Climate Change is global socialism, admits the UN
-
A_Griffin wrote:
ust pointing to the amount of greenery proves nothing
So yo totally missed the part abotu water vapour feedbacks and its absence in reality? Sigh. Why? That IS the point. That is the single key crucial critical issue. Why are you ignoring it?
Because this is speculation. No-one knows for sure what will actually happen. Temperatures may rise enough that the absence (or not) of water vapour is irrelevant. Maybe it will be a critical factor, maybe it won't. All we do know for sure is that there is currently an upward trend in global average temperatures, and there is a general consensus that mankind has played a significant role in bringing this about. Everything else is speculation and hypothesis. But if the trend continues - and for not much longer - there could be quite severe consequences.
-
No? Can't find a link to the actual, apparently, UN statement? Eh?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
apparently, UN statement?
What statement? I wasn't looking for anything from the UN. :confused:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Redistribution of wealth IS socialism.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013To a point - but the word "socialism" on its own is pretty meaningless. To most Americans (and you are one, I believe) the word conveys a meaning tantamount to communism. To most Europeans it has a very different meaning. NO one (well, hardly anyone, and no-one that matters) is talking about literally taking money off richer people and giving it to poorer ones on the "to each according to their needs" principle, but - as whathisname said in the the quote, a "de facto" redistribution of wealth, by which he means changes in policy which will result in some such. Unregulated capitalism is proving to be a disaster, not just socially. but environmentally (and this is where he's coming from of course.) When companies care about nothing but their bottom line, and are given free reign to do what they want, then others suffer, and this is ultimately unacceptable. It has to change. So their bottom line will be hit, and a certain redistribution of wealth will follow. Call that socialism if you want, but at least recognise that there are degrees of it - it doesn't have to be blood red. But carry on as you are, and blood will very likely be spilled in due course. The current shitfest will not be tolerated forever.
-
Because this is speculation. No-one knows for sure what will actually happen. Temperatures may rise enough that the absence (or not) of water vapour is irrelevant. Maybe it will be a critical factor, maybe it won't. All we do know for sure is that there is currently an upward trend in global average temperatures, and there is a general consensus that mankind has played a significant role in bringing this about. Everything else is speculation and hypothesis. But if the trend continues - and for not much longer - there could be quite severe consequences.
A_Griffin wrote:
Because this is speculation
No it isn't. It is the fundamental basis of CAGW. Without the +ve feedback from water vapour the warming from CO2 is very mild. AND THERE IS NO WATER VAPOUR INCREASE. This is fact, not speculation. Are you aware of the basic physics of AGW? This is from the MODTRAN model. MODTRAN Infrared Light in the Atmosphere[^] You can see the additional 3.4 watts of forcing. Now increase the surface temp till the emission is the same and the value at '...Difference' is zero. The surface temp you need is 14.75 So 0.75 is the increase in surface temperature that doubling CO2 gives, according to MODTRAN. This is the physics behind AGW, and without a water vapour increase this is all you get. 0.75 C. Have a play, it is an interesting model.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
apparently, UN statement?
What statement? I wasn't looking for anything from the UN. :confused:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You linked to an article that linked to a guardian article that said the UN environment program said 200 species a day are going extinct, and you now say 'what UN?' :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You linked to an article that linked to a guardian article that said the UN environment program said 200 species a day are going extinct, and you now say 'what UN?' :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?
I didn't read the article. You were asking where the 2000 extinct species were as if we aren't losing any species. I pointed you to a google result of over 26 million results that talk about how many species we lose on average in a day. If you're going to choose to ignore it, that's OK with me.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I didn't read the article. You were asking where the 2000 extinct species were as if we aren't losing any species. I pointed you to a google result of over 26 million results that talk about how many species we lose on average in a day. If you're going to choose to ignore it, that's OK with me.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
SnickersSatisfies wrote:
didn't read the article
Maybe you should if you are going to take part in a discussion.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
Because this is speculation
No it isn't. It is the fundamental basis of CAGW. Without the +ve feedback from water vapour the warming from CO2 is very mild. AND THERE IS NO WATER VAPOUR INCREASE. This is fact, not speculation. Are you aware of the basic physics of AGW? This is from the MODTRAN model. MODTRAN Infrared Light in the Atmosphere[^] You can see the additional 3.4 watts of forcing. Now increase the surface temp till the emission is the same and the value at '...Difference' is zero. The surface temp you need is 14.75 So 0.75 is the increase in surface temperature that doubling CO2 gives, according to MODTRAN. This is the physics behind AGW, and without a water vapour increase this is all you get. 0.75 C. Have a play, it is an interesting model.
