Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
When you are finished reading and digesting those fully vetted sources, get back with us.
Narland, The United States Of Patriots
The Regional Community News Issue #43:The work of one is out!
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=635408
Well opening up with an attack on someone's character is always a good sign especially when someone states that the other position does not have grain of truth in it, no matter how hard I try, you'll probably still have the same opinion, you haven't looked at the videos, so you don't seem eager to learn, and so, this won't be for you, but for people who are not raging ideologues.
Before you try to claim your position is held by a majority of experts, by bringing up the Oregon Petition (like how you obviously think it is) I will leave this here.
http://debunking.pbworks.com/w/page/17102969/Oregon%20Petition
The first one seems to be about a mere 20 arrogant scientists in over their heads, and the second one requires a subscription, so they will be ignored for now.
The third, fifth and sixth all focus on the leaked emails.
Now what seems to be the only examples of fraud over 13 years of emails, are the following quotes.
"I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (is from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
"The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
Yes, this seems pretty damming, if you don't look further into it.
Now the excuse is that researchers use the word trick to mean a clever thing to do.
Now if the excuse is correct, and it is merely out of context, then you should find the word "trick" in scientific literature in similar context.
"Computational Tricks in Linear Programming
Without the Use of Artificial Variables"
"A computational trick for delta-method standard errors"
"A computational trick for calculating the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition and its standard error"
Oh, it seems that the excuse was actually honest, unless you believe scientists in different fields would also state in the title of their papers that the following is merely deception, so the scientists in the hacked emails do look innocent, at least in this respect.
This is all for now, I have to break up my response, probably into around 6 parts, if you don't like walls of text you could look at the following videos that I've already posted, which have the exact same context in audio format.
I'm trying to summarise the points made in the videos, which does take a considerable amount of time, especially since I am doing this all on mobile.
Now, here are the videos, watching them all should take around 40 minutes.
https://youtu.be/7nnVQ2fROOg
https://youtu.be/uXesBhYwdRo
https://youtu.be/4OB2prBtVFo
https://youtu.be/OJ6Z04VJDco
https://youtu.be/XO8WrE63__I
I would ask you to come back to me after listening to roughly 40 minutes of audio and maybe expand your knowledge, but I expect you to point blank refuse to even glance at them, unless you want to prove me wrong, and that you are in fact not an ideologue.
Got that right. I don't have the time and I will not waste the time on an unvetted source.
No, what we are confirming here is that I am only interested in sources that have not committed fraud, and/or have no interest in the outcome.
Take for example the page you submitted regarding the Oregon petition. Allow me to quote:
'This fraud is the source of the Denier myth"
ROFL!!! These people are calling fraud? Kettle? Pot? Black?
That was all the farther I needed to read before knowing the author of this page is in the bag for the Church of Global Warming.
Let us see if there is any hope for you. Below the button is the truth behind climate science. If you are interested in coming back into the realm of reality, read on.
[spoiler=Click for Epic Climate Truth Post]Allow me to introduce Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. This man is the only climate scientist that absolutely nailed the future when it comes to the climate by using the effect of the oceans to predict the planet is entering a cooling phase.[1] He nailed it 20 years ago. His predictions and the climate are all in the books now.
In fact, he not only called it, the Church of Global Warming had to change their name to Climate Change because the climate cooling Dr. Easterbook predicted made them look pretty silly.
In his article for Global Research, Dr. Easterbrook provides several graphs verifying the the cooling.[2] He further goes on to explain how the effects of greenhouse gasses on the atmosphere are almost negligible compared to the effects of the ocean. (That would be the model that he used to accurately predict the cooling that put lie to the Global Warming crowd.)
In 2006 Dr. Easterbook gave a peer reviewed presentation at The Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia. In that presentation he demonstrates the effects of the oceans on the atmosphere. In that presentation you will also find data and graphs that back up the original link.[3]
If that is not enough for you, there are these German scientists that have been studying past temperature trends.[4] On page 180 (upper left corner) you will find the temperature spiked in the 1240's. Got to wonder how that happened without all the industrial age pollution sources we have today. Guess it could have been a worm hole.
Then we have Wikipedia. This article tells us that over the last 500 million years the planet's temperature has ranged from 14°C over the 1960-1990 average[5] to 10°C under that number.[6] One cannot help but wonder if the planet is anywhere near finished changing. Clearly, man's influence on that climate is negligible. My guess is that it cannot be measured on a global basis.
