The hand that feeds Buffett
-
The argument on Global Climate needs two sides and each are able to bend the science accordingly. The normal (ordinary) citizen is being fed data that they are not really able to comprehend consequently Fud factor and muddle results. Rather more truth and honesty without "the conspiracy factor" is required.
I mentioned below[^] that there are two aspects to global warming (now called "climate change"...just in case). 1. Is the earth warming and is this due to human activity? -Science CAN help us understand this and I believe that the issue becomes clearer as time passes and politics is vetted out. The earth may certainly be warming due to human activity, but that is something the scientific community can figure out on its own. 2. What are the effects of "global warming" and are they necessarily negative or being accurately portrayed? -Mankind simply currently lacks the capability to accurately model the exceedingly complex atmopshere to any degree of useful accuracy. The politics of global warming are derived entirely from this latter aspect. The supposed natural disasters are, for lack of a better term...made up.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
I mentioned below[^] that there are two aspects to global warming (now called "climate change"...just in case). 1. Is the earth warming and is this due to human activity? -Science CAN help us understand this and I believe that the issue becomes clearer as time passes and politics is vetted out. The earth may certainly be warming due to human activity, but that is something the scientific community can figure out on its own. 2. What are the effects of "global warming" and are they necessarily negative or being accurately portrayed? -Mankind simply currently lacks the capability to accurately model the exceedingly complex atmopshere to any degree of useful accuracy. The politics of global warming are derived entirely from this latter aspect. The supposed natural disasters are, for lack of a better term...made up.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
link[^] Hmmmmm... So insurance companies, run by people like Warren Buffett, are going to have to raise their premiums because of "global warming"? Golly! How convenient! This part is especially disengenuous:
Seven of the 10 most expensive catastrophes for the U.S. property and casualty
industry happened between 2001 and 2005.Wow. How ominous! Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that property is increasingly expensive as areas become more and more developed (and therefore each subsequent year equal in natural disasters will outcost the previous year). Why can't a single global warming alarmist article be written without at least one lie in it?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
I believe the GW / anti GW debtate is sillier that hell. If you're an adherent to the theory of evolution you'd have to say that the reason why humans exist in today's world is because we learned to adapt, not control but adapt. I personally object the the GW alarmist view that will either destroy the econnomy with inane restrictions and ever increasing taxes, especially when we have no certain knowledge that the restrictions will work and tax revenues will be spent intelligently, when what we should be doing is forcasting the potential effects of change and figuring out how to adapt. -- modified at 12:21 Thursday 27th September, 2007
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
I fully agree with everything you said. But I can't just forget the rants, howsoever accurate or inaccurate, that fat_boy makes. He is passionate in his beliefs, and rightly so, but then, so are those who oppose his views.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I fully agree with everything you said. But I can't just forget the rants, howsoever accurate or inaccurate, that fat_boy makes. He is passionate in his beliefs, and rightly so, but then, so are those who oppose his views.
Personally, I disagree with fat_boy. I think human-induced global warming is a genuine possibility, if not a liklihood, and he disputes that it is occurring at all. What I object to is the predictions of its effects, which are not based in reasonable science, if it is indeed occurring. That just isn't possible at the moment and we're inundated with lie after lie on the matter.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
The argument on Global Climate needs two sides and each are able to bend the science accordingly. The normal (ordinary) citizen is being fed data that they are not really able to comprehend consequently Fud factor and muddle results. Rather more truth and honesty without "the conspiracy factor" is required.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The normal (ordinary) citizen is being fed data
Its not data they are fed, its opinion. The thing with AGW is that there isnt any data except for temperature records, the rest is speculation. The position of the sceptic is clear: There is not enough data to form policy.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
link[^] Hmmmmm... So insurance companies, run by people like Warren Buffett, are going to have to raise their premiums because of "global warming"? Golly! How convenient! This part is especially disengenuous:
Seven of the 10 most expensive catastrophes for the U.S. property and casualty
industry happened between 2001 and 2005.Wow. How ominous! Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that property is increasingly expensive as areas become more and more developed (and therefore each subsequent year equal in natural disasters will outcost the previous year). Why can't a single global warming alarmist article be written without at least one lie in it?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
link[^] Hmmmmm... So insurance companies, run by people like Warren Buffett, are going to have to raise their premiums because of "global warming"? Golly! How convenient! This part is especially disengenuous:
Seven of the 10 most expensive catastrophes for the U.S. property and casualty
industry happened between 2001 and 2005.Wow. How ominous! Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that property is increasingly expensive as areas become more and more developed (and therefore each subsequent year equal in natural disasters will outcost the previous year). Why can't a single global warming alarmist article be written without at least one lie in it?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I fully agree with everything you said. But I can't just forget the rants, howsoever accurate or inaccurate, that fat_boy makes. He is passionate in his beliefs, and rightly so, but then, so are those who oppose his views.
Personally, I disagree with fat_boy. I think human-induced global warming is a genuine possibility, if not a liklihood, and he disputes that it is occurring at all. What I object to is the predictions of its effects, which are not based in reasonable science, if it is indeed occurring. That just isn't possible at the moment and we're inundated with lie after lie on the matter.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The normal (ordinary) citizen is being fed data
Its not data they are fed, its opinion. The thing with AGW is that there isnt any data except for temperature records, the rest is speculation. The position of the sceptic is clear: There is not enough data to form policy.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
There is not enough data
To fully jump one way or the other. But being a realist, I must take the view that if this Global Climatic Change is likely to be as grave as predicted, then I am foolish to ignore or dismiss it even if some of the science may not be fully understood. And yes, I appreciate your rants on this subject if they weren't as frequent as they are.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Why can't a single global warming alarmist article be written without at least one lie in it?
