Global warming... real or make believe? - Page 19 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14968637
Pants-of-dog wrote:So the value you gave is suspect? Okay.

Now, why are the models inaccurate and unreliable?



Let's just start with the fact that they're unproven, and they're constructed on a limited understanding of an emerging science, and they're attempting to simulate a system that is unbelievably complex. The question isn't why are the models inaccurate and unreliable, the question is why would anyone expect them to be accurate or reliable in the first place?
#14968719
Let's just start with the fact that they're unproven,


So you don't know. So you just reject all of the science because you cannot point to some giant one-over-the-world experiment. You reject all of the "proofs", experimental or observational that went into making the estimates. So you misunderstand why the estimates are estimates rather than a set figure.

and they're constructed on a limited understanding of an emerging science,


You mean like 'medicine', genetics, bio-chemistry and physics? Climate science is not something cut from whole cloth. It is like medicine....a combination of settled science and new scientific observation/experiment leading to best practices/applications.

and they're attempting to simulate a system that is unbelievably complex.


You mean like medicine? So your solution is to reject the best work by the best people in the field and choose the results that fit your own world view and not the science?

The question isn't why are the models inaccurate and unreliable,


No its not. I agree. They are not inaccurate and unreliable. They aren't exact nor are they intended to be. We do not have the cure for cancer either but one thing is for certain. If you don't go with the best treatment we have you will die sooner and badly.

the question is why would anyone expect them to be accurate or reliable in the first place?


How accurate is accurate? Reliable for what? To exactly predict climate? You seem to be confusing weather with climate. We are pretty good at both of them but they are not the same thing. Are the data reliable enough to act on? Of course. That is why the overwhelming number of scientific organizations from all over the world (virtually all of them in fact) instruct us to act.

I was once bitten by a dog. The dog got away. If we had the dog (model) we could have tested the dog to see if he had rabies or not. Rabies are very rare in domestic animals in the US. Nevertheless I took the rabies shots. Why? Because in the absence of evidence I knew that if I guessed wrong I would die a horrible death. This is good science.

Climate science is similar to the extent that we know the danger if we are wrong. Widespread suffering and death. And we know that a relatively simple course of actions today, even though moderately expensive and a bit uncomfortable could save millions if not billions of lives later.

But you choose to find a few naysayers and bet the whole farm that they are right and the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field are wrong. Not the actions of a wise person. And, of course, there are political implications to what you are doing. Like the idiot anti-vaxers the ignorance of people with ideas like yours encourage people to ignore the best science available and elect people who put us in danger. People like Donald Trump and his rag-tag group of stooges. And you want to argue science? :lol:
#14968779
Sivad wrote:Let's just start with the fact that they're unproven,


What are “unproven”? The models? What does that mean?

Just to be clear, science does not prove anything. All science is contingent. The best we can do is provide evidence in supoort of something, not prove it.

and they're constructed on a limited understanding of an emerging science, and they're attempting to simulate a system that is unbelievably complex.


This is not ana rgument as to why they are inaccurate and unreliable. At best, this is an argumnet as to why they might be inaccurate and unreliable.
#14968852
Pants-of-dog wrote:What are “unproven”? The models? What does that mean?


It means they have no proven track record of accuracy and reliability. If we had dozens of independently constructed models that had been successfully projecting climate for a century with a high degree of accuracy and reliability and they were all converging on CACC then there would be cause for alarm.

As it is, we have no cause for alarm, we have cause for some concern and that should prompt us to do things like increase investment in energy R&D, upgrade our infrastructure for efficiency, implement non-coercive population reduction strategies, everything and anything within reason. What we don't have cause to do are things like extreme energy rationing, taxing the shit out of the poor and working classes, or giving the technocratic elite the power to regulate and control all human activity, those things would be completely unwarranted.

Just to be clear, science does not prove anything. All science is contingent. The best we can do is provide evidence in supoort of something, not prove it.