Sadly, even NASA is in the Climate Change Fertilizer business. They got caught cooking the numbers to fit the narrative last year. [7][8][9]
Heck, NASA's own departments cannot get together on Climate Change. We have GISS cooking the books to make it look hotter while at the same time Operation IceBridge is telling us the poles are cooling off and the ice pack is growing.[10]
This is what happens when science is bent by politics. The real driving force behind the greenhouse gas based, anti-carbon climate change movement is real easy. The colleges and universities pushing this fraud have millions in emissions patents rising on the continuation of the fraud.[11]
Don't take my word for it. Thumb through those Google search pages until you are convinced.
Were I to attain some status in the climate research field, I would work to make sure that any organization holding one or more of these patents, or even remotely related to an organization with that kind of skin in the game have all their research peer reviewed and their data and collection methods audited by actual climate scientists with no vested interest in the game.
And new research from those with something to gain or protect? Forget it. Not even if it slits their own financial throats.
Until that time, we have the fox guarding the chicken coop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-who-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global
[2] http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
[3] https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_108164.htm - You have to click the link to the presentation handouts.
[4] http://epic.awi.de/39643/1/cp-12-171-2016.pdf#sthash.oaDTLxgJ.gbszRdPV.dpuf
[5] I cannot help but wonder who decided that the 1960-1990 average is the gold standard for temperatures...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view
[7] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/
[8] http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/
[9] http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19930-nasa-s-own-data-refutes-2014-warmest-on-record-claim
[10] http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/622043/GLOBAL-WARMING-NASA-Antarctic-COOLING-six-years-Arctic-north-pole-climate-change
[11] https://www.google.com/search?q=greenhouse+gas+emissions+patents+by+univeristy[/spoiler]
The United States Of Patriots
So any journalist that disagrees with you is unvetted?
I get it, you are TFG.
Oh, you mean this guy?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html
Post self-deleted by Cyborgs And Sentient Machines.
Initially I didn't notice you put the citations at the bottom of the post, which is good, usually when people copy pasta they forget about the citations, but I'd still like to see the original site, also I thought Wikipedia was a no no?
Greetings everyone, most of you probably don't recognize me, but I was quite the active member of this region a few years ago. I somewhat dropped this gem of a simulation but I am happy to say I have returned with full force. I hope to be able to play a better in growing this region back to its former glory.
You escaped this nonsense and yet came back? Condolences. Relapses are always difficult.
Miencraft, New Jaslandia, The Ambassador To The Clfr, Rateria
The ''potholer54'' guy is Peter Hadfield.
https://youtu.be/2YMxpqYEjyo
Post self-deleted by Narland.
Post self-deleted by Narland.
WB
We are mortals all. :)
Science is a body of knowledge systematically laid out in such a way as to directly show correlation of truth to reality by factual and demonstrable analysis conveyed with precision in open and honest dialogue in a form of record. Truth knows no consensus. It cannot be changed by majority vote. It either is or it is not regardless of how many people believe or disbelieve it to be true.
But that is not the issue in the global warming debate. The issue is control and dominion. The solutions offered by the claimants are religious.
Whenever "science" goes religious I tune it out. "Science" that tells me to trust in their priests and sacrifice my life, liberty and property on altar of the hubris of their data is not science, it is religion, and not even good religion but irreligion. I am neither constrained by my conscience nor can their be any law (that is not lawless in and of itself--tyranny) that can force me to sacrifice my life and person to their beliefs no matter how sincerely they believe their "science" to be true
Miencraft, The Ambassador To The Clfr, The United States Of Patriots
Are you saying that because certain governments are doing x y and z because of climate change, climate change is wrong?
Governments may want you to pay more taxes but I don't know where sacrificing your life and property comes into it?
**Sigh**
This is starting to get boring.
Not sure what TFG means?
Seriously? Skeptical Science?? One of the biggest cheerleaders for Global Warming? My guess is that rather then looking at the links and reading the papers you simply googled Dr. Easterbrook and picked the first hatchet job you found on the net.
When you do check you will find that Dr. Easterbrook nailed the future a generation ago. In writing. You will also see that his predictions turned out to be very accurate.
What I cannot figure out is what's to doubt here? He called it, it happened. Out of the entire field of climate scientists, Dr. Easterbrook is the only one that got it right. As a bonus he did not screw around with the numbers.
