|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 25, 2010 3:35:27 GMT
What's going to be really sad is the crash after all this is over. In a few years it will become readily apparent that we are NOT going to be killed or even noticeably inconvenienced by warming. We may in fact long for warming. People will begin to notice all of this utter crap they've had rammed down their throat for years is...well...utter crap.
* The "top" AGW scientists were all APPOINTED through bureaucratic groups that were essentially tasked with finding that AGW was real...and which would lose all power/funding if they found otherwise. * Because these "top" scientists were appointed...it turns out they're actually really crappy scientists that aren't able to do the basic math necessary in their field. I can't do a lot of their math...but then, I'm not paid to, nor am I supposed to be one of the "top" scientists in their field. * The feedbacks were never established. * The sensitivity was never established. * Treating the feedbacks/sensitivity as absolute facts that were beyond dispute in most of the propaganda...and then spewing endless "CO2 is bad" nonsense, including such classics as "this is the highest CO2 has been in a million years...when it was much hotter" (as if it has EVER it had ever been established TO EVEN THE TINIEST EXTENT that CO2 had anything to do with that other than as a proxy. * The "damage" caused by warming was never established...and KNOWN BENEFITS of warming were utterly ignored. (including a reduction in winter deaths that was an order of magnitude higher than the increases in summer deaths).
There is not any valid "science" pointing to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming...just a bunch of "green" bull$#!+ and self loathing by people for having a nice standard of living. This crap all makes Lysenkoism look like a trivial error.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 25, 2010 3:57:22 GMT
What's going to be really sad is the crash after all this is over. In a few years it will become readily apparent that we are NOT going to be killed or even noticeably inconvenienced by warming. We may in fact long for warming. People will begin to notice all of this utter crap they've had rammed down their throat for years is...well...utter crap. * The "top" AGW scientists were all APPOINTED through bureaucratic groups that were essentially tasked with finding that AGW was real...and which would lose all power/funding if they found otherwise. * Because these "top" scientists were appointed...it turns out they're actually really crappy scientists that aren't able to do the basic math necessary in their field. I can't do a lot of their math...but then, I'm not paid to, nor am I supposed to be one of the "top" scientists in their field. * The feedbacks were never established. * The sensitivity was never established. * Treating the feedbacks/sensitivity as absolute facts that were beyond dispute in most of the propaganda...and then spewing endless "CO2 is bad" nonsense, including such classics as "this is the highest CO2 has been in a million years...when it was much hotter" (as if it has EVER it had ever been established TO EVEN THE TINIEST EXTENT that CO2 had anything to do with that other than as a proxy. * The "damage" caused by warming was never established...and KNOWN BENEFITS of warming were utterly ignored. (including a reduction in winter deaths that was an order of magnitude higher than the increases in summer deaths). There is not any valid "science" pointing to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming...just a bunch of "green" bull$#!+ and self loathing by people for having a nice standard of living. This crap all makes Lysenkoism look like a trivial error. well said.
