The Truth, Still Inconvenient

[Badyouken]

I have often wondered why climate change is like this holy grail of causes for purpleoscar. Just my curiosity...

Because it fits the narrative that a segment of the population wishes to lower our standard of living, destroy the economy, restrict free enterprise, redistribute wealth, etc. It's the communist witch hunt by another name.

 

[IWasBored]

It's the communist witch hunt by another name.

And true to form, true to the fact that some things never change, they still cling to their inaccurate notion of what communism even is.

 

[purpleoscar]

Hahahahahahahaha



It's one of the reasons why climate change-deniers frustrate me so much.

If you read their websites they usually answer it. I would keep track of wattsupwiththat in particular.

Good news about coral reefs – they recovered from warming | Watts Up With That?

“We know from other studies that the resilience of reefs can be improved by addressing human pressures such as water quality and overfishing,” says Dr Gilmour. “So it is likely that a key factor in the rapid recovery at Scott Reef was the high water clarity and quality in this remote and offshore location.”

Coral reefs suffer mass mortality because of coral bleaching, disease, and tropical storms, but we know much more about when, where, and how rapidly these ecosystems have collapsed than we do about their recovery. Gilmour et al. (p. 69; see the Perspective by Polidoro and Carpenter) studied a highly isolated coral reef before and after a climate-induced mass mortality event that killed 70 to 90% of the reef corals. The initial recovery of coral cover involved growth and survival of remnant colonies, which was followed by increases in larval recruitment. Thus, in the absence of chronic disturbance, even isolated reefs can recover from catastrophic disturbance.

Then you have to factor in, how did the reefs survive the medieval warming period or other warming periods in the past?

And true to form, true to the fact that some things never change, they still cling to their inaccurate notion of what communism even is.

We're not stupid. We know what communism is. When communism failed they moved into a more fabian attitude which is to slowly get people to accept more and more government so that many of the objectives are met over time. Doing a violent revolution is not popular anymore and would just create martyrdom. For example Hugo Chavez was a communist and did try a military coup. It failed so he did the second option when he was advised to push for smaller increments. It's not easy to create a dictatorship of the "proletariat" in consitutional democracies so in places like Europe or the U.S. just get people addicted to programs and create an entitlement mentality and you get closer than if you scared the public with violence.

 

[purpleoscar]

I love it With the exception of one other poster, you are the most predictable.

99.9% of your post doesn't even address my post. You will always mention the UN. You will always mention some fringe movement. You will always mention socialist, and in this case accuse me of being one. And you will always mention "towing the line" as you fail to recognize the irony that that is all you are doing.

I understand the science that I post or talk about, I'm not someone who posts contradictory "science" just throwing shit hoping something sticks. You can continue to be a coward and call me "socialist" while truly ignoring my posts, I won't stoop to that level, but if and when you're actually ready to debate then please come back, address my actual post, and refrain from bullshit.

I always answer your questions and then some. Saying I have no respect for science is not an argument. I think you should rephrase it to "you have no respect for authority" because that's what it looks like you're saying. I don't know if it's the tone I'm reading off these posts but it's almost like your constipated at the thought that someone could criticize these precious little scientists. I can criticize who I want to. I don't believe these scientists are so fragile when they are lathering guilt trips on the world population based on an unproven premise that CO2 is a poison and will destroy the planet. If the government can regulate photosynthesis and what we exhale what do they not control?

The U.N. and IMF are not fringe and have a lot of influence. The main reason we are having this debate at all is because of the U.N. and the Rio conference which made the ideas take world stage. Just because scientists were studying CO2's effects before that doesn't negate the influence of major political bodies and special interest groups.

The actual world temperatures are going the way of skeptics, not the way of computer projections. Much of the cold and heat don't even follow CO2 on a historical basis. The temperatures increase and then when there is more flora and fauna there's more CO2.

