Governments reject GW as a reality
-
digital man wrote:
It's always been there. There are too many people with insufficient resources to support them all. That is a problem that needs to be addressed but never will be.
And yet the wealth and health of people has gone up in real terms for the last 40 years or so. Perhaps India has a problem, or other countries like that, but its not affecting the west at all. Our populations are stable. As for China, with the laws they had way their poopulaiton is likely to plumet.
digital man wrote:
there are areas of the world that have insufficient water or access to water with growing populations who will be forced to do something to either get that water or see there populations decimated. Some choice!
Yes, and we can help them with engineering solutions (and birth controll ones) if they let us. However they are likely to take an offered hand as imperialism. In which case they can fuck off and die as far as I am concerned. I am not going to loose any sleep over stupid people dying for stupid reasons!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Perhaps India has a problem, or other countries like that, but its not affecting the west at all.
Not yet, perhaps but there may come a time when the only means for water poor countries is to use force to get it. I'm not saying they'd win out over the west but it won;'t be, to say the least, pleasant.
fat_boy wrote:
However they are likely to take an offered hand as imperialism. In which case they can f*** off and die as far as I am concerned. I am not going to loose any sleep over stupid people dying for stupid reasons!
I'm sure you don't really hold to such a simplistic view of the world. Yes, many would die but, as I said above, left with no choice countries with water shortages will have no choice but try to extract water by whatever means. It may not happen in my life time or yours but it could happen in our childrens lifetime and I don't want that for them as I'm sure you don't for yours. Still, moot, really, as it might not happen at all and we can all relax and enjoy life.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And like I said, oversimplification and cherry-picking
No its not. CO2 is well known to be good for crop production, it has been used for decades in agriculture, and as for temperature the very fact that I quote a 10,000 year data set from greenland and vostok is the exact OPPOSITE of cherry picking! :) I mean, 10,000 years! Thats the whole fucking cherry orchard! And during this time temperatures have been gradually falling. I dont 'assume' that manipulating data to show non existant warming is corrupt, I KNOW its corrupt. Dont you? Do you actually seee Hansens manipulations to show increased warming as valid? If so then we will neve be able to discuss this.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
CO2 is well known to be good for crop production, it has been used for decades in agriculture, and as for temperature the very fact that I quote a 10,000 year data set from greenland and vostok is the exact OPPOSITE of cherry picking!
Good for plants, bad for humans. Which are you? And moving your data points far apart doesn't counteract the idea of cherry-picking. I could go even further back and pick a point in the middle of the last ice age, saying "Hey, look how hot it's getting compared to X!" Hell, let's go back a few billion years, pick a point right near the planet's formation, and say "Hey, we have a lot more water today!" Cherry-picking means selecting specific data points that support your position, instead of trying to locate accurate ones that reflect the general trends.
fat_boy wrote:
I dont 'assume' that manipulating data to show non existant warming is corrupt, I KNOW its corrupt.
But right there, you made an assumption. You assume that the warming isn't there, and then deduce that any data showing it IS there must be manipulated.
fat_boy wrote:
Dont you? Do you actually seee Hansens manipulations to show increased warming as valid? If so then we will neve be able to discuss this.
And again, you're attacking one particular scientist, as if he represents the entire scientific community.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
What you are forgetting is that petrol is a waste product, it is only used for driving cars. Most oil is turned into products, plastics, nylons, medicine etc, so we will need oil for a while yet, even if we all drive cars powered by a Mr Fusion car engine. Still, there is always coal, and Britain has about 20,000 years reserves.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
You just tried to change tact again. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? You might like to start here[^] Your point here seems to be that Australia's changing of PM somehow validates your views about GW. I am saying that the change of leadership within the Australia Labour party was not related to the GW policies or views of either the current or previous PM. You're an idiot and you dont know what you're talking about when it comes to Australian politics. I'm going to go home, play with my son, put him to bed, eat dinner with my girl friend and smoke a big Dutch joint. You can continue without me if you want.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Perhaps India has a problem, or other countries like that, but its not affecting the west at all.