So? Doesn't mean anything to me. Is he right up there with Dr. Sheldon Cooper and "Fun with Flags?"
Not sure about [nation=short]Narland[/nation], but I'm sure not. I'm saying that Global Warming n/k/a Climate Change is a fraud requiring the suspensionsion of reality and cooking the books to make it work. That makes it wrong for government to enforce the dogma on non-believers with taxes and laws.
More taxes is a reduction in the liberty to spend my money as I see fit. The loss of property comes into play with laws that effectively outlaw existing equipment. Everything from diesel trucks, construction equipment and even stationary diesel applications like generators, all the way up to coal fired power plants. All of those things are property that are being rendered down to scrap value. From individuals to stock holders and members of coops, all of these people are having their property rendered useless by the government in the name of junk science.
That's just plain wrong.
The United States Of Patriots
Crisis averted.
The Ambassador To The Clfr
Our ideologies in action
The Ambassador To The Clfr, Rateria
Lol... Did y'all really just let that happen?
Don't worry. I won't tell anyone.
No, I posted what I meant to say. Please reread.
This is not the issue, but if you want to touch on the topic: The power to tax is the power to own, control, and destroy. Govt is not God and no man (woman or sapient) is necessarily beholden to it. Govt is ever a political fiction created by individuals and must forever remain in obeisance to the person of those individuals as public servants. When they eventually fail to behave as such and so forswear that fealty to anything else (even the myth of the state), they impeach themselves as representatives of legitimate governance. To rob an individual of a penny through fraud or coercion for any reason (including the ruse of taxes) without just representation is just as wrong as robbing the national productivity and varies only in the degree of treachery. To use the changing of the climate (which it always does) as an excuse is reprehensible.
But again that is not the issue. Please reread the previous post. The religious fervor to persecute people who want certitude in the matter of an issue of prognostication is a case in point. Let me repeat--prognostication--not duplicable verifiable certitude of humanocentric malaise. The issue is priestcraft posing as science using religious suasion to affect political change to divest people of their rights. It is BS, it stinks and it is offensive.
The Ambassador To The Clfr
I don't even think anyone else with access to Lib is even on ever anymore. Not even Lib.
So that's my fault entirely.
Nah, I can still access Lib. I just (usually) choose not to.
Oh. I forgot you could, too.
[I]You could have prevented this.
Does it matter where something already stands, putting on blinders because you disagree with a site so you can ignore the contents is irrational, you are also doing the same to Peter Hadfield.
The fact of the matter is you haven't shown a single peer reviewed paper as far as I am aware of, (journalists are only OK if they are on fox news?) I turned off as soon as I saw Wikipedia as a citation, which I was berated for bringing up for people to get a general understanding of the medieval warm period.
You also believe all evidence for anthropogenic climate change comes from the IPCC, which is flat out wrong.
Even if they did fudge the numbers (I made a point that the emails were out of context previously) that would have no effect on all the data that doesn't come from the IPCC.
In order for the Earth to cool, you would have to dismiss the greenhouse effect.
"On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" -- S Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine 1896
"The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature"
G. S. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938
"Infra-red absorbtion by carbon dioxide, with special reference to atmospheric radiation"
-- G. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meterological Society 1941
"Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications"
James Hansen, Science 2005
"A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time"
Robert a. Berner, 2002
"Climate Sensitivity during the Phanerozoic: Lessons for the Future" -- DL Royer, Oral presentation at AAPG Annual Convention, Denver, Colorado, 2009
"The faint young sun problem" - Georg Feulner, American Geophysical Union Review of Geophysics, 2012
"Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content" -- Magdalena A. Balmaseda1 et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 2013
"Earth's energy balance and implications" -- Hansen et al, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2011
"Does the Earth have an adaptive infra-red iris?" Richard Lindzen et al., Bulletin of the American Met. Soc., 2001
However, someone who for sure fudges the numbers is in fact Easterbrook.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/21/don-easterbrook-hides-the-incl/
http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-easterbrook-fakes-his-figures-hides-the-incline/
New Jaslandia
I refer you to the following.
Also an extra one as the above down"t cover "which it always does".
https://youtu.be/w5hs4KVeiAU
Unless you happen to be an ideologue as well?
Only you can prevent founder fades.
Miencraft, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
http://i.imgur.com/0DzhW.gif?noredirect
The Ambassador To The Clfr
I can too yo.
