to all legal residents on a monthly basis.
The government already has computers that spit out monthly checks. They already have inspectors to make sure people are paying taxes. The bureaucracy is already in place. They may not always know exactly who is where, but if people are getting money they'll be happy. At MOST, the overhead would be ~1%. OK, so it's "only" ~99% revenue neutral. Big deal.
People who are heavy carbon emitters would pay thru the nose, while low carbon emitters would literally get free money. It'd stimulate creative entrepreneurs to work on renewabe energy. There'd be no need for the government to try to choose a successful Solyndra; the market would choose, because renewable energy would FINALLY be competing on a level playing field.
Lastly you say "...a real revenue neutral carbon tax is what we have now, zero tax on emitted carbon dioxide..." This is the height of PROFOUND anti-scientific ignorance. It's just WRONG.
You are forcing our children to pay for your selfish waste. You are psychotically hallucinating that it's "free." What you are doing is orders of magnitude worse than our national debt. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Erratum:
I meant "psychotically hallucinating that it's 'free' TO EMIT CARBON INTO THE ATMOSPHERE WITHOUT RESTRAINT.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31505 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Erratum:
I meant "psychotically hallucinating that it's 'free' TO EMIT CARBON INTO THE ATMOSPHERE WITHOUT RESTRAINT.
Oops. I forgot to mention that only government can mandate carbon capture. It will always be more expensive over the short term to install carbon capture technology on coal, oil or gas fired power plants. It'll always be cheaper to persist in the psychotic delusion that it's "free" to emit just carbon into the atmosphere.

Yet if we can't get enough energy from conservation, renewable sources & revamped nuclear, our only choice may be burning fossil fuels with carbon capture.

Government is not the enemy. At least if we don't like what they're doing, we can vote them out.

Unless you're a large stockholder, OTOH, you don't get to vote on corporate behavior. Yes, you can take your money elsewhere, but ONLY if a strong government is doing its job & preventing monopolistic & oligopolistic behavior. They usually do well on the former, not so well on the latter.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31506 Feb 14, 2013
Taxes make us all better off. Infrastructure, schools, police, firemen, military make it possible for everyone to live a better life. Anti-tax folks are idiots.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31507 Feb 14, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Taxes make us all better off. Infrastructure, schools, police, firemen, military make it possible for everyone to live a better life. Anti-tax folks are idiots.
Yes. Taxes should be reasonable, & should only be assessed on those who have representation.("Taxation without representation is tyranny!") But they normally fund things that benefit all of us.

It's absurd to say government is always the enemy. We need both government & the private sector for the country to work. They each do some things significantly better than the other.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31508 Feb 15, 2013
Gov. as you call them is hired hands that should be workers at will and replaced. We the People are the Gov. and they are the politicians that are successfully selling this country down the drain.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31509 Feb 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
Gov. as you call them is hired hands that should be workers at will and replaced. We the People are the Gov. and they are the politicians that are successfully selling this country down the drain.
Every time you make government workers temporary (e.g. term limits for legislators), you diminish the power of government & increase the power of the oligopolistic private sector. Teddy Roosevelt, & the American people, knew this a hundred years ago. The government needs to be strong & independent enough to take on big business when it is necessary.

After decades of attacks, the government is much too weak to do the right thing to protect the people. The oligopolies are more powerful than they've been since the 1920s, maybe since the 1890s.

Remember, if we don't like our government, we can vote them out. Unless you're a large shareholder, though, you get no vote on corporate behavior. Yes, you can choose to take your money elsewhere, but ONLY if the government is doing its job, eliminating monopolistic & oligopolistic practices. A weak government, like we have now, can't do that job.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#31510 Feb 15, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee! I wonder why they bother to ventilate greenhouses?
To let in all that wonderful CO2 and to get the O2 out.
1 post removed
SpaceBlues

Cypress, TX

#31512 Feb 15, 2013
zander714 wrote:
The only thing the Global warming debate proves is how absolutely stupid and undereducated Americans are when comes to what "science" really is. I bet most people that have an "opinion" on this topic haven't read an actual science article from a reputable source in years.
It's understandable <in their defense> that they are trying to survive the everyday hassles and violence.

At some level, they realize wisely that scientists are at work somewhere in the world.
SpaceBlues

Cypress, TX

#31513 Feb 15, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
To let in all that wonderful CO2 and to get the O2 out.
You are out of your cotton picking mind.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31514 Feb 15, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time you make government workers temporary (e.g. term limits for legislators), you diminish the power of government & increase the power of the oligopolistic private sector. Teddy Roosevelt, & the American people, knew this a hundred years ago. The government needs to be strong & independent enough to take on big business when it is necessary.
After decades of attacks, the government is much too weak to do the right thing to protect the people. The oligopolies are more powerful than they've been since the 1920s, maybe since the 1890s.
Remember, if we don't like our government, we can vote them out. Unless you're a large shareholder, though, you get no vote on corporate behavior. Yes, you can choose to take your money elsewhere, but ONLY if the government is doing its job, eliminating monopolistic & oligopolistic practices. A weak government, like we have now, can't do that job.
Just a pipe dream the sheeplebots will continue to vote for their favorite party regardless of the consequences .Politicians get stronger each year and the Gov.“We the People" are getting weaker.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31515 Feb 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Politicians get stronger each year and the Gov.“We the People" are getting weaker.
You are good for belly-laughs, Penny. Politicians have been getting steadily weaker throughout my (relatively long) lifetime. But keep it up, I enjoy the laughter.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31516 Feb 15, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You are good for belly-laughs, Penny. Politicians have been getting steadily weaker throughout my (relatively long) lifetime. But keep it up, I enjoy the laughter.
Thanks but you are better for those belly- laughs HOMO. Therefore, what is your age relative too?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31517 Feb 15, 2013
Yes big government.

Stay off the damn roads; they were built by big government.

Don't call the law if someone steals your car. That's government.

When will you be out shoveling snow, fixing potholes, making sure your meat isn't infested with worms, and keeping the North Koreans from marching into your neighborhood? I didn't think so. Without government, you might be dead.

PHudumass, you one of the more stupid people to show up here. How do you feed yourself without help?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31518 Feb 15, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
To let in all that wonderful CO2 and to get the O2 out.
Dumbass post of the month. But you still have time for another one, less than a box of rocks, cavemen built ships on frozen rivers, Norfolk is rising out of the ocean, Valley Girl Teener.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Grey Ghost 1,522,824
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min NotSoDivineMsM 265,344
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min bad bob 102
News Donald Trump on first 100 days: It's a differen... 5 min DR X 37
News Will Islam Inherit the Earth? 9 min DR X 201
News Sen. Elizabeth Warren blasts Donald Trump's fir... 10 min huntcoyotes 18
News Trump blasts 'super liberal Democrat' in Georgi... 11 min huntcoyotes 62
News Attorney General doesn't realize Hawaii is a state 53 min spocko 356
News Americans have rendered their verdict on the fi... 2 hr huntcoyotes 121
More from around the web