The Truth, Still Inconvenient

[purpleoscar]

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...truth-illegal/

Predictions for sea level rise isn't the same thing as actual sea level rise. Maybe if the past alarmist predictions were actually correct this would be taken more seriously. It looks too facile to try to work people up over this.

[BVS]

Your sources make me

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

Your sources make me

Satellite sources? At least it shows what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. It's better than computer projections that are overwhelmed by an agenda.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Satellite sources? At least it shows what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. It's better than computer projections that are overwhelmed by an agenda.

No, that website. I couldn't find a true link to satellite sources.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by BVS

Your sources make me

You're laughing at his sources and you're posting links to Stephen Colbert?

A_Wanderer who sadly rarely posts here nowadays, did the scientific case for climate change properly, I suggest you take a lesson from him.

[BVS]

Was I posting Stephen Colbert as a scientific source? Was I even taking him sersiously?

NO and NO

What I was doing, and I'm glad that you of all people responded to it, was pointing out that those that keep repeating the mantra that conservatives don't write laws or use laws to promote their own prejudices are in denial.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by BVS

What I was doing, and I'm glad that you of all people responded to it, was pointing out that those that keep repeating the mantra that conservatives don't write laws or use laws to promote their own prejudices are in denial.

What has this got to do with the debate on global warming?

[BVS]

Did you listen to the Video? It was about Republicans in NC trying to make one side of the debate illegal...

[purpleoscar]

No I can't see the video because it's only available in the U.S. but in the article:

Despite the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission's prediction of a one-meter sea level rise by 2100, the News & Observer reported last week that state lawmakers aimed to limit plans to address this (literally) rising challenge.[Yay for taxpayers!]

Republican legislators circulated a bill, which, as a Scientific American blog pointed out, stated that sea level "rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900."

Colbert joked that the "no politician wants" the graph predicting accelerating rates of sea level rise, since it looks like a "ski jump to hell." When GOP lawmakers use past data to predict the future "that makes that scary chart get all better," he declared.

If alarmist predictions actually were true and even met basic short-term predictions politicians would take the predictions more seriously but they are not precisely because they are alarmist. James Hansen is well known to manipulate projections where there is no data. So what can the U.S. do to mitigate sea-level? What if most of the sea level is natural? Why should we blow trillions worldwide to affect future sea-level when the predictions are sketchy already? Most of the world is in a debt crisis. I know the U.N. would love the tax revenue but taxpayers would be screwed. Next, IF CO2 is the main contributor to sea-level rise (the sea has been rising since the little ice age) what can we do about it if most of the world (especially China) doesn't want to stop growth? North Carolina trying to stop sea-level rise is like an ant trying to stop a runaway train.

The next thing is how is the debate illegal? Obviously the government can choose to defund what they want but the pro-global warming point of view not only legal but supported in many many areas in government. Unfortunately de-carbonizing is so expensive it would make fiscal austerity to balance the Greek budget a cake walk. Who would want California's economy spread all over the U.S.?

Listening to liberal jokes about the environment always assumes an environmental end of the world scenario as a uncontroversial premise. It's like listening to jokes that only religious people can laugh at. What if the premise is wrong? The real smoking gun would be predictions that actually mirrored actual data. That would end the debate.

EDIT:

Or this might end any worries about fossil fuels if the prototype works as planned in 2019:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wod5A...eature=related

[purpleoscar]

Here's something that's actual news:

U.N. Climate Organization Wants Immunities Against Charges of Conflict of Interest, Exceeding Mandate, Among Others | Fox News

Internal UNFCCC documents, examined by Fox News, show that among other things, top officials hope to use those immunities to avoid challenges in the future based on such things as:

--possible conflicts of interest in their duties,

--breaches of confidentiality in their work,

--violations of the due process rights of those affected by UNFCCC actions,

--making decisions or actions that are beyond the legal mandate of the organization or its subsidiaries.

And we are going to trust these idiots with our money?

[elevated_u2_fan]

Who? Fox News? I wouldnt...

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by elevated_u2_fan

Who? Fox News? I wouldnt...

U.N.? I wouldn't!

[Canadiens1131]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

U.N.? I wouldn't!

George Russell is the executive editor of Fox News and seems to be pursuing an almost exclusively anti-UN narrative with the pieces he writes for the network:
George Russell - Archive - FoxNews.com

You always gotta keep an eye on who is signing your paycheques.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Do tornadoes usually happen in Venice? wtf

[purpleoscar]

The future we dread: Marked-up draft of UN Rio+20 agenda reveals shocking “sustainability” wish list | CFACT.TV

The United Nations plans to make its Rio+20 Sustainable Development Conference “the most significant environmental conference in history.” A draft planning and agenda document, “The Future We Want,” marked-up by myriad ultra-liberal NGOs, provides an unvarnished look at what lurks behind Rio+20.

“Americans, their free world partners and people in developing nations who hope to lift themselves out of poverty should be on their guard. Otherwise Rio+20 could easily trap them in a future we dread,” said Craig Rucker, CEO of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, a Washington, DC-based organization that advances the needs of people, while also protecting wildlife and environmental values.

The UN’s international NGO allies want to expand previous calls for a “green economy,” by including new demands for “resource justice” and new mechanisms to ensure “contraction and convergence for over- and under-consumers of natural resources.” People do not need advanced degrees to figure out whose economies and lifestyles the activists intend to “contract,” Rucker commented.

Another agenda item would have the world end “speculation” in energy, raw material and economic markets. However, history has taught that it is extremely difficult even to define “speculation,” and that attempts to control investment, development and resource allocation frequently end in disaster.