Shama llama
No one vetted him to me. I don't have 40 minutes to sit in front of the computer only to discover I wasted my time on a preacher trying to sell me on his religion.
Yes I did. Dr. Easterbrook's papers are peer reviewed. And now his predictions are historically reviewed. Both reviews came back positive.
So far all you have is the ravings of priests trying to hold an inquisition on a heritic. So what if his graphs came out similar to something else. Your sources crack me up. They cannot even agree on what kind of fraud they are claiming Easterbrook committed.
Look this has been fun and all, but it is clear that like most other fervent religious zealots, you are not about to discuss this reasonably and will certainly drink the Koolaid when it is passed around.
I'm not all the religious myself, but there are some lessons from the Christian Bible that still apply in this day and age. One of those verses from Proverbs applies here. It reads something like "Go from the presence of the foolish man when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."
With that I leave you to your religion along with a note of caution. You have the right to believe anything you want, live your life anyway you want and even recycle toilet water through your pool to save 0.001 watts of energy down at the sewer plant. The minute you try to force your dogma on other people through social engineering like taxes or brute force through law, you are treading on the edge of war.
It is unreasonable to expect reasonable to people to respect and obey unreasonable laws. This is especially true when those laws are based on junk science. People are getting fed up. Higher energy costs, higher taxes, restrictions on their freedoms, rendering useless perfectly good property and higher prices on everything from milk to flat screens all in the name of this bovine waste material. Eventually that pot is going to boil over.
You get the last word, preacher.
Narland
TFW they can't rebut your argument and instead resort to an ad hominem logical fallacy.
I need to find a new whetstone.
It would be hypocritical not to apply this logic to your side as well. I contend that pollution is a blatant violation of the non-aggression principle.
New Jaslandia
Nova Condealism
If one can prove the pollution is harming others then you have a case. Global warming can not make that claim.
So far the global warming scientists have only proved two things:
They have to fraudulently alter the data to support their theories.
Their arguments are so flimsy that dissenters are attacked and threatened. In fact it is so bad that that some Climate Preachers urged lawmakers and attorneys general to use the RICO act to silence dissenters.
Once it is a scientifically proven, independently peer reviewed threat, then, and only then, can we talk about aggression.
No, we can talk about aggression when negligent business practices result in smog-shrouded urban areas, polluted bodies of water, mass deforestation, acid rain, and/or other significant negative environment-related externalities - which is to say, now.
I'm fortunate to live in an area where I don't have to see most of those things firsthand, which leads me to conclude that it is not remotely necessary to treat the sustainability of local ecosystems as just another resource to be exploited (let alone the relative stability of the world's climate as a whole). Indeed - whether it's a result of regulation or just good sense - most of the businesses I've encountered have little to no negative impact, whether direct or indirect, on anyone's quality of life. Most.
Last year, I cancelled a lake retreat because the lake in question - normally clean enough to swim in, and big enough to get lost in - had nearly half its surface covered in red moss. As it turned out, this was because a logging company had half-assed a job just upstream and refused to clean it up; another, more reputable company, which owned a lakeside resort downstream, had to step in and fix the problem themselves after the giant blanket of moss advanced far enough to reach their side of the lake. This is a relatively mild real-world example of the public being inconvenienced by lazy, environmentally-unfriendly business practices. We can move the goalposts of "how much consensus is necessary to warrant action" arguments in the macroscopic climate change debate all we want (never mind that to derive scientifically proven anything from nondeterministic observation borders on utter fantasy), but we don't have a prayer of winning the long game - regardless of the extent of humanity's effect, or lack thereof, on the climate - if we don't focus on more short-term, localized problems and solutions.
I shouldn't have to say I want future generations to breathe the same fresh air, observe the same flora and fauna, and play in the same parks as the current generation does - it should be a given, something I could conceivably possess the luxury of taking for granted if I wanted to. After all, many others do take it for granted - but that's part of the problem, isn't it? The way I see it, there are three things we can do when confronted with negative externalities, particularly those pertaining to our environments:
1. We cut our losses, say "I've got mine," and make them someone else's problem. (This option is not without precedent; a lot of our predecessors were big believers in 'rational self-interest.')
2. We wait for someone - almost invariably a government - to make us fix them. (As for why they don't do it themselves, see option 1. Plus, they have a monopoly on force.)
3. We put our sense of responsibility ahead of our greed, retaliating against aggressors and reversing the damage they've caused, for the sake of mutual benefit.