|
|
|
Post by flyingmonkey on Sept 25, 2010 4:24:49 GMT
What research did Republicans carry out with that money? But see matt, we don't see eye to eye on the entire subject anyway. I'm glad there are still some sane politicians left to stop the anti-energy socialists that you think are going to solve our energy issues. California is a prime example of what happens when liberal Democrats are in charge of energy. Brown outs, black outs, unaffordable.....yep, that's what you get. Maybe we should check into how much Greenpeace and other environmental groups give to Democrats? George Soros? As an ad hominem bonus, judging by your posts you are 100% clueless on just how much energy we require as a nation and further you've yet to show that wind/solar is a viable part of large scale energy production. To you it's "simple, just build and install them". Sorry, that is just plain idiotic and typical of your stripe. Nice diatribe. Too bad it doesn't even bother to attempt to counter my points. Yep, the left has sponsors. Nope, they ain't big oil. The largest exporter of oil to the United States is Canada; the largest Canadian oil exporting Province is Alberta. Oil companies -who used to pay a comparatively small amount to enhance the doubt that is present in all science ( to fund the 'skeptical side' ) have for more than five years most definitely switched to the alarmist side -it's far more lucrative. The taxpayers of the Province of Alberta are giving ( primarily American ) oil companies a gift of two billion dollars -ostensibly to fight the phantom of atmospheric carbon induced global warming-but it in reality amounts to a free aging oil well production boost. The taxpayers are paying for steel pipes hundreds of miles long, ( amongst other infrastructure ) so that the oil companies can 'sequester carbon' -pump it down hole to increase oil flow rate. The oil companies are squeezing the last dregs out of formerly depleted unproductive wells, at taxpayer expense ( or Royalty forgiveness, which amounts to the same thing ) in the pretense of removing a negligible amount of carbon from the atmosphere. A process that used to be an expense, ( increasing oil well production by pressuring up the well with water or gas ) is now funded -to a far larger amount than their previous 'skeptical ' funding used to be.. Of course the oil companies are solidly on the 'Alarmist' side-the pay is much better, by several orders of magnitude. www.energy.alberta.ca/Initiatives/1438.asp"$495 million will go to Enhance Energy Inc. and North West Upgrading for the Alberta Carbon Trunk Lineexternal link icon (ACTL), a 240 kilometre pipeline that will transport CO2. The initial supplies of CO2 will come from the Agrium Redwater Complex and once built, the North West Upgrader. North West Upgrading will upgrade bitumen from Alberta’s oil sands and the captured CO2 will be transported to depleting conventional oilfields and used in enhanced oil recovery.." " $745 million will go to Shell and its partners for the Shell Quest project.." " The Government of Alberta has committed all the monies in the $2 B CCS Fund. " Two billion dollars, removed from a population of 3 million, on the basis of an unproven hypothesis. The previous hydrocarbon industry funding of the "other side" had never reached a fraction of those amounts. www.edmontonjournal.com/life/pets/Graham+Thomson+fuels+carbon+capture+pact/2084493/story.html
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Sept 25, 2010 5:59:43 GMT
What research did Republicans carry out with that money? But see matt, we don't see eye to eye on the entire subject anyway. I'm glad there are still some sane politicians left to stop the anti-energy socialists that you think are going to solve our energy issues. California is a prime example of what happens when liberal Democrats are in charge of energy. Brown outs, black outs, unaffordable.....yep, that's what you get. Maybe we should check into how much Greenpeace and other environmental groups give to Democrats? George Soros? As an ad hominem bonus, judging by your posts you are 100% clueless on just how much energy we require as a nation and further you've yet to show that wind/solar is a viable part of large scale energy production. To you it's "simple, just build and install them". Sorry, that is just plain idiotic and typical of your stripe. Nice diatribe. Too bad it doesn't even bother to attempt to counter my points. Yep, the left has sponsors. Nope, they ain't big oil. Not true. Al Gore had major ties to Occidental.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 25, 2010 19:07:53 GMT
Page 9 of the linked document is a good example of a man blabbering in the expectation that the members of his audience will sit politely while their eyes glaze over. The responses from the four scientists are eviscerating - none of the responses are by any of your favourite bogeymen.