For the same reason that Ann Coulter is alive - sheer bad luck.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I fully agree with everything you said. But I can't just forget the rants, howsoever accurate or inaccurate, that fat_boy makes. He is passionate in his beliefs, and rightly so, but then, so are those who oppose his views.
Personally, I disagree with fat_boy. I think human-induced global warming is a genuine possibility, if not a liklihood, and he disputes that it is occurring at all. What I object to is the predictions of its effects, which are not based in reasonable science, if it is indeed occurring. That just isn't possible at the moment and we're inundated with lie after lie on the matter.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
he disputes that it is occurring at all.
1750 to 1900 temperature rises, CO2 doesnt. 1900 to 1940 temperature rises, CO2 rises. 1940 to 1970 temperature falls despite CO2 rising dramatically. 1970 to 1998 temperature rises, CO2 continues rising dramaticaly. 1998 to 2007 temperature is stable, CO2 continues rising dramatically. If there is any warming component to CO2, it is being entirely masked by another process. Therefore any action on CO2 is pissing in the wind, because the temperature will go whereever the hell it wants to despite our best efforts. So, what do we do about it? If indeed it IS true that weather will be more chaotic in a warmer world, and there is NO evidence at all of this. In fact, there is evidence that the climate is better, not worse when it is warmer, then we would be better to investigate the mitigation of those effects. Instead, taxation and the redistribution of wealth globaly and individually is the stated aim of the politicans behind this. Not the saving of the planet or of lives.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I disagree with fat_boy.
Ditto, but I have this niggling feeling that some of what he says could turn out to be more truthful than not, if only fat_boy wouldn't keep going on and on and on.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I have this niggling feeling that some of what he says could turn out to be more truthful than not,
It is so. The wheels have started coming off the AGW bus already. In 5 years wwe will look back at this as one of mankinds greatest follies.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
A little gift-of-joke for you. Uranus[^] As* you liked A**tronomy... Hey that's not an insult. Believe me, just sharing a joke with you.:)
Jemmy : Deadline? Pfft, a real programmer eats deadlines for breakfast. :P Mark: I thought real programmers ignored deadlines :sigh: Best wishes to Rexx[^]
-
A little gift-of-joke for you. Uranus[^] As* you liked A**tronomy... Hey that's not an insult. Believe me, just sharing a joke with you.:)
Jemmy : Deadline? Pfft, a real programmer eats deadlines for breakfast. :P Mark: I thought real programmers ignored deadlines :sigh: Best wishes to Rexx[^]
:laugh: I have heard that joke alot, seeing how I have pictures of Uranus on my site. I uploaded one onto flickr if you want to see it. I would link to my site, but I wouldn't want the soapbox riff-raff to find there way there. http://www.flickr.com/photos/kyleedwards/1449316392/
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The normal (ordinary) citizen is being fed data
Its not data they are fed, its opinion. The thing with AGW is that there isnt any data except for temperature records, the rest is speculation. The position of the sceptic is clear: There is not enough data to form policy.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
The thing with AGW is that there isnt any data except for temperature records, the rest is speculation
Lots of stuff to do with AGW is probabilistic, but this is WRONG! The key issue with AGW is that the rising CO2 levels are almost certainly trapping more heat. This can be seen from the difference between the long wave radiation at the surface of the earth to that measured by satellites at the top of the atmosphere. So if we are trapping more heat, which way do you think the temperature will go? There is lots of modeling to try to determine the effects of this, none of which is perfect, but no model has managed to predict some sort of stabilising effect, the consequences range from bad to disastrous.
fat_boy wrote:
The position of the sceptic is clear: There is not enough data to form policy
I thought that your position was that there was so much data showing that it was in fact either not a problem or was in fact beneficial, that any proposal to limit CO2 emissions was driven by some other agenda. I see you as a poor sucker who has swallowed the FUD campaign run by those who fear the move to a low carbon economy.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
-
:laugh: I have heard that joke alot, seeing how I have pictures of Uranus on my site. I uploaded one onto flickr if you want to see it. I would link to my site, but I wouldn't want the soapbox riff-raff to find there way there. http://www.flickr.com/photos/kyleedwards/1449316392/
Will look at them. And long time back, I saw so many pictures taken by you in some other site. They were nice too. but I lost the link, you still maintain them? If so, post it here or just email me. FlickR is blocked for me here at work I can check only when I reach back home.
Jemmy : Deadline? Pfft, a real programmer eats deadlines for breakfast. :P Mark: I thought real programmers ignored deadlines :sigh: Best wishes to Rexx[^]
-
Will look at them. And long time back, I saw so many pictures taken by you in some other site. They were nice too. but I lost the link, you still maintain them? If so, post it here or just email me. FlickR is blocked for me here at work I can check only when I reach back home.
Jemmy : Deadline? Pfft, a real programmer eats deadlines for breakfast. :P Mark: I thought real programmers ignored deadlines :sigh: Best wishes to Rexx[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I have this niggling feeling that some of what he says could turn out to be more truthful than not,
It is so. The wheels have started coming off the AGW bus already. In 5 years wwe will look back at this as one of mankinds greatest follies.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
It is so. The wheels have started coming off the AGW bus already. In 5 years wwe will look back at this as one of mankinds greatest follies
Doh... and fat_boy will be a local town hero. :laugh: the day it happens, I guess I'll owe you an apology for giving you crap about your deluge of posts on the subject.
This statement was never false.