Not yet, perhaps but there may come a time when the only means for water poor countries is to use force to get it. I'm not saying they'd win out over the west but it won;'t be, to say the least, pleasant.
fat_boy wrote:
However they are likely to take an offered hand as imperialism. In which case they can f*** off and die as far as I am concerned. I am not going to loose any sleep over stupid people dying for stupid reasons!
I'm sure you don't really hold to such a simplistic view of the world. Yes, many would die but, as I said above, left with no choice countries with water shortages will have no choice but try to extract water by whatever means. It may not happen in my life time or yours but it could happen in our childrens lifetime and I don't want that for them as I'm sure you don't for yours. Still, moot, really, as it might not happen at all and we can all relax and enjoy life.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
As we all knew many governments spouted GWisms just to get the green votes, and then actually did nothing. Well, it seems either the green vote was so small, or those voters have turned because now major world governments are finally waking up to the fact that support for GW policies are almost non existant, and, unnecessary: "Last week’s G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world’s leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism." http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1182-green-catastrophism-collapses.html[^] Thanks god for a bit of sanity at last. I was worried for a while that our so called leaders might actually take AGW seriously. I always hoped they could see through it, and now it is apparent they do. Not that I am against renewable energy, and the industry and jobs it creates, on the contrary, I am very much in favour. But AGW alarmism has not only damaged the world of science, it has also damaged the world of renewable energy. Reasonable people will for decades when presented with the words 'science' or 'renewable' always start to laugh, remembering the ridiculaous scam called AGW that so abused these words their value became derrided to the point of worthlessness. And that, is a shame. On a global scale.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Ours is still pushing Cap & Tax among other tyrannically unconstitutional legislation.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
The shallow reserves were finished decades ago. Yes, there is coal but the costs of getting it out are too high.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Not at £100 per ton it isn't.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
fat_boy wrote:
CO2 is well known to be good for crop production, it has been used for decades in agriculture, and as for temperature the very fact that I quote a 10,000 year data set from greenland and vostok is the exact OPPOSITE of cherry picking!
Good for plants, bad for humans. Which are you? And moving your data points far apart doesn't counteract the idea of cherry-picking. I could go even further back and pick a point in the middle of the last ice age, saying "Hey, look how hot it's getting compared to X!" Hell, let's go back a few billion years, pick a point right near the planet's formation, and say "Hey, we have a lot more water today!" Cherry-picking means selecting specific data points that support your position, instead of trying to locate accurate ones that reflect the general trends.
fat_boy wrote:
I dont 'assume' that manipulating data to show non existant warming is corrupt, I KNOW its corrupt.
But right there, you made an assumption. You assume that the warming isn't there, and then deduce that any data showing it IS there must be manipulated.
fat_boy wrote:
Dont you? Do you actually seee Hansens manipulations to show increased warming as valid? If so then we will neve be able to discuss this.
And again, you're attacking one particular scientist, as if he represents the entire scientific community.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Good for plants, bad for humans
And your proof is what? (And dont give me the 'its toxic at 10%' we all know that, and we are only talking about 1000ppm nax here) Of course whats good for plants is good for crops and that good for man.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And moving your data points far apart doesn't counteract the idea of cherry-picking...
What a daft argument. The last 10000 years pretty much coincides with mans civilisation so its a perfectly good base to use.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
instead of trying to locate accurate ones that reflect the general trends.
A 10000 year trend isnt general enough for you? You think the AGWers using the last 150 years is? Just after the LIA?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You assume that the warming isn't there, and then deduce that any data showing it IS there must be manipulated.
No no no no. The RAW data shows no warming. Havent you looked into this? Looked at raw station data? Validated what you see on th enet as much as you can with the various met olffices in the different coountries?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
as if he represents the entire scientific community.