Quote:
This is fact, not speculation.
NO, it is speculation. No one - NO ONE - knows what is going to happen. But MOST climate scientists are more pessimistic. People like you who claim to KNOW it's all nonsense are simply lying. You do not know anything of the sort. The point is, there are too many unknowns for anyone to really know. WV is just one.
-
Quote:
This is fact, not speculation.
NO, it is speculation. No one - NO ONE - knows what is going to happen. But MOST climate scientists are more pessimistic. People like you who claim to KNOW it's all nonsense are simply lying. You do not know anything of the sort. The point is, there are too many unknowns for anyone to really know. WV is just one.
No, it is a FACT that water vapour has not increased with temperature. Thus it is not amplifying the warming from CO2. Did you take a look at MPDTRAN and have a play with it? It really is very interesting.
A_Griffin wrote:
WV is just one
What other +ve feedback process is there? The reason water vapour was looked at is because for each Kelvin increase air can hold 7% more water. What other mechanism exists?
-
Put it this way, as Churchil said, the passive majority will never control a fervent minority. The muslim council of Britain asked Blair if they could implement Sharia law in the UK. So the answer is 'all of them', since those who don't are not in control.
:thumbsup:
Munchies_Matt wrote:
if they could implement Sharia law in the UK.
Most liberal white people don't get this. They have no fucking idea what kind of fire they are playing with when they condone this shit.
-
:thumbsup:
Munchies_Matt wrote:
if they could implement Sharia law in the UK.
Most liberal white people don't get this. They have no fucking idea what kind of fire they are playing with when they condone this shit.
yep
-
Put it this way, as Churchil said, the passive majority will never control a fervent minority. The muslim council of Britain asked Blair if they could implement Sharia law in the UK. So the answer is 'all of them', since those who don't are not in control.
One of the nicest blokes I know is a Muslim. His daughter was recently lauded as a girl coder at a set of Microsoft events. He's one of the most vocal advocates FOR women's rights that I know. Then again, people like him don't play into your narrative so you'll write him off as a statistical outlier.
This space for rent
-
No, it is a FACT that water vapour has not increased with temperature. Thus it is not amplifying the warming from CO2. Did you take a look at MPDTRAN and have a play with it? It really is very interesting.
A_Griffin wrote:
WV is just one
What other +ve feedback process is there? The reason water vapour was looked at is because for each Kelvin increase air can hold 7% more water. What other mechanism exists?
-
One of the nicest blokes I know is a Muslim. His daughter was recently lauded as a girl coder at a set of Microsoft events. He's one of the most vocal advocates FOR women's rights that I know. Then again, people like him don't play into your narrative so you'll write him off as a statistical outlier.
This space for rent
Good on him. I wish there were more. The problem is if you put him in a community of muslims where the majority want sharia law, will he still be vocal, or will he shut up?
-
I am not going to argue this with you, except to say that if you seriously think you can know and predict the world's climate, then you are a compete and utter fool, and we're done.
who said anything about predicting the future climate? I was merely pointing out that the very basis of CAGW is in fact disproved. Water vapour is not amplifying warming from CO2. Thus CO2 is totaly beneficial, mild warming and huge increase in plant growth. And this is exactly what we have seen.
A_Griffin wrote:
you seriously think you can know and predict the world's climate, then you are a compete and utter fool
Why dont you direct that sentiment at alarmist climate scientists who do exactly that?
-
Good on him. I wish there were more. The problem is if you put him in a community of muslims where the majority want sharia law, will he still be vocal, or will he shut up?
Knowing what I know about him, he'd still be vocal. He's not exactly the shy and retiring type.
This space for rent
-
Knowing what I know about him, he'd still be vocal. He's not exactly the shy and retiring type.
