[eureka]

Like this, Bart. Why are we not telling our politicians that they must get on with it?

http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/201 ... by-85.html

[eureka]

2Cdo wrote:

eureka wrote:

That is not very insightful, zipper. Those in the scientific world who question are not questioning seriously or rationally. They are deniers. We were dealing with the context of responsible scientists; not a few rogues.

I would hazard that those questioning are in fact serious and rational while the likes of yourself is serious but irrational.

And you will, no doubt, be able to explain how all those who deny that the laws of physics apply to what is inconvenient for their paymasters are rational.

Try something a little more profound.

[sandorski]

BartSimpson wrote:

sandorski wrote:

Incorrect.

In general, you're right. In the matter of AGW there's a bunch of us who want actual proof of what the cultists are advancing.

Why?

Look at Eureka as a perfect example of why people on the right see AGW as leftist hucksterism.

He's made a few things abundantly clear about himself in the course of his 100 or so posts.

1. He supports a leftist revolution and has an issue with representative democracy.

2. He supports collectivist economics.

3. He hates capitalism enough to tacitly support the violent and possibly deadly overthrow of the free market system.

4. So it is then not surprising that he embraces AGW as simply another tool to use to advance his political views. Given that he clearly eschews science in favor of political consensus, to the point of argument with pro-AGW science people like Zipperfish, it's clear that all he really is is a watermelon: An old school Red who wraps himself in Green to mask his intentions.

I loathe people like him. They are who Cicero wrote about...

Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.

Ridiculous, utterly and totally.

[eureka]

They paid millions of dollars for adverts on television, in newspapers and online. They flew in climate change deniers from across the globe.

They held rallies, engaged prominent right-wing media personalities, threatened scientists and turned the cold non-partisan findings of peer-reviewed science into some kind of blood sport.

But despite what was surely the dirtiest and most dishonest campaign ever waged before the Australian public, from next July major industrial emitters of greenhouse gases (about 500 of them) will have to pay $23 for every tonne of their pollution under laws passed yesterday.

The torrent of self-interest, archaic so-called "free-market" ideology and unmitigated greenhouse gas pollution, will give way to modest payments for the right to continue to pollute, while placing billions into funds to finance clean energy projects.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3569210.html

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Great, clean energy projects. Why the hell does Canada always seem to wait until something is proving itself to be a failure and then jumps aboard?
You ARE aware that green energy projects/jobs actually COST the economy right? You ARE aware that several European nations are discovering or have already discovered that for every job created in that sector, more than one job is lost elesewhere right?
Where do you plan on finding the land space required to build green energy power plants large enough to replace the massively superior power output of "traditional" power plants?
It seems to me that in your zeal to enlighten us with answers, you're missing some vital questions.

This is partly why you and your ilk get the religion label thrown at you.
You already have your dogma, "The science is settled. Thou shalt not question the science/scientists". And you have your predictions, or prophecies if you will, of apocolyptic doom a la Book of Revelations. Starting to see the similarity?
And while you take offense at being called a religious cultist, you label those that don't/won't agree with your point of view as right-wing religious cultists. Although I must confess I'm confused as to what one's religious leanings have to do with CO2 emissions and oil.
I'm pretty sure there's no passage in the Bible where God says to makind, "And thou shalt feel free to entirely fucketh up this garden I have created for thee, for I shall snappeth my fingers and maketh the pollution go away when it gets too shitty."
Sounds to me like yer making an ad hominem that anyone that is remotely religious is automatically against science.

And ya know what, I'll concede that the science is settled in one area. That we are certainly contributing to CO2 levels. What isn't settled is the actual effect.
What you have is a bunch of predictions based on inaccurate computer models. I'm not saying they are intentionally inaccurate(although there could be some inherent bias) I'm saying they are making projections without having all of the data, just the data they have available.

Considering we barely have an understanding of our planet's natural systems, let alone the kind of effect 2 or more of those systems combined may have, to claim the science is settled is either ignorant or arrogant..or both.

Quote:

The torrent of self-interest, archaic so-called "free-market" ideology and unmitigated greenhouse gas pollution, will give way to modest payments for the right to continue to pollute, while placing billions into funds to finance clean energy projects.

So what you're saying is, you don't have a problem with free-market industrialism, as long as it's non-GHG emitting free-market industrialism being subsidized by GHG emitting companies, damn any other socio-economic/environmental costs?

[ShepherdsDog]

read a few of his other posts....he doesn't like our form of democracy either. his sort of fanaticism is the same type that leads to inquisitions, purges and re-education camps. 'Those who deny 'our True Faith science must be imprisoned. Those who question the Word of Gore must be cast out!

[eureka]

You are aware, P.A. that your facts are all wrong? That you simply repeat some denialist points without any support? You are aware that nothing else in your post makes any sense.

If you will set out your quibbles, I will endeavour to answer them. But, a few points. Creating green jobs has not proved to cause the loss of others. If you post something specific on that I will give you specifics in response.

There is no problem of space for Green Energy plants and I don't know where you get that one from.

Religion is the tar of the deniers BECAUSE it is certain religious organisations that provide the bilk of the deniers. Until recently, the Southern Baptists in the US were the chief lay body of deniers. Now, one of the two branches has done an about turn and strongly supports action to counter Global Warming.