I think I know which I'd rather choose.
New Jaslandia
https://youtu.be/uXesBhYwdRo
CLFR is willfully ignorant, he refuses to learn and you are just going to run into the cognitive dissonance firewall.
If someone say robbed a bank and shot someone, then later in court his lawyer stated that the victims have to decide whether he committed one or the other, and there was evidence of both, would you laugh at the lawyer?
Oh Libertatem, now your just somebody I used to know.
Thank you for the citations. I have watch the vids. It is clear we are not communicating. What I meant to say was stated in the first post. Please reread.
The vids by potholer54 have nothing to do with why any sane person should reject tyranny as the solution X to any given problem. Should the AWG alarmists wish to offer (objectively) real solutions, I am interested. So far they have not.
Stefan Molyneux opines similarly to my point.
The Climate Change Solution No One Will Talk About
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5SO1RdCYdQ&list=PLXuAIhWYl0xr4FG4M-WFlHq_5UvdGTQy1&index=5
and my understanding:
The 97% Consensus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU
Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
The Ambassador To The Clfr
Post self-deleted by Narland.
We all have ideas, understandings, and points of view--those who think them through are by definition ideologues. Perhaps you do not see the humor in the irony of suggesting that I may be an ideologue for not converting to your view. All well reasoned people tend to think; have ideas and express them, and try to formulate ways and means to live by.
As person who believes very strongly in particular principles and tries to follow them carefully ((Cambridge University Dictionary Definition), I am . If you inquire as to imply that I cannot understand objections to other ideas, or seek to be antagonistic because we disagree, you are mistaken. Succinctly my ideology is inimical to fraud and coercion, and I am willing to go to great lengths to stop bullies. I am not saying you are a bully--I am stating my ideology.
Whether reasoning people apply themselves to to ideology well--affably (in the civil sense) or insufferably is another question. It should go without saying that the worst ideologues are attached to the most wrong-headed ideas and inflict it on others with all the best intentions regardless of the unintended consequences (or how many people they have to harm) to make it so when in power to do so. Conversely, the best ideologues offer thoughtful solutions in open and honest dialogue, well reasoned syllogisms, cogent reasoning, and coherent understanding as an option for any person to accept or reject as seen fit by those affected. Under one society eventually collapses under the weight of its own ineptitude; under the other society grows, thrives, prospers, and overcomes great obstacles.
My hope is that we can find common ground as thoughtful people in agreeing to disagree. That it is reasonable someone may be skeptical of suppositions from inductive argumentation that deduce certain doom in X decades when we cannot even forecast the weather with 100% certitude throughout the week, month season and year. We cannot put a test Earth in a test tube and do a double blind study with a control Earth to deduce a statistically certain outcome, and reduplicate the results. We can only speculate on the data as it happens regardless of how extensive we choose to domineer or respect others. It should furthermore be understood that thoughtful people will reject solutions for which the answer necessarily includes historically dubious policies that infringe upon their person.
We are actually on the same page. Most of those things that clearly affect others should not be allowed.
The man made climate change claims cannot make that claim. The arguments are not only far from clear, they are significantly more clouded by fraud. Until the data can be separated from the fraud, no one should be forced to play.
We agree as long as it is not taken to the extremes the Climate Preachers are going. Just because you see a puff of smoke from a truck does not mean all trucks, or even that particular truck should be outlawed. The problem is we have extremists demanding impossible, impractical zero parts per billion standards on everything from Carbon to Cow Farts.
It seems there was a communication error, I was not debating the effects of AGW/ACC and what should happen, I was debating that the Earth is warming, which Stephen Moleneux agrees with.
The real debate is on how much the Earth is warming, I used the term ideologue as in someone who is dogmatic and whose beliefs are not objective fact.
https://youtu.be/VUk0tm47yr8
I agree. No one should be forced to play; they should be getting the message and doing so voluntarily. Many are... and many aren't.
If our society, as a whole, were smarter about this, we could limit humanity's impact on the climate without outlawing anything - especially if the more optimistic projections are accurate. All this "climate change is a religion," "muh libertarianism" bullcrap is just as annoying as the extremism, and, quite frankly, reflects badly on our respective ideologies. Don't worry about what the extremists are doing; instead of ignoring any and all solutions just to spite them, join the more moderate speculators and focus on more reasonable, pragmatic, agreeable environmental standards.