And the evidence in this case isn't robust, it's mostly conjecture coming from a flawed and compromised institution that only has a limited understanding to begin with. Science can study any phenomenon but you'd have to be pretty simple to think that science can answer any question we throw at it. Our science doesn't have the theoretical or technical sophistication to accurately and reliably project climate out decades and centuries. It's just not that advanced.


At best, this is an argumnet as to why they might be inaccurate and unreliable.

No, it's an argument as to why in all likelihood they're not sufficiently reliable and accurate to base the largest and most costly(by orders of magnitude) global action in human history on. You are essentially advocating that the entire human race should radically alter its entire course of development based on the output of these models and that's just :knife: .
#14968857
Sivad wrote:It means they have no proven track record of accuracy and reliability. If we had dozens of independently constructed models that had been successfully projecting climate for a century with a high degree of accuracy and reliability and they were all converging on CACC then there would be cause for alarm.

As it is, we have no cause for alarm, we have cause for some concern and that should prompt us to do things like increase investment in energy R&D, upgrade our infrastructure for efficiency, implement non-coercive population reduction strategies, everything and anything within reason. What we don't have cause to do are things like extreme energy rationing, taxing the shit out of the poor and working classes, or giving the technocratic elite the power to regulate and control all human activity, those things would be completely unwarranted.



And the evidence in this case isn't robust, it's mostly conjecture coming from a flawed and compromised institution that only has a limited understanding to begin with. Science can study any phenomenon but you'd have to be pretty simple to think that science can answer any question we throw at it. Our science doesn't have the theoretical or technical sophistication to accurately and reliably project climate out decades and centuries. It's just not that advanced.



No, it's an argument as to why in all likelihood they're not sufficiently reliable and accurate to base the largest and most costly(by orders of magnitude) global action in human history on. You are essentially advocating that the entire human race should radically alter its entire course of development based on the output of these models and that's just :knife: .


And there lies the diametrically different duality of ideas that you are trying to hold at once...
#14968869
And the evidence in this case isn't robust, it's mostly conjecture coming from a flawed and compromised institution that only has a limited understanding to begin with.


Wrong. Coming from hundreds of organizations from over 100 countries based upon the research of tens of thousands of scientists.

You are essentially advocating that the entire human race should radically alter its entire course of development based on the output of these models and that's just :knife: .


Pure nonsense. "Radically alter its entire course of development". :lol:
Hyperbole much.

The changes required are relatively minor in the whole great scheme of things. I doubt our "entire course of development" will be altered if we gradually retire carbon fuel sources in favor of renewable and nonpolluting ones.

Seriously. What the hell do you have your panties in a knot over. You will never notice the difference.
#14968872
William "Bill" Mason Gray (October 9, 1929 – April 16, 2016) was emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University (CSU), and the head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. He was widely regarded as a pioneer in the science of tropical cyclone forecasting[1] and one of the world's leading experts on tropical storms.[2] After retiring as a faculty member at CSU in 2005, Gray remained actively involved in both climate change and tropical cyclone research until his death.



Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1] As of 2017, she has retired from academia.[2][3]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster"[4] in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem."
#14968898
Sivad wrote:It means they have no proven track record of accuracy and reliability. If we had dozens of independently constructed models that had been successfully projecting climate for a century with a high degree of accuracy and reliability and they were all converging on CACC then there would be cause for alarm.


Again, “proven” makes no snese in this context.

You seem to be saying that models have simply not been around long enough to show that they are reliable and accurate.

This does not meanthat they are unreliable and inaccurate. It just means that you think they have not been around long enough.

As it is, we have no cause for alarm, we have cause for some concern and that should prompt us to do things like increase investment in energy R&D, upgrade our infrastructure for efficiency, implement non-coercive population reduction strategies, everything and anything within reason. What we don't have cause to do are things like extreme energy rationing, taxing the shit out of the poor and working classes, or giving the technocratic elite the power to regulate and control all human activity, those things would be completely unwarranted.


All of this is irrelevant to the discussion on models.

