Well, you're certainly the most narcissistic.

 

We'll have the perfect leader for that soon.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

We'll have the perfect leader for that soon.

Bamster is on his way out now.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's the baby boomer motto: Spend what the previous generation gave you, then borrow against the future of the next generation and spend that as well. Who cares about the bill, when that comes due you'll be long dead anyway!

No, that's the progressivism

---

Well if we're wrong it won't affect any of us now will it.


Who gives a flying crap what we leave behind for generations three time removed and beyond right?

 

 

It's the baby boomer motto: Spend what the previous generation gave you, then borrow against the future of the next generation and spend that as well. Who cares about the bill, when that comes due you'll be long dead anyway!

 

It is incumbent on the AGCC interventionists to prove three things. 

 

1.) That Human activity is significantly contributing to a disruption of the climate cycle.

 

2.) That this disruption is a net negative approaching catastrophe

 

3.) That the solutions they propose will have a net positive effect when weighed against the economic costs in the short run. 

 

The data points against point 1.  the only thing that most people actually quote to support it is a bogus 97% number to try and support the idea of consensus when in reality a.) that number was basically fabricated, b.) Science has nothing to do with consensus.  The scientific method is about studying natural law through observable, verifiable, reproducible means.  The data for the past 20 years specifically, the raw data from the ice cores, the nature of CO2 in relation to other greenhouse gasses (specifically water vapor) and the present of a variable fusion engine in the center of the Solar system all diverge from point 1, not coincide with it. 

 

As for point 2, the AGCC interventionists refuse to acknowledge that a.) plants thrive on c02, and b.) there have been times in our planets history where the overall climate has been much more tropical and that there haven't been any ice caps at the polls in the way that we think of them now and those times have coincided with flourishing surface habitation, not extinction! 

 

Point 3.) Demonstrates that frankly there is a lack of seriousness.  The party of SCIENCE seems purposefully ignorant to basic economic truths.  At its core, price is a reflection of the labor and resources needed to produce a good or service.  if everything they think about the first two points is absolutely true then that doesn't matter if their solutions don't work.  Something costs more because it takes more resources to bring it to market.  That is the current state of most alternative fuels, and in some cases there aren't any real alternatives to power certain aspects of mass transit other than fossil fuels.  If it takes more resources to bring a good or service to the market then while it sounds HEALTHY on the surface it can actually increase the output of CO2.  Case and point with certain batteries for Hybrid Cars, Wind power that requires generators, electric cars that have to be charged on fossil fuel grids. etc. etc. 

 

If they were serious about reducing the carbon footprint we would be talking about expanding nuclear power and natural gas.  Those are power sources that can seamlessly integrate into our economy and not cause a reduction in our way of life.  They would reduce CO2 emissions and not cause any pain.  The fact that these two ideas aren't at the forefront of the AGCC interventionists agenda is the key to understanding that their real agenda is steeped in an intellectual masochism that it takes Ray Stantz to fully explain (check the deleted scenes from the original movie to see that this predates Global Warming alarmism.)

---

It was clearly a scam when the official solution to the problem was "everybody has to pay".  We dunno how to fix it but PAY UP.

---

It was clearly a scam when the official solution to the problem was "everybody has to pay".  We dunno how to fix it but PAY UP.

 

QFT^^^^^

---

Wants to join the "cereal box" dating service. I've dated enough flakes and nuts...all I want is the prize now.

It is incumbent on the AGCC interventionists to prove three things.


1.) That Human activity is significantly contributing to a disruption of the climate cycle.


2.) That this disruption is a net negative approaching catastrophe


3.) That the solutions they propose will have a net positive effect when weighed against the economic costs in the short run.


The data points against point 1. the only thing that most people actually quote to support it is a bogus 97% number to try and support the idea of consensus when in reality a.) that number was basically fabricated, b.) Science has nothing to do with consensus. The scientific method is about studying natural law through observable, verifiable, reproducible means. The data for the past 20 years specifically, the raw data from the ice cores, the nature of CO2 in relation to other greenhouse gasses (specifically water vapor) and the present of a variable fusion engine in the center of the Solar system all diverge from point 1, not coincide with it.