Also, as ridiculous as it may sound, "cow farts" are actually a pretty heavy hitter as far as greenhouse gases go; however, I believe that certain advances in agriculture - or other areas: lab-grown meat, anyone? - may mitigate this problem in the near future.
New Jaslandia
You seem to be ignoring the fact the earth is currently cooling. Why do you think the crafters of Climate Dogma changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change?
It is not extremism. Nor is it bovine waste material. The Climate Preachers cooked the books. Lie to me once and you don't get a second chance. It is hard to "get the message" when people find out the message is right up there with Santa Claus.
When people know they've been lied to, they are not going to go out of their way to comply. This is especially true when there is money involved.
What do you do when truckers do not voluntarily drop an additional $15-$20 thousand on new trucks to appease the Climate Gods? When it becomes clear truckers are holding off on buying new trucks that cost more, are less efficient and riddled with maintenance problems, do you pull a California and force truckers to buy new trucks by outlawing older trucks?
Animals, man included have been farting since time began. I'm not certain that genie is going to go back in the bottle. As for lab grown meat, have you seen the category 5 crap storm going on over genetically modified crops? I'm thinking that test tube meat will make the GMO outrage look non-existent.
Again, it all comes down to the one missing piece here. That piece is proof that man is actually affecting the global climate, let alone any effect green house gasses actually have. So far no one has done so.
You aren't being a true skeptic, you are being a denier of facts, actual skeptics acknowledge the planet is warming, but they question by how much, and how will it effect the climate, see the Stefan Moleneux video linked by [nation=short]Narland[/nation].
The guy showing climate "cooling" is a fraudster, you would see if you looked at the graphs.
Would also just like to point out that the outrage against GMOs is just as baseless, just like the old panic that DDT caused cancer and did all these terrible things. Fun fact: it prevented cancer, and GMOs have no scientifically-proven negative effects.
But, yes, people would flip out over lab-grown meat, because don't understand = dangerous.
The guy showing climate "warming" is a fraudster, too.
Al Gore is a liar who manipulated and intentionally misinterpreted evidence to prove the point that man is causing the Earth to heat up to the point of Armageddon.
His film's suggestion that CO2 directly causes temperature increases is innacurate. There is a correlation, but in reality CO2 increases preceded temperature increases by anywhere from 8 to 20 centuries. His suggestion that Antarctic ice coverings are melting is false. That lovely clip in his movie of a bunch of ice falling into the ocean is actually what happens when glaciers expand, of which that was footage. Most importantly, his claim that we are directly causing global warming, which would then cause an increase in sea level, is something that he knew was false the entire time. He spent millions on a house directly by the sea, on land that he himself had already claimed would be underwater in just a few decades.
If you're going to say the cooling guy is a fraudster, then I say that he's not the only one. The whole panic about climate has been going on far longer than Gore's nonsense has, but he's been a major catalyst to upping the panic in the last few years, and it's all because he lied.
The Ambassador To The Clfr, Nova Condealism
Uhh, where did I support Al Gore exactly?
#Strawman
Nova Condealism
The risk that comes with outright ignoring those who cry wolf is being caught unprepared if ever the real thing were to come along. Healthy skepticism is one thing - clamping your hands over your ears and insisting your side's liars are more honest than the other side's liars is another entirely.
True, but it's only relatively recently in human history that we've been breeding future steaks and hamburgers in droves.
https://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo
https://youtu.be/zQ3PzYU1N7A
Good grief, arguing with a zealot is like arguing with a wall. Here you go:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/622043/GLOBAL-WARMING-NASA-Antarctic-COOLING-six-years-Arctic-north-pole-climate-change
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#325e3bbf1281
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/17/paul-driessen-earth-may-be-cooling-no-warming/
And let us not forget that many climate scientists in the 1970's were absolutely convinced an ice age was on the way.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/
Agreed, 100%. The same thing happened when using radiation to sterilize food to the point sealed meat requires no refrigeration was demonstrated. The unwashed masses saw the word "radiated" and panic ensued. Had that panic not ensued, we would not have to worry about packaged meat going bad for 30 plus years.
The part you got wrong is the people exposing the climate change fraud are not lying. Dr. Eastwood not only told the truth, global temperatures over the next few decades after his paper verified that.
I'm not certain you have something there. I would like to see numbers on cattle production compared to history and numbers on the decline or increase in wild animals like buffalo that literally blanketed the plains in the 1800's.