And the evidence in this case isn't robust, it's mostly conjecture coming from a flawed and compromised institution that only has a limited understanding to begin with. Science can study any phenomenon but you'd have to be pretty simple to think that science can answer any question we throw at it. Our science doesn't have the theoretical or technical sophistication to accurately and reliably project climate out decades and centuries. It's just not that advanced.


Please show how the evidence is not robust for ACC theory.

No, it's an argument as to why in all likelihood they're not sufficiently reliable and accurate to base the largest and most costly(by orders of magnitude) global action in human history on. You are essentially advocating that the entire human race should radically alter its entire course of development based on the output of these models and that's just :knife: .


I am not saying anything about what we should do.

I am just following up on your argument that the models are unreliable and inaccurate.

So far, you have made a lot of accusations but have provided no evidence.

Sivad wrote:William "Bill" Mason Gray (October 9, 1929 – April 16, 2016) was emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University (CSU), and the head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. He was widely regarded as a pioneer in the science of tropical cyclone forecasting[1] and one of the world's leading experts on tropical storms.[2] After retiring as a faculty member at CSU in 2005, Gray remained actively involved in both climate change and tropical cyclone research until his death.



Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1] As of 2017, she has retired from academia.[2][3]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster"[4] in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem."



Do you have an actual argument here or you just making the “argument from authority” fallacy?
#14969001
Do you have an actual argument here or you just making the “argument from authority” fallacy?


No. He is using his usual standard of finding a couple of populist naysayers and attacking the entire scientific community with their nonsense. Lots of people do this. Industry and wealth is counting on this. It seems to be working with so-called conservatives.
#14969119
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, “proven” makes no snese in this context.


Did you really just pretend you don't understand basic english? :lol:

You seem to be saying that models have simply not been around long enough to show that they are reliable and accurate.


I'm saying the models haven't been proven accurate and reliable.

This does not meanthat they are unreliable and inaccurate. It just means that you think they have not been around long enough.


It means they haven't been proven and so they can't be relied on.

Do you have an actual argument here or you just making the “argument from authority” fallacy?


An appeal to authority isn't necessarily fallacious. It's valid if the authority is actually an authority and if it's presented as a defeasible line of evidence rather than a final or conclusive proof.
#14969143
Sivad wrote:Did you really just pretend you don't understand basic english? :lol:


As long as we are clear that science is contingent m so nothing in science is ever “proven”, and so the criticism that something is “unproven” makes no sense.

Are you arguing that there is no supporting evidence for the accuracy and reliability of the models?

I'm saying the models haven't been proven accurate and reliable.


And when I asked you what you meant by this, you talked about how they have not been around very long, so I addressed that point. Now you seem to be simply repeating your vague claim.

It means they haven't been proven and so they can't be relied on.


No, it is entirely possible that the models have not been around for very long and that they are reliable and accurate.

An appeal to authority isn't necessarily fallacious. It's valid if the authority is actually an authority and if it's presented as a defeasible line of evidence rather than a final or conclusive proof.


Okay, so what evidence do they bring to the table that the models are unreliable and inaccurate?
#14969206
Why are the ice caps melting, dear deniers? And WHY is the temperature of the world at it's highest since records began? WHY are sea levels rising?
Last edited by redcarpet on 04 Dec 2018 07:52, edited 1 time in total.
#14969213
Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we are clear that science is contingent m so nothing in science is ever “proven”, and so the criticism that something is “unproven” makes no sense.


What are you talking about? Of course it makes sense, all scientific instruments are calibrated and tested(proven) for accuracy and reliability. The climate models are calibrated somewhat by hindcasting but they haven't been adequately tested, that would take a century or two.


Are you arguing that there is no supporting evidence for the accuracy and reliability of the models?


There's evidence going both ways and all of the evidence is open to interpretation.

And when I asked you what you meant by this, you talked about how they have not been around very long, so I addressed that point. Now you seem to be simply repeating your vague claim.


It's pretty simple, the models are projecting future states, in order to validate the models we have to actually observe how the system develops over time and see if the models got it right. That's the acid test for the models, it's the only way to prove the models are reliable and accurate. We don't have models that have successfully simulated the future climate a century out because computer climate modelling has only been a thing for about 50 years.