SO you think the entire scientific community is behind GW? And Hansen happens to run one of the major data sets used, ehich I am sure you knew, but chose to forget in order to try to make a point.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Good for plants, bad for humans
And your proof is what? (And dont give me the 'its toxic at 10%' we all know that, and we are only talking about 1000ppm nax here) Of course whats good for plants is good for crops and that good for man.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And moving your data points far apart doesn't counteract the idea of cherry-picking...
What a daft argument. The last 10000 years pretty much coincides with mans civilisation so its a perfectly good base to use.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
instead of trying to locate accurate ones that reflect the general trends.
A 10000 year trend isnt general enough for you? You think the AGWers using the last 150 years is? Just after the LIA?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You assume that the warming isn't there, and then deduce that any data showing it IS there must be manipulated.
No no no no. The RAW data shows no warming. Havent you looked into this? Looked at raw station data? Validated what you see on th enet as much as you can with the various met olffices in the different coountries?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
as if he represents the entire scientific community.
SO you think the entire scientific community is behind GW? And Hansen happens to run one of the major data sets used, ehich I am sure you knew, but chose to forget in order to try to make a point.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
And your proof is what? (And dont give me the 'its toxic at 10%' we all know that, and we are only talking about 1000ppm nax here) Of course whats good for plants is good for crops and that good for man.
We inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. For humans, carbon dioxide is a waste product. You never specified anything about concentration levels. If it's toxic at 10%, then it stands to reason that it gradually becomes toxic as it approaches that concentration, so lower concentrations may be within our tolerance but are not "good" for humans. And of course, unless you're going to allege that the density of the atmosphere will increase, then more CO2 means less of something else... What? Is it oxygen? Because that would also be bad for humans.
fat_boy wrote:
What a daft argument. The last 10000 years pretty much coincides with mans civilisation so its a perfectly good base to use.
You're confusing the gap between the data points with the accuracy of the trend itself. The economy has gone up since 1990, down since 2000, down since 2007, up since the end of 2008, up since yesterday... All of these statements are true, but which of them actually tells us what's happening, and which best helps us predict what it'll be like next year? And keep in mind that whether your two data points are 10000 years apart or 10000 seconds apart, they're still only two points. If you pick your reference point as the middle of an ice age, or the middle of a warm period, it's going to spin your results in one direction.
fat_boy wrote:
No no no no. The RAW data shows no warming. Havent you looked into this? Looked at raw station data? Validated what you see on th enet as much as you can with the various met olffices in the different coountries?
Have you? Or have you just read blogs from people who have shown you charts with select bits of the numbers? I could go on the pro-AGW sites and do the same thing, but I'm not.
fat_boy wrote:
SO you think the entire scientific community is behind GW?
Did I say that? Read what I wrote. Don't put words in my mouth. Like I keep saying, you're making this political instead of scientific.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
-
Ours is still pushing Cap & Tax among other tyrannically unconstitutional legislation.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Ours is still pushing Cap & Tax among other tyrannically unconstitutional legislation.
And the Littlest Captain is doing what about it? BTW: Your Constitution was shredded some 150 years ago.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
You just tried to change tact again. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? You might like to start here[^] Your point here seems to be that Australia's changing of PM somehow validates your views about GW. I am saying that the change of leadership within the Australia Labour party was not related to the GW policies or views of either the current or previous PM. You're an idiot and you dont know what you're talking about when it comes to Australian politics. I'm going to go home, play with my son, put him to bed, eat dinner with my girl friend and smoke a big Dutch joint. You can continue without me if you want.