Here's another great prediction:

Arrhenius Forecast Verification – 100 Years Later | Real Science

If you're not a socialist (that's why you love Democrats so much?) then please explain what your worldview is? How would you limit the government from getting too big? You said before I shouldn't be afraid of U.N. world government, why not? What is the right percentage of GDP for all the national and regional governments together? In Canada it's over 40% (and we still have people who think we need more). How would you cut social programs that don't work without angering special interest groups and people who's habits have adjusted by relying on them? What are your moderate solutions? I would love to know.

 

[Diemen]

We're not stupid. We know what communism is. When communism failed they moved into a more fabian attitude which is to slowly get people to accept more and more government so that many of the objectives are met over time. Doing a violent revolution is not popular anymore and would just create martyrdom. For example Hugo Chavez was a communist and did try a military coup. It failed so he did the second option when he was advised to push for smaller increments. It's not easy to create a dictatorship of the "proletariat" in consitutional democracies so in places like Europe or the U.S. just get people addicted to programs and create an entitlement mentality and you get closer than if you scared the public with violence.

Wow.

 

[PhilsFan]

I mean, not even a word of that paragraph is backed by any evidence whatsoever.

 

[INDY500]

Of all the myths perpetuated by the GOP about Obama, the "Obama hates oil" one is the most utterly ridiculous. I wish it were more true than it is.

Don't take my word for, ask someone in the oil industry. How many petroluem conventions has he spoken to? Or look at the president's popularity in Texas, Louisiana, Alaska and Oklahoma. Explain his footdraggin on the Keystone pipeline. Listen to his rhetoric if nothing else.

But what he really hates is oil profits. He hates that the oil industry isn't nationalized like it is in Venezuela, Mexico, Russia or with OPEC. Oil profits could fund a lot of his utopian dreams.

 

[PhilsFan]

But what he really hates is oil profits. He hates that the oil industry isn't nationalized like it is in Venezuela, Mexico, Russia or with OPEC. Oil profits could fund a lot of his utopian dreams.

You are getting boring.

 

[digitize]

Don't take my word for, ask someone in the oil industry. How many petroluem conventions has he spoken to? Or look at the president's popularity in Texas, Louisiana, Alaska and Oklahoma. Explain his footdraggin on the Keystone pipeline. Listen to his rhetoric if nothing else.

The Keystone pipeline is the best example of Obama working "again" oil, but, in reality, given the massive boom in oil in his presidency, he has more or less turned a blind eye to the industry. The Keystone footdragging (which is almost certainly going to end soon, and whose opposition also partially came from private property rights advocates) did nothing to affect American oil producers, although I suppose it did affect American refineries. But he's done so little to change the American oil industry, even in face of a lot of talk about climate change. Speaking at oil conferences is utterly meaningless. People in Texas, Louisiana, Alaska, and Oklahoma hate him because he's a Democrat/communist/fascist/atheist/gay/Muslim/whatever and because he talks about climate change. But in reality, has Obama made anything more difficult for oil than Bush did? Certainly nothing substantial.

But what he really hates is oil profits. He hates that the oil industry isn't nationalized like it is in Venezuela, Mexico, Russia or with OPEC. Oil profits could fund a lot of his utopian dreams.

Do you have any, umm, evidence for this?

 

[PhilsFan]

His rhetoric speaks for itself!!!!

 

[Vlad n U 2]

We're not stupid. We know what communism is.

Conservatives are almost always painfully wrong when it comes to defining communism.

How many of you would actually define it accurately? Rather than dishing out the tired old 'China!1! North Korea!1! USSR1!1' stuff.

 

[purpleoscar]

Conservatives are almost always painfully wrong when it comes to defining communism.

How many of you would actually define it accurately? Rather than dishing out the tired old 'China!1! North Korea!1! USSR1!1' stuff.

Yeah but China/North Korea/USSR were and are REAL.

Well explain to me how the dictatorship of the proletariat will give back power and share it equally? Because this question has never been answered. The reason communism failed is precisely because they don't share power and they feather their nests because these leaders are human and get corrupted by power (assuming they didn't already have this in mind before taking power). This is why conservatives don't believe there is a communism that can happen in reality. Only in theory with theoretical people that don't resemble emotionally complex human beings.