Add to that the problem of underdetermination and even a few successful models wouldn't really prove all that much. The climate is extremely complex and with any complex system any given state can be brought about by any number of different inputs and dynamics. So it's not enough for a model to just be right, it has to be right for the right reasons.


No, it is entirely possible that the models have not been around for very long and that they are reliable and accurate.


It's possible but extremely unlikely, there are a million and one ways to get it wrong but only one way to be right. The odds of nailing it on the first attempts are virtually nil. And that's beside the point anyway because we need to know that they're reliable and accurate and the only way to gain that knowledge is by comparing the models to observation over time and we haven't done that.

Okay, so what evidence do they bring to the table that the models are unreliable and inaccurate?


Watch the videos and find out.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
#14969222
Sivad wrote:What are you talking about? Of course it makes sense, all scientific instruments are calibrated and tested(proven) for accuracy and reliability. The climate models are calibrated somewhat by hindcasting but they haven't been adequately tested, that would take a century or two.


1. There is a difference between calibration of instruments and proving a scientific claim.
2. Models are not instruments and cannot be tested for accuracy and reliability in the same way as instruments have.
3. I have already addressed your idea that the models have not been around long enough to be verified as reliable and accurate. First if all, the models can be relatively young and still be providing accurate and reliable results. Secondly, if models have not been around long enough to be verified in terms of accuracy and reliability, then you are basically saying that you cannot actually support your claim that they are unreliable and inaccurate. This is because you are claiming that not enoigh time has passed to amass such evidence.

There's evidence going both ways and all of the evidence is open to interpretation.


So you are saying that there is evidence that they are relibale and accurate, as well as evidence saying the opposite, and both sets of evidence can be interpreted differently?

Like your previous point, this actually weakens your argument if the evidence for their unreliability and inaccuracy is contradictory and open to interpretation.

It's pretty simple, the models are projecting future states, in order to validate the models we have to actually observe how the system develops over time and see if the models got it right. That's the acid test for the models, it's the only way to prove the models are reliable and accurate. We don't have models that have successfully simulated the future climate a century out because computer climate modelling has only been a thing for about 50 years.


Well, how have they done over 50 years, then?

Add to that the problem of underdetermination and even a few successful models wouldn't really prove all that much. The climate is extremely complex and with any complex system any given state can be brought about by any number of different inputs and dynamics. So it's not enough for a model to just be right, it has to be right for the right reasons.


Are you arguing that the models are right for the wrong reasons?

At this point, it seems like you are simply mentioning possible reasons why the models might not be 100% accurate.

It's possible but extremely unlikely, there are a million and one ways to get it wrong but only one way to be right. The odds of nailing it on the first attempts are virtually nil. And that's beside the point anyway because we need to know that they're reliable and accurate and the only way to gain that knowledge is by comparing the models to observation over time and we haven't done that.


This seems like an admission that you do not know if the modles are actually unreliable and inaccurate since “the only way to gain that knowledge is by comparing the models to observation over time and we haven't done that.”

Watch the videos and find out.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty


No.

If you are incapable or unwilling to actually write an argument, it is not my job to watch a movie then do it for you.
#14969227
French Riots Show Why U.S. Carbon Tax Should Be A Non-Starter

They're mostly young, male and extremely angry, and they've been marching in the streets and rioting in Paris and elsewhere, protesting yet another bunch of taxes on gasoline in the government's never-ending battle against global warming. Who says no one cares about climate change?

"A protest against rising taxes and the high cost of living turned into a riot in the French capital, as activists wearing yellow jackets torched cars, smashed windows, looted stores and tagged the Arc de Triomphe with multi-colored graffiti," the AP reported of Saturday's riots.

Some 263 people were injured, including dozens of police, and the government made hundreds of arrests, after an estimated 36,000 people took to the streets on Saturday. Even unions are upset, seeing possible damage to the economy from the demonstrations. They've asked the socialist regime to reverse course.