You forget that in fb's mind, anything with a slight correlation means that it is a cause/effect scenario. So, if he thought Kevin Rudd was actually gay, then the fact that he banged his wife once was actually the reason he got sacked. He'll use any correlation and spout it as proof of cause and effect. He doesn't subscribe to the first rule of reason which says that "in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think". And before debating someone, if that person doesn't follow reason, then there's no point in trying to "reason" with them.
modified on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 6:25 PM
-
Ah, but it wouldn't be an NCB run operation, do it with private companies and make it pay!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
You forget that in fb's mind, anything with a slight correlation means that it is a cause/effect scenario. So, if he thought Kevin Rudd was actually gay, then the fact that he banged his wife once was actually the reason he got sacked. He'll use any correlation and spout it as proof of cause and effect. He doesn't subscribe to the first rule of reason which says that "in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think". And before debating someone, if that person doesn't follow reason, then there's no point in trying to "reason" with them.
modified on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 6:25 PM
-
You just tried to change tact again. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? You might like to start here[^] Your point here seems to be that Australia's changing of PM somehow validates your views about GW. I am saying that the change of leadership within the Australia Labour party was not related to the GW policies or views of either the current or previous PM. You're an idiot and you dont know what you're talking about when it comes to Australian politics. I'm going to go home, play with my son, put him to bed, eat dinner with my girl friend and smoke a big Dutch joint. You can continue without me if you want.
Josh Gray wrote:
You just tried to change tact again
Thats 'track' or 'tack'. Changing 'tact' is either becoming more tactless or less tactless. Which I am sure you didnt mean. As for Australian politics, yes, I know nothing, and I am sure you lept upon that one thing to criticise me with as it is somethign you understand better than I. Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue. Perhaps you shouldnt smoke gear. In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Josh Gray wrote:
You just tried to change tact again
Thats 'track' or 'tack'. Changing 'tact' is either becoming more tactless or less tactless. Which I am sure you didnt mean. As for Australian politics, yes, I know nothing, and I am sure you lept upon that one thing to criticise me with as it is somethign you understand better than I. Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue. Perhaps you shouldnt smoke gear. In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Thats 'track' or 'tack'. Changing 'tact' is either becoming more tactless or less tactless. Which I am sure you didnt mean. As for Australian politics, yes, I know nothing, and I am sure you lept upon that one thing to criticise me with as it is somethign you understand better than I. Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue. Perhaps you shouldnt smoke gear. In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.
You're right about the word tack, thanks. As for the rest you obviously have the shits at being shown up for talking crap as you usually do. Be a man, admit you were wrong and move on.
fat_boy wrote:
Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue.
You have issues if you attempt back up points with facts you clearly know nothing about and then turn nasty when you're shown to be wrong.
fat_boy wrote:
In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.
I'm warped from your point of view? well thank fuck for that. I'd call your rabid fascination with global warming a pretty good sign of mental issues.
-
fat_boy wrote:
And your proof is what? (And dont give me the 'its toxic at 10%' we all know that, and we are only talking about 1000ppm nax here) Of course whats good for plants is good for crops and that good for man.
We inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. For humans, carbon dioxide is a waste product. You never specified anything about concentration levels. If it's toxic at 10%, then it stands to reason that it gradually becomes toxic as it approaches that concentration, so lower concentrations may be within our tolerance but are not "good" for humans. And of course, unless you're going to allege that the density of the atmosphere will increase, then more CO2 means less of something else... What? Is it oxygen? Because that would also be bad for humans.
fat_boy wrote:
What a daft argument. The last 10000 years pretty much coincides with mans civilisation so its a perfectly good base to use.
You're confusing the gap between the data points with the accuracy of the trend itself. The economy has gone up since 1990, down since 2000, down since 2007, up since the end of 2008, up since yesterday... All of these statements are true, but which of them actually tells us what's happening, and which best helps us predict what it'll be like next year? And keep in mind that whether your two data points are 10000 years apart or 10000 seconds apart, they're still only two points. If you pick your reference point as the middle of an ice age, or the middle of a warm period, it's going to spin your results in one direction.
fat_boy wrote:
No no no no. The RAW data shows no warming. Havent you looked into this? Looked at raw station data? Validated what you see on th enet as much as you can with the various met olffices in the different coountries?