Human beings have desire and that desire is more powerful than the envy people feel for those they perceive are happier. How are you going to regulate desire in people to express themselves in ways that are unequal? Some expressions are of a higher quality than others and that might lead to some having some envy. The biggest question comes after this. How do you regulate the people who enact these laws who also have desires? Communists in reality concentrated more economic power in a few hands than the capitalists they criticized.

Now in this thread it's about fossil fuels and the environment. So are you a communist that doesn't like industry or one that would include fossil fuels? I hope you would include them because I can't imagine what medical care would be like without modern equipment. If you do like fossil fuels how would a communist of your type change the energy system without creating another "Great Leap Forward"?

I don't expect you to answer these questions satisfactorily because if you could you would be one hell of a genius.

Wow.

That's what I say to people who think that politicians can actually stabilize the weather with carbon taxes.

Now there are those that say they aren't going to destroy the economy but don't you have to in order to lower CO2 levels with the technology we have? Don't we have to "act now before it's too late"? Isn't it just "10 years left to act"?

 

[digitize]

This is why conservatives don't believe there is a communism that can happen in reality. Only in theory with theoretical people that don't resemble emotionally complex human beings.

Agree completely. You don't have to be a conservative to think this.

 

[purpleoscar]

Agree completely. You don't have to be a conservative to think this.

Yes but my argument can be used the same against global-warming proponents. If proponents are like you then you're just being used. I can't believe I have to explain to Americans that giving power to government has to be carefully done and in many cases not done at all. If you make a mistake it's not easy taking that power back. Giving binding powers to the U.N. to regulate energy worldwide would be giving too much. With binding powers the U.N. could justify sanctions against countries that refuse to follow their energy regulations. Sanctions should just be used for military purposes and defense. Each country should regulate their own energy.

Because it fits the narrative that a segment of the population wishes to lower our standard of living, destroy the economy, restrict free enterprise, redistribute wealth, etc.

I would agree if there were a cheaper alternative right now. But there isn't so it would lower our standard of living, destroy the economy, restrict free enterprise and the U.N. said they would redistribute wealth.

 

[BVS]

I always answer your questions and then some.

I cannot remember the last time that you did. Take this post as a great example, it's just full of fluff that never got to anything that I posted about.

Saying I have no respect for science is not an argument. I think you should rephrase it to "you have no respect for authority" because that's what it looks like you're saying.

No, what I'm saying is that you have no respect for science, that is simple fact, in fact you've stated so, just not in so many words. This has nothing to do with authority, but nice try. You once posted three conflicting pieces of "science" in one post as your argument against climate change. Example 1 contradicted example 2 and so on. In fact one was a backyard youtube video of a vacuum salesman doing experiments in aquariums that stated the more CO2 the better. This is not respect for science; this is shit throwing.

If you're not a socialist (that's why you love Democrats so much?) then please explain what your worldview is?

Read more, and assume less. Assumptions are one of the worst habits a human can have, it leads to bad relationships and poor self esteem.

I don't love any party or any politician, I've stated and talked about this ad nauseum, but your comprehension skills are clouded by your assumptions and the boxes that you like to place people in.

 

[Badyouken]

I would agree if there were a cheaper alternative right now. But there isn't so it would lower our standard of living, destroy the economy, restrict free enterprise and the U.N. said they would redistribute wealth.

This language is telling and consistent with what I hear from other conservative people in general. They don't like the solution - or rather, what they perceive the solution to entail - and, in response, attack or deny the problem itself. They can't or won't think of the problem in isolation from its solution. I could respect someone arguing for adaptation over mitigation on an economic basis, but denying the problem altogether is simply untenable in light of what we know.

We've seen this several times in the past, at a smaller scale, in the lead-up to government action on man-made acid rain, man-made smog, and man-made ozone depletion. Of course, now we don't hear much talk of 'government overreach' when it comes to the man-made solutions that we enacted to solve these problems (regulations and even cap-and-trade), for a simple reason: they worked.