The charge that 'the science is settled' cam only from denial blogs. No scientist ever said so. It is your instructors who make the charge: a charge that, in itself, is both unwarranted and anti-science. I don't take offense, btw, at being called a 'cultist.' I find it amusing that the cultists and the ignorant deniers would make such a foolish charge against all the scientists in the world.

The fact that we are contributing to the CO2 concentration is NOT science. Therefore, it has little to do with whether the science is settled. It is what the CO2 does that is science and that is what it is all about.

Where did you dig up that contorted claim about models and data. The models have proved to be extremely accurate and empirical observation is proving that to be so. What data do you think is lacking and how do you think predictive models can be made without all the relevant data.

Your last paragraph leaves me scratching my head. I have no problem with Free Market anything that should be Free and works for the betterment of humanity. I have a problem with any GHG emitting source since that is what we have to get rid of. Entirely rid of.

And what are these 'other socio-economic/environmental costs? That might be a basis for some discussion if you can identify them.

[eureka]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

read a few of his other posts....he doesn't like our form of democracy either. his sort of fanaticism is the same type that leads to inquisitions, purges and re-education camps. 'Those who deny 'our True Faith science must be imprisoned. Those who question the Word of Gore must be cast out!

Come on S.D. YTou have identified yourself as a professional who must have intelligence. ou can do better than this. Better even at the silly slurs and ad hominems if you must!

[Themista]

That's quite interesting. I didn't know ozone loss can be caused by extreme cold. Well, extreme heat, extreme cold, extreme carbon emissions are all just that...extremes.
There is beauty in balance.

[Caelon]

Dr Ian Clark, who specializes in the study of paleoclimatology and isotope hydrology at the University of Ottawa points out that the largest green house gas is water vapour. Naturally occuring water vapour keeps the earth's temperature about 30 degrees warmer than it would be otherwise. It also is present in the atmosphere at 10,000 + ppm compared the roughly 360 ppm of CO2. Clark would be deemed a denier as his positon is CO2 is a relatively minor player compared to water vapour.

He recently debated Marshall, pro AGW, from the U of C. Although Marshall had to agree with most of Clark's points it did not change Marshall's position. Take that for what it is worth.

I now expect to see a post showing how Clark's lack of credibility.

[ShepherdsDog]

Eureka can't, as his computer privileges have been revoked by the nursing staff. however, if you send him your address you'll likely get a lengthy crayola creation on hospital stationary.....after he finishes his letters to the NP, The Economist, Pierre Trudeau, Rene Levesque and Winston Churchill. The last three are fellow patients on his floor.

[eureka]

Caelon wrote:

Dr Ian Clark, who specializes in the study of paleoclimatology and isotope hydrology at the University of Ottawa points out that the largest green house gas is water vapour. Naturally occuring water vapour keeps the earth's temperature about 30 degrees warmer than it would be otherwise. It also is present in the atmosphere at 10,000 + ppm compared the roughly 360 ppm of CO2. Clark would be deemed a denier as his positon is CO2 is a relatively minor player compared to water vapour.

He recently debated Marshall, pro AGW, from the U of C. Although Marshall had to agree with most of Clark's points it did not change Marshall's position. Take that for what it is worth.

I now expect to see a post showing how Clark's lack of credibility.

And you shall have it.

Clark has been beating the anti science drum for years. He appeared in the phony "Great Global Warming Swindle along with other fraudsters like Tim Ball, Fred Singer, Pat Michaels. He is a sometime favourite of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and its oil support.

He claimed on the GGWS that the climate started heating 800 years before the concentrations of CO2 began to increase. It did not.

He is a fraud.

But, now that is out of the way we can look at Water vapour. Water Vapour is the most powerful Greenhouse Gas; far more potent than CO2. But the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is entirely a function of temperature. There is more water vapour because of the heating begun by CO2.

Further, water vapour stays in the atmosphere only for a matter of days. CO2 for centuries.If CO2 levels fell and with them the sustained temperature increase, then water vapour levels would fall rapidly.

That will not happen and the water vapour levels will remain high because we cannot reduce the CO2 quickly. And the temperature will go on rising and the water vapour will reinforce it by its increase as the warmer air holds ever more moisture.

[Alta_redneck]

First they scare little kids into thinking the worlds going to end and their going to die tomorrow.

Now Santa's going to drown, send money to help Santa move before it's to late.

Thank you to the David Suzuki Foundation for being so concerned.

http://www.wherewillsantalive.ca/#page=0

[eureka]

2Cdo wrote:

eureka wrote:

That is not very insightful, zipper. Those in the scientific world who question are not questioning seriously or rationally. They are deniers. We were dealing with the context of responsible scientists; not a few rogues.

I would hazard that those questioning are in fact serious and rational while the likes of yourself is serious but irrational.

Perhaps you could make some reference to those and to the evidence they have in support.

Unless you are talking of the so called economic rationality that dictates that everyone act in his own (economic and short term) self interest and all will be well. There are some who are dogmatic eough that they will maintain that while their cities sink into the oceans.