The international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also advocate making national environmental policies subject to “international legal frameworks and regulations,” and “strengthening international environmental governance … within the institutional framework of sustainable development.” That would make national sovereignty “the most endangered species in Rio,” CFACT president David Rothbard stated.

The NGOs would place both nature and man in jeopardy, since they call for curbs on “any technologies that might imply a serious risk for the environment or human society, including in particular synthetic biology, geo-engineering, genetic modification, nuclear energy [the best green technology you fools ] and nanotechnology,” Rothbard observed.

They would curtail the very technologies that allow us to provide for people’s needs in the most efficient, least intrusive manner. Few policies are more counterproductive than forcing people to grow low yield crops that are susceptible to insects and drought, or to rely on inefficient energy technologies, he said.

The document also seeks to impose staggering financial burdens on people in developed nations. It would give the UN 0.7% of a nation’s gross domestic product – some $1,325 per year for an American family of four. A Canadian family would pay $1,211, while their counterparts would be taxed $1,206 in Germany and $1,171 in Japan. Norwegian families would take dubious first place honors, paying a whopping $2,445 every year. Other countries’ obligations, based on World Bank 2010 data, can be found on CFACT.tv.

The NGOs most popular agenda item appears to be increased funding and powers for the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which they want to turn into an international version of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “People concerned about the impacts that EPA has had on American energy prices and jobs – for minimal health or environmental benefits – should be especially wary of giving vast new powers and funding to the UNEP, which is completely unelected and unaccountable,” Rucker commented.

On climate and energy, activists claiming to be acting for “indigenous peoples” said the UN should insist that developed countries shift rapidly to low-carbon energy use. Not to be outdone, environmental NGOs are demanding that developed countries cut carbon dioxide emissions by 95% by 2050. [Ha, ha, ha fuck you U.N. ] That would take the United States back to what it emitted around the time of the Civil War, while accomplishing nothing for the climate.

To pay for this expansive eco-wish list, the United Nations and NGOs also want to give the UN authority to tax every currency conversion and financial transaction, fuel sales and air travel tickets – and seize all funds that currently provide subsidies and tax deductions for fossil fuel and nuclear power. These funds would be in addition to the extensive foreign aid already provided by taxpayers and treasuries of developed nations.

CFACT invites people to examine this remarkable document at CFACT.tv – and determine for themselves how much it actually represents “the future we want.”

The Committee is taking a delegation to Brazil to expose these potentially devastating policy proposals. “We also intend to inject some much needed common sense into the deliberations, and ensure that at least some consideration is given to the needs of real people, especially the world’s poor – and not just to the unreasonable and often outrageous demands of Deep Ecology, anti-development activists,” Rucker said.

[BVS]

Climate Change Denial Linked To Conspiratorial Thinking : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR


I think anecdotally many have seen this in our lives, but still entertaining nonetheless.

[purpleoscar]

HIV does not cause AIDS. Smoking does not cause lung cancer. And burning fossil fuels does not contribute to global warming.

Typical Al Gore talking point garbage. The science on cancer and HIV is much better than on global warming/climate change/climate disruption. Intelligent skeptics know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but they don't attribute runaway global warming with a doubling of CO2. That's why the temperature hasn't increased like the U.N. expected. Scientists still can't separate man made causes from natural ones and that hasn't changed.

Now that Obama is re-elected this kind of garbage alarmism is going to happen again to try and use guilt on the public. Unfortunately for the left my assertion that we would have to eliminate industry to actually stop human CO2 from increasing the total on the planet is still true. No taxes anywhere has stopped it for any country and the recession did more to decrease the CO2 added to the atmosphere from humans than regulation did. There's no green technology for decades that can compete with fossil fuels.

I think now maybe Obama and EPA should push as many people out of work in coal and fracking as possible and blow money on solar and wind. That will make my point better than complaining about this boring drum beat. Also the public can tell of hypocracy when they know that most of the alarmists have a good standard of living and actually want to increase it like everyone else.

[Pearl]

Ever since Hurricane Sandy, many where I live are rethinking the whole climate chang "conspiracy". Granted, houses were built in areas that can't survive massive flooding, so urban planners are to blame for the destruction. But what happened in NYC six weeks ago was not the norm - at least not until recently.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Typical Al Gore talking point garbage. The science on cancer and HIV is much better than on global warming/climate change/climate disruption.

Everytime Al's name is mentioned with climate change, another million sets of eyes role

The science on cancer and HIV is pretty clear, but just like climate change has it's deniers, both in the science community and in the general public. One need look no further than FYM to find both type of deniers...

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Intelligent skeptics know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but they don't attribute runaway global warming with a doubling of CO2. That's why the temperature hasn't increased like the U.N. expected. Scientists still can't separate man made causes from natural ones and that hasn't changed.

Intelligent skeptics are becoming fewer and farther between. I've seen many in the scientific community even who were deniers now moved to the fence.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

There's no green technology for decades that can compete with fossil fuels.

By repeating this over and over; it shows you really don't understand the point.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

I think now maybe Obama and EPA should push as many people out of work in coal and fracking as possible and blow money on solar and wind.

There's a huge push to end fracking down here in Texas, and guess who the loudest voices are? The Texas Tea Party.

[BoMac]

I think it's generally accepted that the planet goes through natural warming and cooling periods. But is it such a stretch to think that man-made effects have caused an acceleration of that process?

And even if none of that were true, can anyone seriously say with a straight face that copious amounts of fossil fuels emissions is good for our health? What is so wrong with striving to create a cleaner, healthier environment for our kids, grandkids and generations to come? Why is this even a partisan issue?