What I can't fully come to grasp with is how self-defined conservatives have so little faith in markets on this issue. As if, once a carbon price of some sort is put in place, the private sector will simply throw its hands up in despair and collapse, instead of innovating its way out of it.

It is because we believe in markets, because we believe in private sector innovation, because we are generally pro-business that we believe that climate change can be addressed. Not the other way around.

 

[BVS]

This language is telling and consistent with what I hear from other conservative people in general. They don't like the solution - or rather, what they perceive the solution to entail - and, in response, attack or deny the problem itself.

BINGO!

It's what I tell him all the time

It's why he and so many others fall for junk science, it's because they are working backwards. They don't like that energy may cost more for awhile, that it might effect their status quo, it might effect their portfolio, or sometimes it's just that they have to oppose the other side. So they first started just denying climate change, but then people started asking them why so they had to pretend to like science. So they're all throwing different junk science to see what sticks.

This person says the world is actually cooling, the other says more CO2 is actually good for humanity and the earth, and others just bury their head completely don't bother with science and say it's a hoax. But at the end of the day, their approach and the fact that they got where they are backwards is very transparent.

 

[anitram]

What I can't fully come to grasp with is how self-defined conservatives have so little faith in markets on this issue. As if, once a carbon price of some sort is put in place, the private sector will simply throw its hands up in despair and collapse, instead of innovating its way out of it.

It's not just this issue - the reaction is essentially identical whenever anyone proposes an increase in taxes. Businesses will close down, the sky will fall, people would rather not work than pay more taxes, etc, etc.

 

[purpleoscar]

This language is telling and consistent with what I hear from other conservative people in general. They don't like the solution - or rather, what they perceive the solution to entail - and, in response, attack or deny the problem itself. They can't or won't think of the problem in isolation from its solution. I could respect someone arguing for adaptation over mitigation on an economic basis, but denying the problem altogether is simply untenable in light of what we know.

We've seen this several times in the past, at a smaller scale, in the lead-up to government action on man-made acid rain, man-made smog, and man-made ozone depletion. Of course, now we don't hear much talk of 'government overreach' when it comes to the man-made solutions that we enacted to solve these problems (regulations and even cap-and-trade), for a simple reason: they worked.

What I can't fully come to grasp with is how self-defined conservatives have so little faith in markets on this issue. As if, once a carbon price of some sort is put in place, the private sector will simply throw its hands up in despair and collapse, instead of innovating its way out of it.

It is because we believe in markets, because we believe in private sector innovation, because we are generally pro-business that we believe that climate change can be addressed. Not the other way around.

I don't agree with your premise that phasing out fossil fuels is the same as reducing acid rain or CFCs. The scale is not even close. The only hope we have of replacing fossil fuels is nuclear fusion which is decades away. Again I don't agree that CO2 is causing this damage because as we have seen, it hasn't. Unless the premise is proven the panic and hugely expensive measures shouldn't follow. Don't even use the loaded terminology of "climate change" when projections are for warming not just change.

 

[purpleoscar]

BINGO!

It's what I tell him all the time

It's why he and so many others fall for junk science, it's because they are working backwards. They don't like that energy may cost more for awhile, that it might effect their status quo, it might effect their portfolio, or sometimes it's just that they have to oppose the other side. So they first started just denying climate change, but then people started asking them why so they had to pretend to like science. So they're all throwing different junk science to see what sticks.

This person says the world is actually cooling, the other says more CO2 is actually good for humanity and the earth, and others just bury their head completely don't bother with science and say it's a hoax. But at the end of the day, their approach and the fact that they got where they are backwards is very transparent.

God is that all you have? Skeptics are simply showing the different possible alternatives that warmists don't pursue. Some skeptics predict massive cooling. Some predict beneficial warming, and others small cooling. This is because nobody knows what nature will throw at us because it's so complicated. Your side predicts accelerated warming (which isn't happening), and then moves to climate change to brainwash the public into thinking that all change is our fault. If it gets colder it's our fault, but the projections are for warmer temperatures. Go figure. Then you guys vacillate over how much the taxes are because to lower the CO2 level in the entire planet would require draconian methods so you don't really fear increased CO2 because if you get some tax increases it will create jobs for environmental cronies like Lagarde hopes. Enough time has passed that we can see the mathematical projections are faulty and reductive and they have go back to the drawing board and add more OBSERVATIONS to improve their predictions.