Have you? Or have you just read blogs from people who have shown you charts with select bits of the numbers? I could go on the pro-AGW sites and do the same thing, but I'm not.
fat_boy wrote:
SO you think the entire scientific community is behind GW?
Did I say that? Read what I wrote. Don't put words in my mouth. Like I keep saying, you're making this political instead of scientific.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
In actual fact CO2 is necessary for humans. Without it our breath response isnt triggered. If its less than about 250 ppm crops start to fail, trees start to die. Thats bad for man. If its above 5000 some people may experience discomfort, thats why its the maximum level recomended for crop production, I sent you the link to the Canadian govt dept of agr paper on this. So anywhere between say 300 and 5000 is comfortable for man. And we are looking at an increase to 500 or 600 ppm. So its not a problem to man at a biological/chemical level.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Have you?
Yes. As I believe I told you before I checked the data on the Daly website with that held by the Met office and found it agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Did I say that?
Its hard to know what you mean because you are inconsistent fomr one post to another and dont argue point through. Perhaps you do it for ammusement, I dont know. But, Hansen is ain important figure. I criticised him, and you say "you're attacking one particular scientist, as if he represents the entire scientific community". This lead me to believe that you think, since I am not attacking the entire scientific community , than the entire community is behind AGW. If not can you explain what you meant? Here is an interesting link to a documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUuff3cnPBo[^] It has just scientists, not politics, or rhetoric, discussing the scientific pronciples behind GW and why in their opinion any warmig caused by CO2 is negligible. If you really are as open minded as you say you are you wil take the time to watch it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Thats 'track' or 'tack'. Changing 'tact' is either becoming more tactless or less tactless. Which I am sure you didnt mean. As for Australian politics, yes, I know nothing, and I am sure you lept upon that one thing to criticise me with as it is somethign you understand better than I. Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue. Perhaps you shouldnt smoke gear. In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.
You're right about the word tack, thanks. As for the rest you obviously have the shits at being shown up for talking crap as you usually do. Be a man, admit you were wrong and move on.
fat_boy wrote:
Clearly you have issues if you like attacking people with foul language for making statements which are possibly untrue.
You have issues if you attempt back up points with facts you clearly know nothing about and then turn nasty when you're shown to be wrong.
fat_boy wrote:
In my experience if you are as warped as you seem to be smoking weed will probably result in mental damage.
I'm warped from your point of view? well thank fuck for that. I'd call your rabid fascination with global warming a pretty good sign of mental issues.
I dont know if you read the article I linked to, but I based my statement about Australian politics on that. I have no reason to believe you are more correct than the writer of that article so I wont be appologising anytime soon. Just because you lilved there, in fact so did I but lets not get into the 'I lived there longer than you so I know more about it than you do' crap, lets leave that for the ignorant, does not mean you are necessarially right. As for mental issues, I am pretty sure I have a reasonable compliment, who hasnt. At least I KNOW what mine are and recognise them. Do you?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I dont know if you read the article I linked to, but I based my statement about Australian politics on that. I have no reason to believe you are more correct than the writer of that article so I wont be appologising anytime soon. Just because you lilved there, in fact so did I but lets not get into the 'I lived there longer than you so I know more about it than you do' crap, lets leave that for the ignorant, does not mean you are necessarially right. As for mental issues, I am pretty sure I have a reasonable compliment, who hasnt. At least I KNOW what mine are and recognise them. Do you?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
blah blah fucking blah. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? Yes, no or fuck off? You choose
-
Still in an asshole mood I see. I guess the joint didnt help you any.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Still in an a**hole mood I see.
Still cant answer the question I see. What would have been surprising is if you admitted your mistake. I dont imagine that's ever happened though.
fat_boy wrote:
I guess the joint didnt help you any.
Didn't get round to it in the end. Tonight perhaps. You're not far away, wanna come over?