Macron's prime minister Edouard Philippe even canceled his trip to a global warming conference in Poland. That's something, given that France's leaders constantly claim global warming is humankind's most serious threat. Apparently, French riots rank higher.

No, we're not happy people are rioting. But governments must understand they can't just jam things down people's throats, and expect them to like it. No one asked Macron to raise energy taxes. Macron and his government did it because, to them, globalism is more important than satisfying the demands of their own citizens. It's that simple.

Nor is it just a "French thing." Macron is among a growing number of European leftist leaders who want to foist the anti-climate change agenda on their citizens as part of this new globalism. But this isn't kumbaya, feel-good globalism; it's one that will feature few if any individual rights, lots of taxes, shrinking standards of living, no real freedom, and little joy.



Across the border in Germany, soon-to-be-former German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently said that, on behalf of climate change and migration, "Countries must give up their sovereignty ... in an orderly fashion of course."

"Orderly," by the way, is a German euphemism for "by force, if needed."

For those who don't know, Macron and Merkel are the two strongest leaders in the EU. Their goal, stated outright, is to use the threat of global warming and unbridled migration to wrest control of their nations from their own people — whom they demonize as "populists" — and give it instead to the European Union.

The EU's record of economic incompetence, absurd regulation, excessive taxation, preening corruption and, increasingly, totalitarian behavior, are troubling to say the least.

Not everyone's buying in to this mandatory globalism. Both Switzerland and Italy have announced they'll not attend an EU meeting next month to adopt the U.N.'s new legal guidelines on migration. One big reason: The U.N. has now declared criticism of its pro-immigration policies "hate speech." Yes, that's how far we've come.

Carbon Tax, Coming Our Way

Should we care?

Yes, because leftists here have the same things in mind for all of us. The scientific holes in the climate change religion are enormous. Literally thousands of engineers, scientists, academics and Nobel Prize winners have criticized the flawed science behind the theory that we inevitably face disastrous over-heating of the planet.

Yet, some in Congress — including some Republicans — are eager to saddle Americans with a massive new "carbon tax." It's the modern equivalent of the medieval church granting indulgences for sins. For a fee, of course. Pay us, and your sins will be remitted.

The idea is that Americans will accept a high tax on energy if it's "rebated" on an equal basis to everyone. That way, we get less global warming gas emitted into our atmosphere, while reducing the scourge of unequal income. Win-win!

Except, as we've noted repeatedly in the past, that's not how it works.

"The superficial purpose, of course, is to make carbon-based fossil fuels more expensive to use," we wrote back in April. "But fossil fuels are a blessing, not a curse. They are in large part responsible for the record growth in the global economy in the past two centuries and especially over the last 18 years, helping to pull literally hundreds of millions of once-destitute people out of poverty."

We wouldn't change a word of that. And the idea of "rebates" is absurd. The U.S. would always be one election away from "rebates" turning into just another tax-grab by Congress for badly needed "climate remediation" or some other hokey purpose. Meanwhile, businesses affected by carbon taxes would hire fewer workers and invest less. It's a recipe for French-style stagnation.

Climate Change, Climate Yawn

Our just-released IBD/TIPP Poll shows what Americans think about all this. Just 17% ranked climate change as No. 1 or No. 2 on their list of priorities for the new Congress. Even so, some in Congress seek literally trillions of dollars in new taxes that will distort energy markets and hand rebates to those who don't even pay the taxes.

If no one likes the idea, why would Congress push it so hard? It's called "redistribution," and it's yet another socialist idea that will make people miserable. Ask France.

The U.S. shouldn't travel down France's road. Americans aren't stupid. They won't accept a massive new tax to prevent a threat they don't really believe in. We wonder: What will our Congress do if faced with mass demonstrations?