This space for rent
Good, with more like him perhaps we can see islam modernise, take on western values, and become acceptable in the west.
-
who said anything about predicting the future climate? I was merely pointing out that the very basis of CAGW is in fact disproved. Water vapour is not amplifying warming from CO2. Thus CO2 is totaly beneficial, mild warming and huge increase in plant growth. And this is exactly what we have seen.
A_Griffin wrote:
you seriously think you can know and predict the world's climate, then you are a compete and utter fool
Why dont you direct that sentiment at alarmist climate scientists who do exactly that?
Quote:
the very basis of CAGW is in fact disproved
No, it hasn't. (But nor am I saying it's proved.) Nothing is proven, either way. How many times must that be repeated for you to get it? You don't know what will happen in years to come. Maybe WV will increase as (if) temperatures continue to rise. Maybe some other factor will play a more significant role than thought (eg changing ocean currents, jet stream, melting permafrost, etc et-bloody-cetera.)
Quote:
Why dont you direct that sentiment at alarmist climate scientists who do exactly that?
Because they aren't spouting certainties like you are trying to do. They are presenting different scenarios, and different scientists have different opinions as to which is the more likely. CAGW is simply the worst case scenario. Which is a possibility - nowhere near to being "disproved".
-
To a point - but the word "socialism" on its own is pretty meaningless. To most Americans (and you are one, I believe) the word conveys a meaning tantamount to communism. To most Europeans it has a very different meaning. NO one (well, hardly anyone, and no-one that matters) is talking about literally taking money off richer people and giving it to poorer ones on the "to each according to their needs" principle, but - as whathisname said in the the quote, a "de facto" redistribution of wealth, by which he means changes in policy which will result in some such. Unregulated capitalism is proving to be a disaster, not just socially. but environmentally (and this is where he's coming from of course.) When companies care about nothing but their bottom line, and are given free reign to do what they want, then others suffer, and this is ultimately unacceptable. It has to change. So their bottom line will be hit, and a certain redistribution of wealth will follow. Call that socialism if you want, but at least recognise that there are degrees of it - it doesn't have to be blood red. But carry on as you are, and blood will very likely be spilled in due course. The current shitfest will not be tolerated forever.
A_Griffin wrote:
NO one (well, hardly anyone, and no-one that matters) is talking about literally taking money off richer people and giving it to poorer ones
No, it's even worse - they're talking money from richer COUNTRIES, and they're not even giving it to other less wealthy countries. They're reinvesting it into their own climate change agenda. It's all bullsh|t.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Quote:
the very basis of CAGW is in fact disproved
No, it hasn't. (But nor am I saying it's proved.) Nothing is proven, either way. How many times must that be repeated for you to get it? You don't know what will happen in years to come. Maybe WV will increase as (if) temperatures continue to rise. Maybe some other factor will play a more significant role than thought (eg changing ocean currents, jet stream, melting permafrost, etc et-bloody-cetera.)
Quote:
Why dont you direct that sentiment at alarmist climate scientists who do exactly that?
Because they aren't spouting certainties like you are trying to do. They are presenting different scenarios, and different scientists have different opinions as to which is the more likely. CAGW is simply the worst case scenario. Which is a possibility - nowhere near to being "disproved".
A_Griffin wrote:
No, it hasn't
Yes it has, because there is no water vapour response to temperature increase, thus the suppsed amplifying factor that makes CO2 potentailly dangerous is NOT at play.
A_Griffin wrote:
Maybe WV will increase as (if) temperatures continue to rise
Based on WHAT physics? You can't just make stuff up, there HAS to be a mechanism.
A_Griffin wrote:
Maybe some other factor will play a more significant role than thought (eg changing ocean currents, jet stream, melting permafrost, etc et-bloody-cetera.)
The first two dont add heat. The last might release CH4. However CH4s absorption band is totally overlapped by water vapour [^] . It doesnt last long in the atmosphere either. It reacts quite easily. (In fact it burns).
A_Griffin wrote:
they aren't spouting certainties like you are trying to do
I am pointing out that it is a FACT that doubling CO2 leads to 1C rise, and that water vapour is not increasing. These arent predictions, possibilities, maybes. There are facts.