Mostly his methods involve waffly comments that are hard to parse that end up with an "if all the previous is correct then there is no problem" Thats a lie? Icefisher, Monckton told a whole pack of lies in that statement which is why four people replied with their lower jaws on the floor. The complete statement doesn't make any difference to the context. If you thought it did you would have quoted the statement and explained why.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 25, 2010 20:36:11 GMT
Nice diatribe. Too bad it doesn't even bother to attempt to counter my points. Yep, the left has sponsors. Nope, they ain't big oil. The largest exporter of oil to the United States is Canada; the largest Canadian oil exporting Province is Alberta. Oil companies -who used to pay a comparatively small amount to enhance the doubt that is present in all science ( to fund the 'skeptical side' ) have for more than five years most definitely switched to the alarmist side -it's far more lucrative. The taxpayers of the Province of Alberta are giving ( primarily American ) oil companies a gift of two billion dollars -ostensibly to fight the phantom of atmospheric carbon induced global warming-but it in reality amounts to a free aging oil well production boost. The taxpayers are paying for steel pipes hundreds of miles long, ( amongst other infrastructure ) so that the oil companies can 'sequester carbon' -pump it down hole to increase oil flow rate. The oil companies are squeezing the last dregs out of formerly depleted unproductive wells, at taxpayer expense ( or Royalty forgiveness, which amounts to the same thing ) in the pretense of removing a negligible amount of carbon from the atmosphere. A process that used to be an expense, ( increasing oil well production by pressuring up the well with water or gas ) is now funded -to a far larger amount than their previous 'skeptical ' funding used to be.. Of course the oil companies are solidly on the 'Alarmist' side-the pay is much better, by several orders of magnitude. www.energy.alberta.ca/Initiatives/1438.asp"$495 million will go to Enhance Energy Inc. and North West Upgrading for the Alberta Carbon Trunk Lineexternal link icon (ACTL), a 240 kilometre pipeline that will transport CO2. The initial supplies of CO2 will come from the Agrium Redwater Complex and once built, the North West Upgrader. North West Upgrading will upgrade bitumen from Alberta’s oil sands and the captured CO2 will be transported to depleting conventional oilfields and used in enhanced oil recovery.." " $745 million will go to Shell and its partners for the Shell Quest project.." " The Government of Alberta has committed all the monies in the $2 B CCS Fund. " Two billion dollars, removed from a population of 3 million, on the basis of an unproven hypothesis. The previous hydrocarbon industry funding of the "other side" had never reached a fraction of those amounts. www.edmontonjournal.com/life/pets/Graham+Thomson+fuels+carbon+capture+pact/2084493/story.htmlNow drilling and producing oil is what true believer call 'funding skpetics'?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 26, 2010 6:14:20 GMT
The complete statement doesn't make any difference to the context. If you thought it did you would have quoted the statement and explained why. LOL! You claimed he lied repeatedly. I asked you to reproduce his most dramatic lie (not an incomplete sentence which by definition cannot be a lie). And your response is a complete sentence isn't necessary that its a lie even though its not a complete thought and you want me to go find the context? Obviously you are impotent in supporting your claim.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 26, 2010 11:46:16 GMT
Monckton lying or telling the truth does not make AGW any less false. AGW is falsified by its own problems. Using Monckton bashing to defend AGW is not a good strategy. But the true believers will continue to plug away.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 26, 2010 21:58:49 GMT
The complete statement doesn't make any difference to the context. If you thought it did you would have quoted the statement and explained why. LOL! You claimed he lied repeatedly. I asked you to reproduce his most dramatic lie (not an incomplete sentence which by definition cannot be a lie). And your response is a complete sentence isn't necessary that its a lie even though its not a complete thought and you want me to go find the context? Obviously you are impotent in supporting your claim. So unless I can produce his "most dramatic lie", I am impotent I would argue that his "most dramatic lie" is his claim to cure HIV which I've already stated. You are welcome to support Monckton because he undermines your position every time he opens his mouth. Anyway, someone else has far more time than me to do this: bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 26, 2010 22:17:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 26, 2010 22:37:17 GMT
So unless I can produce his "most dramatic lie", I am impotent
I would argue that his "most dramatic lie" is his claim to cure HIV which I've already stated.
You are welcome to support Monckton because he undermines your position every time he opens his mouth.
Anyway, someone else has far more time than me to do this:
bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/ I will accept that as an admission you are incapable of supporting your claim.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 26, 2010 22:39:53 GMT
Lord Monckton knows less about climate than I do....and that isn't much.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 26, 2010 23:04:41 GMT
So unless I can produce his "most dramatic lie", I am impotent
I would argue that his "most dramatic lie" is his claim to cure HIV which I've already stated.
You are welcome to support Monckton because he undermines your position every time he opens his mouth.
Anyway, someone else has far more time than me to do this:
bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/ I will accept that as an admission you are incapable of supporting your claim. It was a totally devastating argument, that link. What color is the sky in your world?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 26, 2010 23:05:51 GMT
Lord Monckton knows less about climate than I do....and that isn't much. Monckton isn't a climatologist. He is a politician. And that is a topic he is pretty good at. If he wasn't then nobody would be concerned about him.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 27, 2010 0:29:14 GMT
Lord Monckton knows less about climate than I do....and that isn't much. Monckton isn't a climatologist. He is a politician. And that is a topic he is pretty good at. If he wasn't then nobody would be concerned about him. Good Point Icefisher
|
|