Climate Change Hoax Ignored by Obama, Gore and the Elite Media

[Baggins]

Brilliant attack. But what else can you expect from a left wing demogogue like yourself?

A demagogue? Thank you! I've never been called a demagogue before and it has always been a fond wish to have that epithet.

I fear I will never really make it to true demagoguery, I just don't have the time for political leadership on top of all the earth raping oil exploration I have to fit in.

All you do is puke out what you've been told.

No that is what you do, I puke out what I have learned.

I am cleverer than you and I can understand the scientific debate about AGW, you seem unable to do that.

Your chosen political stance has no answer to AGW and as most rightists seem to be pretty scientifically illiterate for some reason they reject the science without understanding it because they lack solutions.

Such a political ideology is moribund, without utility and probably destined to an unhappy future.

And what kind of scientist are you? Oh, right a geologist. And what kind of company do you work for? Right, an oil company. According to what you've said before, you have nothing to say about this subject because you are a geologist not a climatologist. How can you possibly understand what is going on?

Because I am cleverer than you when it comes to science, and possibly most other things, I have a scientific training, and I actually make an effort to understand what is going on in the world.

I have no input into the field of climatology, I do other things. That doesn't mean I cannot understand the broad sweep of the evidence and find it convincing.

I wish it wasn't so convincing, it is personally inconvenient, but there you go, reality is reality and denying it doesn't make it change.

Of the 31,000 scientists who signed a petition stating that the IPCC report was wrong. Only a few of those were climatologists. You've blown off all those other scientists as unworthy of review because they are not climatologists? But who runs the IPCC? Who is the guy who is pushing Copenhagen and Tax and cap? A railroad engineer. Who stands to make a sizable sum of money from cap and trade? Wow, imagine my surprise.

Yes we know, they science is all one massive conspiracy by railroad engineers and their captive scientific minions to make you pay a little more tax.

I will wait for a refutation of the scientific evidence before I change my mind and open the champagne.

Even in these threads, those of you who are on the side of "Mann" made global warming, can't agree with each other. One person offers pictures of receding glaciers as being proof positive. Another person says, "Oh, no, no, no, that's not proof. We all know that glaciers recede and expand."

That is because scientists are, by nature, cautious about making sweeping statements and also don't use words like proof. But the world's glaciers do seem to be in full retreat at the moment at a rate that appears to be unlikely to by driven by natural mechanisms.

That does prove global warming is anthropogenic, it is just evidence.

You say that regional weather patterns have nothing to do with climate change. Then, out of the other side of your face you say that if we don't do something we're going to destroy the regional weather patterns around the world.

That is a straw man. People say there is a difference between climate change and a cold snap or a heat wave.

People get rightly annoyed when someone says " it is -30 degrees C in Buttkick Oklahoma today so global warming is a crock"

Longer term weather pattern changes like cooler wetter summers in the UK are probably to do with climate change.

I'm sure even you can grasp that

What your straw man? I'd rather not, the straw gets in my hair.

See, here's the thing. It's the hubris of you people that just galls me to no end. You say the sun has nothing to do with heating of the planet;

Rubbish. Every single competent scientist on Earth no that the sun is the most important driver of the Earth's climate. They also know that the current warming trend is independent of solar activity, it has a different driver.

I don't see how you think you can get away with blatant lies like that, it is more evidence of your scientific illiteracy and your lack of understanding of the debate. You appear to have been only informed by swivel eyed climate deniers.

Is it because the science is too difficult for you or you find the outcomes too frightening and you know your politics has no answers to the problem?

That there is no cyclical nature of the climate.

If you can show me one competent scientist who has ever said any of those things I'll give you a nice shiny rep.

Yet we live on a planet which spins on an axis which gives us 4 seasons each year. Couple that with the fact that we live on a planet which revolves around a sun which revolves around the universe.

And you think scientists are unaware of these things or that they just ignore them?

And you people just want to conveniently forget about the Medieval warming period and the Roman warm period... or just out and out lie. Oh! I'm sorry, let me put that into scientific jargon for you. We don't want to use something as unscientific as "lie". You "hide the decline" with a "trick".

OK so you think that trick has one single definition, that proves that it may not just be science that is a closed book to you.

Whether the medieval warm period existed or not is entirely irrelevant to what is happening to the Earth's climate today. Scientists know that this event is not being driven by the Earth's orbital eccentricity, and they know it is a real global event, whereas the medieval warming event appears to have been localised if it happened at all.

You seem to think scientists are either idiots or out to harm you.

One of those thoughts is stupid and the other paranoid and stupid.

Not to mention plate tectonics. And a multitude of factors that come into play to determine what our climate is like.

What, prey, does plate tectonics have to do with climate change?

This should be good.

And in your pride, in your insolence, in your hubris you are going to pick one year and say, "This is the perfect climate." This one year, say 1948, is the perfect year for climate and man is going to alter ever single facet of climate to ensure that the face of the planet never changes from that perfect year.

In my pride and hubris I'd like to limit temperature rises to 2 degrees C.

According to predictions that will lead to annual summer heat waves in Europe that we have seen over the last few years continuing and continuing to kill thousands of older people.

The Amazon will begin a processes of dessertification in places and elsewhere it eventually becomes pampas.

Coral reefs become extinct due to the acidification of the oceans as they dissolve CO2. Millions of dependent species die as well.

The West Antarctic ice shelf will finally collapse, The Greenland Ice sheet shrinks and the eventual sea level rise over the coming centuries will work out around 7m.

One in three of the Earth's species will become extinct.

I think that, along with its attendant human migrations and deaths by starvation, is now the best we can hope for, human civilisation will survive that and continue to prosper. Much beyond that - 3 degrees or 4 degrees - and I don't think our civilisation will survive in its present form.