I notice you did not answer the question about what you would do if people do not voluntarily go along with the Green Religion.
You're telling me...
It's kind of obvious, isn't it? Each generation that escapes its responsibilities - not just in terms of the environment, but everything their self-gratification has affected, from government to the economy - bequeaths those responsibilities to their successors. If people today decide not to break this cycle of debt of their own free will - and if they resist any last-ditch efforts to make them pay their dues - that cycle will continue either until future generations take care of it... or until there are no more future generations to be had.
I'm providing the other side. If the guy calling for global cooling is a fraudster, please also acknowledge that the guy calling for global warming is a fraudster too.
The Ambassador To The Clfr
You see the difference is, I am not supporting a fraudster.
Once you watch all the videos by potholer, stop supporting the fraudulent Easterbrook, and bring me direct citations (directly from NASA not 3rd hand) instead of economic journalist's personal opinions.
You can get get back to me.
Saying someone is a fraud doesn't make it so.
I explained why Al Gore is a lying bastard. Now it's your turn.
The Ambassador To The Clfr, The United States Of Patriots
Is anyone excited for tomorrow? We'll get to watch two statists yell at each other for about 90 minutes. I honestly am, because I want to see how both candidates perform.
Teuberland, Newfound America
I almost forgot!!
If Trump and Clinton screw up (*fingers crossed*) Johnson has a good chance of popping up at the second debate.
Kumquat Cove, Rateria
I do not support All Gore.
At least try to pay attention.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=21412735
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/21/don-easterbrook-hides-the-incl/
http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-easterbrook-fakes-his-figures-hides-the-incline/
You're missing the point. He's not saying you support Al Gore. Don't act condescending when you haven't earned it.
Miencraft, The United States Of Patriots
Yes you are.
This is simple, see if you can follow along here. Man Made Climate Change=Fraud. Someone pushing Man Made Climate Change=Fraudster.
Not going to waste my time.
If he is a fraud, can you explain to me how his predictions proved to be very precise?
Do your own homework.
Talk about someone not getting it... Like is said, may as well argue with a wall.
Miencraft
Climate change explained, and the myths debunked: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Its easy to make your predictions right when you can fudge the data.
That's not how these things work, you are attempting at making a point about supposed cimate cooling not I.
Al Gore being wrong =/= my sources (who aren't Al Gore!) being wrong
Post self-deleted by Cyborgs And Sentient Machines.
I know All Gore is wrong already, so I could you get your sources on everything else you stated please?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/01/repeat-of-a-negative-arctic-oscillation-leads-to-warm-arctic-low-sea-ice-extent/
I have think that while there may be some expansion of ice in the Antarctic, due to Melting Ice in the Arctic there is a. Net loss of ice.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains/
I'm boycotting the debates.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
The Ambassador To The Clfr
So we should only trust data coming from a site that ends in .gov?
even so here is a quote from NOAA:
"Earths hottest periodsthe Hadean, the late Neoproterozoic, the PETMoccurred before humans existed. Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has ever seen.
Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability. "
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
Read the article before you post it so you don't end up making yourself look like an idiot.
This is saying in some areas the Antarctic lost Ice, but in others, it expanded, and as a whole Antarctica gained Ice, this is exactly what I stated.
Yeah, it was hotter when the dinosaurs were around, yeah news flash, what does this have to do with what we are talking about right now?
But humans are totally the cause of global climate change!
/s
Its ridiculous people try to actually make that point.
If you look at a line graph of earths global temperature for a much longer time, one can easily see that there where far, FAR, greater fluctuations before humans even existed.
for example this graph:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg
(data sources can be found here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg)
Another good one is this one. Which shows mean temperature fluctuations since 2500 BC.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/gtemps.jpg
The Ambassador To The Clfr
I am familiar with what the word NET means.
No need to talk like a condescending tool
The Ambassador To The Clfr
Okay, yeah, see, this is why I've stayed out of this discussion.
Learn some respect or get out of my region.
And that goes for the 'tatemites, too. Keep it civil or keep it off this RMB.
The Ambassador To The Clfr
Still missing the point. Hint: there's more to a debate than having sources. Sometimes presentation and the manner with which you debate is important as well.
You've implied you're here for a metaphorical whetstone, you would do well to at least try to make contact with it.