 

[BVS]

God is that all you have? Skeptics are simply showing the different possible alternatives that warmists don't pursue.

That is simply the problem, you are in pursuit of the science. This is exactly what everyone is telling you, you're doing it backwards. You make up your mind on the stance and THEN you pursue the "science" that backs it up.

Thanks for being honest.

 

[purpleoscar]

That is simply the problem, you are in pursuit of the science. This is exactly what everyone is telling you, you're doing it backwards. You make up your mind on the stance and THEN you pursue the "science" that backs it up.

Thanks for being honest.

You're the one who isn't honest. Your just a troll that ignores my posts over and over again and then tries to paint my posts as not answering your questions. Are you okay? Then you are now trying to ignore the fact that temperatures are not going the way of warmist predictions which damages your premise in the first place. You can ignore all you want but skeptics require logic and accurate predictions to believe the premise that man is going to destroy the planet in the next few decades. We are also practicing science and statistics to correct bullshit as well.

CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick � Climate Audit

 

[BVS]

You're the one who isn't honest. Your just a troll that ignores my posts over and over again and then tries to paint my posts as not answering your questions.

Now it's your time to live up to that honesty you claim. Am I the only one that's called you out for not answering their posts? Let's remember, everything is archived.

Are you okay?

I'm great, and you?

You can ignore all you want but skeptics require logic and accurate predictions to believe the premise that man is going to destroy the planet in the next few decades.

If the skeptic looked at all the available science and then made up their mind, then I can respect that. I've met people who respect science and are skeptics or on the the fence. But the truth is, most of them admit that change is occurring they're just not convinced it's man's doing. None of these folks are ignorant enough to think it's a hoax or that more CO2 the better. Skeptics that are skeptics first and then pursue the science I cannot respect, it's not honest.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Yeah but China/North Korea/USSR were and are REAL.

NK, for one, was never born of a proletarian revolution. So its rule has really nothing to do with the working class who don’t wield any power whatsoever. The USSR, bar its first few years, maybe, cannot be considered a product of workers’ rule. I’m a bit iffy on China given that my knowledge isn’t relatively extensive, but I do understand that in no point did the proletarians have control over the means of production.In any discussion on communism these three states become near irrelevant.

Well explain to me how the dictatorship of the proletariat will give back power and share it equally? Because this question has never been answered. The reason communism failed is precisely because they don't share power and they feather their nests because these leaders are human and get corrupted by power (assuming they didn't already have this in mind before taking power). This is why conservatives don't believe there is a communism that can happen in reality. Only in theory with theoretical people that don't resemble emotionally complex human beings.

Human beings have desire and that desire is more powerful than the envy people feel for those they perceive are happier. How are you going to regulate desire in people to express themselves in ways that are unequal? Some expressions are of a higher quality than others and that might lead to some having some envy. The biggest question comes after this. How do you regulate the people who enact these laws who also have desires? Communists in reality concentrated more economic power in a few hands than the capitalists they criticized.

Whether you’ve worded this incorrectly or not, I don’t know, but it seems like you’ve defined the dictatorship of the proletariat incorrectly. It’s the rule of the working classes, not necessarily a single party. Communism ‘failed,’ (I’d much rather go with just ‘communist movement’ since communism hasn’t achieved let alone to the point where we would decide if it would succeed or fail) at least in the early days of the USSR because the Russian revolution was reliant (being a semi-feudal society) on the German revolution to succeed. That revolution was unfortunately quashed, the early USSR needed the more developed Germany to support it. Workers’ power didn’t exist for too long and the nation was essentially heading towards a form of capitalism with the bureaucratic class controlling the means of production. Stalin abandoned internationalism for some ridiculous ‘Socialism in One Country’ rubbish, which did not at all have the proletariat in power.