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... -leftists/
#14969231
Hindsite wrote:French Riots Show Why U.S. Carbon Tax Should Be A Non-Starter




I'd be willing to consider carbon taxes if the assholes pushing them put their money where their mouth is. Let's start with a 1000% tax on all conspicuous consumption. You want to buy a private jet or yacht, 1000% tax. You want to have a a 5,000 square foot second home, 1000% tax. You want to own a high end sports car, 1000% tax. When these fuckers are gonna feel the pinch as much as the working class then I'll be willing to consider their carbon taxes, until then, they can get fucked.
#14969234
And then let's impose a 500% tax on luxury indulgences for the professional class who are comfortable but not rich. If they're willing to share the pain then I'll take them seriously but as long as they have Drlee's attitude of "What the hell do you have your panties in a knot over. You will never notice the difference." I'm not going to be taking them seriously.

If any of these jokers were serious about climate change they'd be talking about taxing the profits of the carbon economy and not vital necessities like fuel. It's their world, we're just living in it, so if they really believed there was a major threat to their world, to their future prosperity, to their future survival, they would already be directing their political puppets to massively invest in energy R&D and infrastructure upgrades, but they're doing nothing but pushing bullshit taxes that are the least effective approach to the problem.

If they're not taking the problem seriously then why should we?
#14969283
I'd be willing to consider carbon taxes if the assholes pushing them put their money where their mouth is. Let's start with a 1000% tax on all conspicuous consumption. You want to buy a private jet or yacht, 1000% tax. You want to have a a 5,000 square foot second home, 1000% tax. You want to own a high end sports car, 1000% tax. When these fuckers are gonna feel the pinch as much as the working class then I'll be willing to consider their carbon taxes, until then, they can get fucked.


I have only one problem with any of this. That is that it is not doable. And in the end, it is the working class which is going to get fucked either way.

I see that you are finally admitting that you favor a carbon tax which would indicate to the casual observer that you believe the climate models and warnings may be true.

It would also appear to the casual observer that because you can't win this argument with the rich you are prepared to try to put your head in the sand by denying the data. Something like, "the data may be true and if it is we are in the early stages of a global catastrophe; a time when we should act" but because there is no perfect solution available then we should bet the farm on a few deniers and do nothing".

This is a cowardly approach. If you don't get to set the rules of the game you will just refuse to play.

You see Sivad, you and I both believe that we should act and that it will cost money. My solution to many of these problems (medical care, climate and poverty) is to take from the rich and give to the poor. Not gratis but in the form of higher wages. To do this we use two laws. The minimum wage and taxation. Raise the minimum wage and tax the shit out of the oligarchs; using the money to buy the solution to the problems above. (Higher wages are, by the way, a cost of doing business for the oligarchs so don't cry to hard for them.)

With my plan, should the climate predictions prove to be wrong, all that happens is that we do some necessary redistribution of wealth and get a better life for the working classes to live. If you are wrong, the working classes die in droves while the still-wealthy hole up in their climate controlled compounds and eat food only they can afford. In short, you are playing right into their hand.

The Paris accords do protect the poor because there is no other protection for them available should the predictions turn out to be correct. But even with the efforts in the Paris accords, the best data says warming will continue for at least the next 500 years. The effect of this, even if it is caused by swallows wagging their wings to much, will be devastating for a great many people. Any effort to ameliorate these effects starting now is a good idea. Reducing carbon emissions is a good idea any way you slice it.

I would like to make the world painless for common folk. I try, on a small level, to make it less harsh for some of them. But I am the realist here Sivad. I know I am not going to pry large amounts of money from the oligarchs. Especially with the president and republicans cock-blocking even the smallest advances and rolling back some we have already managed to wrench out of a usually fixed system. People like you, who a the very best, give the masses false hope betting on the long-shot are hurting rather than helping your goals. And you don't see it.
#14969454
Yeah, we don't see it because it ain't there.
Global warming is a hoax.

Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.

You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.

In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.

The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.

  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

@blackjack21 You are right. The Russians won’t f[…]

You inject liberal amounts of trolling into nearly[…]

lol Ah, so you'd take a forum avatar with a pic[…]

Really? Pulling troops out of Syria was what got […]