I'm surprised that it has been over two years since I first came to Libertatem. Although I may have grown distant, this will never stop being a great region full of cool people.
~TLT
Communists shouldn't come to my geometry class, because they'll get triggered by the properties.
Miencraft, The Ambassador To The Clfr, The United States Of Patriots, Shirayuki Mizore
I'm really not too sure about the context of this debate, but I'll say something. The only two things I hate in political argument is 1. Down-right insulting, and 2. Blatant condescending.
You're the latter.
The United States Of Patriots
CLFR is the former.
The climate has changed before =/= humans cannot effect the climate.
Your own source (this one
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg
) shows that the current change in climate is occurring over a short period of time, compared to most changes in climate (see the switch between millions and thousands of years).
From an observation of the graph the current temperature changes according to that graph, seem to be in the most rapid, next to those spikes seen in the Pliocene.
Ok, This is getting to the point of ridiculous and very spammy. You are just repeating the same garbage over and over.
You are being intentionally thick. I'm going to explain this primarily for the benefit of those still following this debate. Doctor Easterbrook called the future with an accuracy that would make a bookie cringe. He did so in numerous papers beginning in 2003.[1] No matter how much foot stomping, breath holding and turning blue the Climate Change Preachers do, Dr. Easterbrook's data is accurate and stood the test of several peers reviews. (Don't you think it is odd that the only people that can find a problem with his data are those are would be proved wrong by it?)
But his data goes beyond theory. Unlike the Climate Change priests, who had to change their name from Global Warming because reality was beginning to make them look pretty stupid, Mother Nature took Dr. Easterbrook's work far above the realm of theory.
To sum up, everything Dr. Easterbrook said was going to happen, happened and within the limits he set. The Climate Change preachers cannot make the same claim. Not even in the margins.
That fact combined with the numerous cases of cheating on the side of Climate Change Preachers places everything [nation=short]cyborgs_and_sentient_machines[/nation] posted in the realm of intelligence insulting.
This is what happens when politics and/or religion is applied to scientific research. History shows us that after the heretics and witches are all burned and in the ground, it is not rare that later on someone else proves their work.
Now, let's catch up...
Your side of the argument wants to force their dogma on me through taxes and laws based on the claim that man is creating climate change, formerly known as global warming. The church you are preaching for needs to explain how the planet was so much hotter before we had all those industrial emissions in the air. Unless you are going to tell me the dinosaurs had a thriving industrial base with SUV's running all over the landscape.
I think we should have a regional poll on who looks like an idiot in this debate.
Ok, guilty as charged. But you know, it's really hard to have a logical debate with a religious zealot without hitting the sarcastic snark button from time to time. the target rich environment is simply too tempting for someone as old and grouchy as I am.
As there is no point in trying to bring logic to a religious zealot, I'll leave you to your ignorance. I have better things to do then to bring the willfully ignorant into the light.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/climate/publications-climate.html
How many times do you have to be shown that someone has committed fraud?
He conveniently cut out data that would contradict his narrative.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/21/don-easterbrook-hides-the-incl/
You have a list of all his publications, not all I see are peer reviewed, I could confirm 1 is peer reviewed.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_paper_on_SPPI.pdf
If you assume burning fossil fuels is the only way to increase the amount of CO2 in the air and you are oblivious of other factors that effect the climate (other than CO2 and other greenhouse gases), like the orbit of the Earth, the Sun etc. what are you doing here?
I think you missed the point entirely. CLFR was making the very valid point that the climate change movement seems to have deluded themselves into thinking that humans themselves are the greatest contributor to climate change, and that the majority of what's going into the air right now is ours.
We're not. It probably isn't. Hell, CO2 isn't even a fraction of a percent of the atmosphere. It's kinda silly that it's the focus of all this.
Please stop.
The Ambassador To The Clfr, The United States Of Patriots
https://youtu.be/OjD0e1d6GgQ
You gonna make an argument for yourself or just let the internet do it for you?
The Ambassador To The Clfr, The United States Of Patriots
What's the difference?
Does it matter?
Yet you ignore the Net loss of ice globally.
Yes. I'm not going to waste my time watching some random video you've posted if you're not going to take the time to elaborate on why it's important.
Or, better yet, just make your own point based around it instead of just using it as your point.
The Ambassador To The Clfr, The United States Of Patriots
Statist, did you just assume my gender?
Now how will I make Margaritas D=
The Ambassador To The Clfr
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.