As for point 2, the AGCC interventionists refuse to acknowledge that a.) plants thrive on c02, and b.) there have been times in our planets history where the overall climate has been much more tropical and that there haven't been any ice caps at the polls in the way that we think of them now and those times have coincided with flourishing surface habitation, not extinction!


Point 3.) Demonstrates that frankly there is a lack of seriousness. The party of SCIENCE seems purposefully ignorant to basic economic truths. At its core, price is a reflection of the labor and resources needed to produce a good or service. if everything they think about the first two points is absolutely true then that doesn't matter if their solutions don't work. Something costs more because it takes more resources to bring it to market. That is the current state of most alternative fuels, and in some cases there aren't any real alternatives to power certain aspects of mass transit other than fossil fuels. If it takes more resources to bring a good or service to the market then while it sounds HEALTHY on the surface it can actually increase the output of CO2. Case and point with certain batteries for Hybrid Cars, Wind power that requires generators, electric cars that have to be charged on fossil fuel grids. etc. etc.


If they were serious about reducing the carbon footprint we would be talking about expanding nuclear power and natural gas. Those are power sources that can seamlessly integrate into our economy and not cause a reduction in our way of life. They would reduce CO2 emissions and not cause any pain. The fact that these two ideas aren't at the forefront of the AGCC interventionists agenda is the key to understanding that their real agenda is steeped in an intellectual masochism that it takes Ray Stantz to fully explain (check the deleted scenes from the original movie to see that this predates Global Warming alarmism.)

Which data points against 1? Point 2 ...which "interventionist" dispute that plants use photosynthesis? This is basic science. Those changes in climate you are referring too happen over the course of 1000s of years not 100s.

---

Did u get that refund info yet?

---

Did u get that refund info yet?

You're not making any sense.

---

It's obvious what's happening to the ice. 

 

"Parkinson used microwave data collected by NASA and Department of Defense satellites for her study"

 

They're microwaving it! When I do that to my food it gets hot. Hot + ice = no more ice

 

Can't believe everyone else missed that. The researchers are causing the very thing they're researching. Conspiracy?? Me thinks yes.

---

It's obvious what's happening to the ice.


"Parkinson used microwave data collected by NASA and Department of Defense satellites for her study"


They're microwaving it! When I do that to my food it gets hot. Hot + ice = no more ice


Can't believe everyone else missed that. The researchers are causing the very thing they're researching. Conspiracy?? Me thinks yes.

I bet this is how actual meetings between conservative politicians sound like.

---

Junk science has already killed science, not "conservatives..."

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Who decides what is junk science? Those who have no knowledge of science or politicians who get funded to say it's junk?

---

Who decides what is junk science? Those who have no knowledge of science or politicians who get funded to say it's junk?

 

You have no knowledge of science, so your opinion matters to me about as much as steaming stool.

 

Inform yourself, and that could change (as mother nature does on her own.)

 

http://realclimatescience.com/

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

So far most of the north have experienced record breaking warm temperatures this Fall and its Dec 2nd.


But climate change is not real though.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

So far most of the north have experienced record breaking warm temperatures this Fall and its Dec 2nd.


But climate change is not real though.

 

Climate has been changing since the Earth was born.

 

It's why we're in awe of the Grand Canyon and other naturally created wonders of our world.

 

Mother Nature is real.  Or, at least... was before the thought police revolted against common sense.

 

The sun is our thermostat.  It's science.

 

And FYI... we're now cooling, not warming.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

What's your background in science pirkster? Apart from parroting the vocal minority.


Look I have no clue on climate, I'll trust the experts. Just like when I'm ill I go to a doctor (googling always leads to cancer).

---

What's your background in science pirkster? Apart from parroting the vocal minority.


Look I have no clue on climate, I'll trust the experts. Just like when I'm ill I go to a doctor (googling always leads to cancer).

 

Computer science.

 

I solve problems.  In my line of work I have to cut through the [BLEEP] and get to the facts to find solutions.

 

It's not hard if you don't allow yourself to be mislead by false witness.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Climate has been changing since the Earth was born.

Not in the way it has over the past 100 years or so.

---

What's your background in science pirkster? Apart from parroting the vocal minority.


Look I have no clue on climate, I'll trust the experts. Just like when I'm ill I go to a doctor (googling always leads to cancer).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...ff9a7b5ce7

 

“… People mistake access to information for their own personal understanding of the information.”

---