How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Sounder]

That's better now BPH, bark like a dog; woof woof.

Bernays would be so proud. (Pavlov too)

Yes, I should have written 'little' rather than 'no more', big woop.

And I'm just curious, but isn't there a rule here about personal attacks?

Maybe I missed the part where its OK to apply nasty epitaphs to social outsiders.

Still this Ukraine gambit does have its appeal; start a bunch of nastiness, expect that the 'other side' will lash out, then blame the troubles on them while enforcing the narrative through repetition. Rinse, Wash, Repeat and never stop until the whole world is saved. Good luck on that, I hear the Wahhabi are looking for a few good men.

About the weathermen, it's to be expected that they would incline toward skepticism given that their experience is centered around computer modeling and difficulties achieving accuracy beyond a few weeks out.

This is a matter of their conditioning rather than as a ploy of media manipulators as would like to be claimed. I avoid MM as best I can but do watch snippets during times of community ferment.

The PTMB like to pump their favorite propaganda during these times because folk are known to be more impressionable at these times.

This is a gold standard marker for identifying social design aspirations of a set of folk that sincerely believe that only they are qualified, indeed they are obligated to define proper expressions of being for the general masses of humans. (During Sandy Hook and The Boston events it was CC and gun control on all major networks all the time, kinda hard to not notice if one looks at things even a little bit sideways.)

My alliance is with the general masses of humans, so while for instance, it is well known and common sense that new layers added onto our cost structures hurts poor people first and hardest, this simply becomes one more thing to be repressed by the believers. The result is a very real diminution of compassion toward poor folk far away.

One sure result of White Man Salvation Syndrome is the screwing of poor people the whole world over.

Hey, whadyasay we bring back the Brit socialists from last century and their euthanasia and sterilization dreams.

Oh, but that's right; now we have learned to beat around the bush rather than beating the bush itself. We are such artists.

[brainpanhandler]

And I'm just curious, but isn't there a rule here about personal attacks?

Maybe I missed the part where its OK to apply nasty epitaphs to social outsiders.

How about you go wander off somewhere and mutter to yourself about horizontal authority distribution systems, you dumbass, numbnuts, shit for brains fuckhead.

[Sounder]

How about you go wander off somewhere and mutter to yourself about horizontal authority distribution systems, you dumbass, numbnuts, shit for brains fuckhead.

This is a curious lifestyle to choose, but each to his own I guess.

[minime]

Warning: This thread may be contributing to global warming.

[slimmouse]

@ SRP. I hope we dont fall out about this, because of our difference of opinion on this issue. I have to say that Im with Sounder on a lot of this stuff.

Here's is my opinion on the AGW deal , in as concise a form as possible.

Ultimately what we have here are Govnts the entire world over, taxing every last one of us, for our individual CO2 emmissions.

These same Govnts then spend huge amounts of such taxes on military hardware, which in turn support the covert ops money, which results in death followed by "democracy", or is that Corporatocracy and "Regime change" in "Energy rich" areas.

Which in effect might suggest that we are being charged for our individual carbon footprint by Govnts who then spend our taxes ensuring this continues. A cynic such as myself might consider such taxation a "subsidy" to the corporates, since this is where the vast majority of our taxes go, however you look at it.

Which ultimately to my mind, means we are being charged money by the 0.01% for the ongoing raping of the planet.

And thats just not fucking fair, in my book.

If the above wasnt enough to piss a sane man off already, then imagine what you might feel like about this entire APGWBS, if you knew in your heart that we have more than sufficient technological means to deliver renewable, clean energy for everyone on this planet.

[Rory]

Taxes on CO2 emissions? Which ones exactly - examples and citations, please.

Also, in case you hadn't noticed - most CO2 producing fuels are subsidized: the polar opposite of being taxed.

So while you are shaking this Carbon Tax strawman for all it's worth, I see the opposite happening. Care to evidence your statements?

[DrEvil]

@ SRP. I hope we dont fall out about this, because of our difference of opinion on this issue. I have to say that Im with Sounder on a lot of this stuff.

Here's is my opinion on the AGW deal , in as concise a form as possible.

Ultimately what we have here are Govnts the entire world over, taxing every last one of us, for our individual CO2 emmissions.

No, but corporations are being taxed for their CO2 emissions. You don't pay a carbon tax.
(Whether it works or not is a different story. Personally I think everyone should pay a carbon tax.)

These same Govnts then spend huge amounts of such taxes on military hardware, which in turn support the covert ops money, which results in death followed by "democracy", or is that Corporatocracy and "Regime change" in "Energy rich" areas.

I think you mean your government. Almost half of all military expenditures are by the US. You are also the largest arms exporter by a huge margin (about 2/3 of all exports if I remember correctly). There's a reason 80% of the worlds population think you're the greatest threat to world peace.
(Disclaimer: No, this does not mean I like China or Russia any better.)

Which in effect might suggest that we are being charged for our individual carbon footprint by Govnts who then spend our taxes ensuring this continues. A cynic such as myself might consider such taxation a "subsidy" to the corporates, since this is where the vast majority of our taxes go, however you look at it.

Again, you're confusing your country with the rest of the world. I get free healthcare and college/university for my tax money, and if I buy an electric car it will be subsidized by about $150K.

Which ultimately to my mind, means we are being charged money by the 0.01% for the ongoing raping of the planet.

So what do you suggest? Stop paying taxes?