Anyway, I don’t buy the ‘human nature’ argument, I believe that conditions determine consciousness, that the nature of the person’s environment will determine their behaviour/approach towards it.

Now in this thread it's about fossil fuels and the environment. So are you a communist that doesn't like industry or one that would include fossil fuels? I hope you would include them because I can't imagine what medical care would be like without modern equipment. If you do like fossil fuels how would a communist of your type change the energy system without creating another "Great Leap Forward"?

I just don’t see any need for a Great Leap Forward, really. So that’s all I can answer on that one. We can produce enough energy through solar energy and wind power. (And a supposed need for the Great Leap Forward would imply that I was ever an admirer of Mao, which I never have been and probably never will.

I don't expect you to answer these questions satisfactorily because if you could you would be one hell of a genius.

It seems that you had already made up your mind when you wrote this.

(Excuse me for the varying mess of font colours etc)

 

[Badyouken]

I don't agree with your premise that phasing out fossil fuels is the same as reducing acid rain or CFCs. The scale is not even close. The only hope we have of replacing fossil fuels is nuclear fusion which is decades away. Again I don't agree that CO2 is causing this damage because as we have seen, it hasn't. Unless the premise is proven the panic and hugely expensive measures shouldn't follow. Don't even use the loaded terminology of "climate change" when projections are for warming not just change.

Of course it's not remotely on the same scale, but the denier behaviour is very similar. Deny that the problem exist, refuse to accept the science, seek bogus science. I won't convince you that GHGs cause global warming / climate change, and that's fine with me.

 

[Irvine511]

Vlad, I hope you stick around. You offer a perspective we never get in here. That was interesting reading.

 

[Badyouken]

I just don’t see any need for a Great Leap Forward, really. So that’s all I can answer on that one. We can produce enough energy through solar energy and wind power.

If you are putting all your eggs in the solar/wind basket, then you do need a great 'technological' leap forward in the form of high-performance energy storage, which we haven't achieved just yet. We are getting close, though.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Vlad, I hope you stick around. You offer a perspective we never get in here. That was interesting reading.

I'll try.

If you are putting all your eggs in the solar/wind basket, then you do need a great leap forward in the form of high-performance energy storage, which we haven't achieved just yet.

We do need significant technological breakthroughs (nuclear, CCS, energy storage, synthetic fuels/biofuels, high performance PV, etc.), just as we need a pricing structure that internalizes environmental costs.

The solar/wind bit I mentioned was merely a basic example, so of course I recognise that there is so much more out there.

 

[Badyouken]

The solar/wind bit I mentioned was merely a basic example, so of course I recognise that there is so much more out there.

Of course. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[purpleoscar]

Now it's your time to live up to that honesty you claim. Am I the only one that's called you out for not answering their posts? Let's remember, everything is archived.

I'm great, and you?

If the skeptic looked at all the available science and then made up their mind, then I can respect that. I've met people who respect science and are skeptics or on the the fence. But the truth is, most of them admit that change is occurring they're just not convinced it's man's doing. None of these folks are ignorant enough to think it's a hoax or that more CO2 the better. Skeptics that are skeptics first and then pursue the science I cannot respect, it's not honest.

If you're a scientist, being skeptical first is hardly a problem. What matters is following the actual worldwide temperatures. If you gave up looking at studies then that would be bad. I'm hardly someone who doesn't know what AGW proponents believe. After seeing the U.N.'s involvement and self interest people should be more skeptical. The summary for policy alternatives is always more alarmist than the actual science supports. That's why the temperature predictions are now being downplayed & the more alarmist ones of 6 degree temperature increases with a doubling of CO2 is wrong.

BTW it shouldn't be so controversial to see benefits to crops when CO2 is increased in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis is important to say the least and crops do grow better when they are given more CO2. Even believers in AGW understand this.

I've answered your posts and then some. I'm not even sure if everything is archived as I remember trying to find earlier threads and they aren't there. I posted tons of science in response to people's claims. That's why I asked if you were okay and it appears not. I think you just get people to post lots and then you dismiss it as not science and move on. You just don't like the responses so act as if they aren't responses.