Let's say cap and trade works wonderfully, if you want to go down that road of Alice in Wonderland. And we remove every particle of man contributed carbon from the atmosphere. Which is about 4% of the total. The planet starts to cool. And it cools so wonderfully that the polar ice caps expand to 1850's levels. And then you find out that it's not only expanded to that level, it's not stopping. Then what are you going to do? Are you going to say, "Everybody, go out and burn as much oil as you can and go buy as many SUVs as you can. We've got to really ramp up this carbon." Do you think the government would do that? This government that you are about to put into place?

As I said, I think we are in the process of limiting temperature rises and their attendant climatic damage now so there seems little point in addressing your fantasy world

No! They wouldn't do that. You know why. That would mean freedom. That would mean they don't control as much as they do now. That is all this is about. It is control. That is it. And you know what? Oil companies like the one you work for helped sponsor Copenhagen. Now why would people who stand to lose so much money be in bed with this whole thing? Could it be that they possibly want their hands on that money themselves? I would say since they know who butters their bread, they won't be bitting the hand that feeds them. Billions of dollars in "green" research is at stake.

Of course you are perfectly correct, it is a conspiracy lead by oil companies in cahoots with the green movement and their scientific slaves to make you pay a little more tax and "control" your life.

It is all starting to become obvious when you put it like that.

How could I have been taken in by the rather obvious and straight forward scientific evidence?

So go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears and go, "La, la, la, la." Ignore the facts.

Now you are getting confused, it is you who either ignores the facts or cannot understand them not me.

Go and have a lie down you have over heated your brain with all this thinking and you have got muddled.

Then you will remember that you don't actually have any facts.

The fact is, it is a hoax. It is a lie. It's about money. It's about control. It's about power. It's about prestige. It has been about the same thing from the beginning from the time Margaret Thatcher used it to gain power and then used it break the backs of the coal mining unions in Great Britain.

Blimey that is some paranoid fantasy. I would have thought old Maggie would have been quite the hero of yours

So it all boils down to science vs paranoid political fantasy.

Ummmmm, such a difficult decision..

But I'll take the science thank you

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, if we're talking full-blown, Objectivist libertarianism...that ideology has never been tried on any scale, not least because it's unworkable in a technologically advanced society. Ironically, it fails for the same reason pure Marxism does: it does not have a correct view of human nature. Objectivism holds that humans are all rugged individualists with no desire or need to form groups. Yet humans have congregated in groups since the Neolithic era, and have formed governments since the dawn of agriculture, if not before. The notion of taxes to fund public works goes back to ancient times.

Marxism on the other hand holds that humans can assume a hive-like mentality, abandoning all individual identity and becoming a seamless member of a collective. This, too, flies in the face of historical precedent and basic human psychology. No man is an island...but each is a unique creation, endowed with distinct gifts to serve the Creator and play a role in Creation.

Here in the 21st Century, we have a lot more data on economic systems and their outcomes than Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Engles or Ayn Rand had access to many decades or even centuries ago. And the historical verdict is clear: mixed economies are most effective, providing more stability and a higher standard of living for more people than either command economies or lassiez-faire capitalism.

QFT.

 

[Axioma]

I'm sorry to burst into everyone's conversation but...did romanov just accuse Baggins of supporting the climate change hoax because he works for an oil company?

I mean, really? Oil companies are trying to fool us into thinking global warming is real? THAT'S YOUR STORY?

 

[Baggins]

I'm sorry to burst into everyone's conversation but...did romanov just accuse Baggins of supporting the climate change hoax because he works for an oil company?

I mean, really? Oil companies are trying to fool us into thinking global warming is real? THAT'S YOUR STORY?

They are in cahoots with lefties, greenies and railway engineers apparently.

I don't actually work for an oil company just a geophysical exploration company contracted by oil companies to do seismic surveys.

So that's alright

 

[ArteestX]

What, prey, does plate tectonics have to do with climate change? This should be good.

FYI, plate tectonics does have something to do with climates. First of all, looking at the climate history of a particular region, you need to factor in that what was once African desert may have been located in the Antarctic due to shifting continents.

But in terms of global climate, when all the continents are fused together in one super-continent (Pangea, Rodinia, etc.), there is a relationship between colder global climates and the formation of these supercontinents. When this land smushes together, you get less land than if they were spread out, so that means fewer trees to absorb CO2, more ocean surface area and less ocean volume which affects its ability to absorb carbon, and so forth.

So there IS a connection of climate change to plate tectonics. That's not saying that plate tectonics is the MAIN factor, or that it is more important than the amount of CO2 being artificially pumped into the atmosphere. But I just wanted to clear the air about the science of plate tectonics and climate.

 

[Baggins]

FYI, plate tectonics does have something to do with climates. First of all, looking at the climate history of a particular region, you need to factor in that what was once African desert may have been located in the Antarctic due to shifting continents.

But in terms of global climate, when all the continents are fused together in one super-continent (Pangea, Rodinia, etc.), there is a relationship between colder global climates and the formation of these supercontinents. When this land smushes together, you get less land than if they were spread out, so that means fewer trees to absorb CO2, more ocean surface area and less ocean volume which affects its ability to absorb carbon, and so forth.

So there IS a connection of climate change to plate tectonics. That's not saying that plate tectonics is the MAIN factor, or that it is more important than the amount of CO2 being artificially pumped into the atmosphere. But I just wanted to clear the air about the science of plate tectonics and climate.

There is a link between climate change and plate tectonics on time scales measured in millions of years.

But that is hardly germane at the moment and to this question is it?

Romanov seemed to be suggesting some revelation about plate tectonics affecting current climate change.

That was why I was waiting with lols ready.