And thats just not fucking fair, in my book.

If the above wasnt enough to piss a sane man off already, then imagine what you might feel like about this entire APGWBS, if you knew in your heart that we have more than sufficient technological means to deliver renewable, clean energy for everyone on this planet.

No, not really. Solar and wind aren't steady enough in their supply, and without technology to store electricity on a massive scale it won't work without other sources like nuclear, coal or gas to "fill in".

[Ben D]

Hey everyone...this thread is about how bad GW is....how about focusing on the reality or not of AGW....based on your actual knowledge and understanding of the actual relevant global climate data....otherwise all the ranting is vanity...merely dancing to the politically driven tune being played by the leftist puppet masters, or the right, or any in between!

[Rory]

Business As Usual Ben says Go Nuclear!

Burn more oil/coal!

Namaste

[DrEvil]

Ben - you really should take your own advice. Or just piss off back to your bible prophecies.

Edit: spelling.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

@ SRP. I hope we dont fall out about this, because of our difference of opinion on this issue. I have to say that Im with Sounder on a lot of this stuff.

Here's is my opinion on the AGW deal , in as concise a form as possible.

Ultimately what we have here are Govnts the entire world over, taxing every last one of us, for our individual CO2 emmissions.

These same Govnts then spend huge amounts of such taxes on military hardware, which in turn support the covert ops money, which results in death followed by "democracy", or is that Corporatocracy and "Regime change" in "Energy rich" areas.

Which in effect might suggest that we are being charged for our individual carbon footprint by Govnts who then spend our taxes ensuring this continues. A cynic such as myself might consider such taxation a "subsidy" to the corporates, since this is where the vast majority of our taxes go, however you look at it.

Which ultimately to my mind, means we are being charged money by the 0.01% for the ongoing raping of the planet.

And thats just not fucking fair, in my book.

If the above wasnt enough to piss a sane man off already, then imagine what you might feel like about this entire APGWBS, if you knew in your heart that we have more than sufficient technological means to deliver renewable, clean energy for everyone on this planet.

I appreciate the honesty and clarity you provide in explaining your point of view. I don't necessarily agree, but that's certainly no reason for there to be a falling out between us.

Sorry I don't have time to give a more thought out response, I'm busy at work, but here's my quick shot.

The scenario you lay out is unfair, but more indicative of our debt-based economic paradigm, or more specifically our monetary paradigm. Perhaps if money itself were changed from debt-based to energy-based, it might solve some problems.

BUT...

That will do nothing to change the fact that greenhouses gasses cause global warming. You may object to my using the word "fact" by saying it's just a theory. Gravity is just a theory too. Relativity is just a theory too. The common denominator - they're all scientific theories back by reams of evidence. I've gone on at length about how aggravating it is that the word "theory" has been debased in our society when what is usually being attacked is some weak hypothesis that has not undergone the rigor of scientific testing. If you really think global warming is one of those weak hypotheses, then there is one simple thing you need to provide: scientific evidence. Without evidence, there is no debate. You have every right to your thoughts, feelings and opinions. But without evidence, that's all they are. There's a reason why the measly 3% of scientists who doubt that humans are responsible for global warming haven't published any findings confirming their opinions in a peer-reviewed science journal: they don't have the evidence to back up the thoughts, feelings, and opinions they share with you.

[Ben D]

Ben - you really should take your own advice.

OK then...here is a graph using RSS IPCC approved data showing the pause in increasing global temperature and a graph of global CO2 emission increase against a background of the RSS temperature over the same period...do you see any correlation present DrEvil?

[DrEvil]

Ben: All the evidence you need to refute your bullshit claim has already been posted in this thread.
That you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your world-view is your problem, not mine.

But just to be nice, the Economist, of all places, has a good summary of why you're full of shit (not that I expect you to do anything but dismiss it without reading):
http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... goes-being

And as usual - can a moderator please perma-ban BenD? Seriously. His trolling is getting old.

Now back to Ben and his graph.

[Ben D]

Ben: All the evidence you need to refute your bullshit claim has already been posted in this thread.
That you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your world-view is your problem, not mine.

We are not talking about claims, this is about reality....there has been nothing posted in this thread that proves the graphs to be any other than reflecting accurately the IPCC approved and used data.

So c'mon...since you claim they are wrong, show us your expertise and point out which data points on RSS temperature and CO2 emissions graphs can be refuted as being inaccurate.

If you can't...please just man up and refrain from further obfuscation by raising strawmen or making personal attacks and calling for my banishment.

[Iamwhomiam]

Ben, if you don't mind, would you please explain the purple line and what it represents. And then, perhaps you'll be so kind as to explain how it is that Carbon Dioxide actually traps heat. I'm sure slim would appreciate more your explaining it than he would were I to.

Sounder! Really? Dweeb?

I must say how profoundly upsetting it is for me to see that horribly offensive word appear within lines of writing of one who so intelligently expresses their ignorance while brilliantly condemning others of being that which they are, Dupes.

And this from the guy who had a meltdown when I called him a twit.

See, this is what fucking Icke, et al, do to people... They make the unreal real for some while making the real unreal for others. And then, their followers deem all who have not swallowed either fantasy to be shills and enablers of governmental abuses and oppressors; enemies of mankind.

Sadly, they remain comfortably ignorant that they are what they accuse others of being and therein lies our greatest danger. There is only one cure for ignorance and one must have a burning desire to overcome its blinding force to achieve success.