This winter is killing two of the biggest scare tactic lies ever told...

#351
#351
If Global what ever you want to call it was actually real, they would not let you buy credits to keep on polluting the atmosphere! If these gases are as bad as they say, it would not happen. Its all about money and who can make the most of it.
 
#352
#352
Oldvol75 said:
If Global what ever you want to call it was actually real, they would not let you buy credits to keep on polluting the atmosphere! If these gases are as bad as they say, it would not happen. Its all about money and who can make the most of it.
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me, that if I was rich, and wanted to pay to keep polluting they would be fine with that?
 
#353
#353
Rasputin_Vol said:
1. Global warming (Tennessee is bracing for more sub-freezing temps going into late next week)

2. The panic created over the swine flu (I haven't heard anything newsworthy about the swine flu since October)
Click to expand...

yeah as a person studying in scientific fields in college, i'm just going to say one year doesn't prove anything right or wrong, sorry

it's like if you make a graph - one point out of alignment doesn't make it the deciding solution on anything; just how data collection works :eek:k:
 
Last edited:
#357
#357
TrueOrange said:
yeah as a person studying in scientific fields in college, i'm just going to say one year doesn't prove anything right or wrong, sorry

it's like if you make a graph - one point out of alignment doesn't make it the deciding solution on anything; just who data collection works :eek:k:
Click to expand...

I'll agree that 1 year doesn't indicate a trend if you would agree with me that 40-50 years of data with a half degree of fluctuation one way or the other doesn't indicate proof of anthropogenic global warming...
 
#359
#359
BigPapaVol said:
How was swine flu a scare tactic? Who gained from the telling of that one?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...



http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/30104/

Could there be a conflict of interest going on with administrative people at the FDA, the people who decide what drugs are allowed to be put into general distribution for our supposedly safe use?

The answer is yes!

Consider that on Dec. 22, 2009, Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H., announced that she was leaving her job as the director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where she had an active role in promoting vaccine sales. She has been named the president of Merck Vaccines for a salary likely to be 10 times what she made at the CDC.
Click to expand...
 
#361
#361
Oldvol75 said:
If Global what ever you want to call it was actually real, they would not let you buy credits to keep on polluting the atmosphere! If these gases are as bad as they say, it would not happen. Its all about money and who can make the most of it.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. That's only valid if there is no cap or if there is no flexibility in the value of a tax. You set the numbers to get the desired result...that is, get emissions below this number to stabilize the temperature anomaly (due to man's contribution) at x degrees.
 
#362
#362
TennTradition said:
That makes no sense. That's only valid if there is no cap or if there is no flexibility in the value of a tax. You set the numbers to get the desired result...that is, get emissions below this number to stabilize the temperature anomaly (due to man's contribution) at x degrees.
Click to expand...

His point is, if it is as damaging as they say it could be, why even let people spend money to pollute?? Answer, it's not pollution at all, instead it's a way to get more money out of a company. What they don't realize is how bad this could be towards a bottom line and how it would affect the viability of a company if it has to spend money just so it can stay in business. It's not a cost of business, it would be a cost to operate in the US. It's all about the money my friend, because if it was about science, the companies themselves would take a stand if things were as perilous as some seem to make them.
 
#363
#363
PoochPunt3rdDown said:
If the Earth warms the polar ice caps will melt and the sea levels will rise. There is already irrefutable proof of this happening. This will start to erode the coasts of every nation except the European nations that have already built lochs to stem the rising tides. This will affect all economies, namely the US. Have you ever looked at Manhattan? It sits right on the water. If you say you'd be OK with Manhattan being overtaken by the sea, then you're not being sane. A warmer world is a worse world because of current levels of development near large bodies of water. The majority of the Earth's population lives near water. Below is an article that shows unmistakable proof that the sea level is rising. Glenn Beck can't stop the waters from rising with his chalkboard and talking points.

Climate change 'an issue of human survival' for sinking island nation - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...

Move inland!!!!

First of all the people that own and opperate the gannet organization (which owns and operates USA Today) are some of the lowest slime every to evolve on Earth.

(and I do know what I'm talking about)

The worst of scenarios would only have sea levels increase by two feet, not the thirty feet forcast by the abject moron al-gorinski!!

Some facts:

'Lochs' are natural occurences created by glaciers in times past during ice ages.

I have no problem with Manhatten being underwater.

There is a cure for ignorance, which you seem to be et up with, it is called knowledge.

Science so far has not come with a cure for stupidity which you also seem to be full of.

If the Arctic Ocean were to totally melt, it wouldn't increase sea levels by one inch.

BTW the Arctic sea ice was greater in extent in 2009 than it has been in at least ten years and Antartica has an ice cap that has been increasing in depth, don't let factoids get in the way of your ignorant rantings.

During the medievil warm period prior to the recent mini ice age the Vikings had productive farms and vinyards in Greenland and that didn't seem to be so catastropic.

Basicly you are FOS. Recognoze that factoid and you might just learn something.
 
#364
#364
#365
#365
Rasputin_Vol said:
I'll agree that 1 year doesn't indicate a trend if you would agree with me that 40-50 years of data with a half degree of fluctuation one way or the other doesn't indicate proof of anthropogenic global warming...
Click to expand...

...you have taken some sort of statistics or made a best fit graph before right?
 
#366
#366
TrueOrange said:
...you have taken some sort of statistics or made a best fit graph before right?
Click to expand...
Yes... I have.

There is still not enough evidence out there to pin point any rise or fall in temperatures on man-made factors. 50 years... even 100 years of data isn't enough to conclude one way or the other about a planet's climate change when most of the changes occur over hundreds or even thousands of years. Not to mention that you already have sinusoidal/cyclical variables that are in play, also (solar activity, earth's orbit, other astrological events).

Unlike making widgets on an assembly line, where the expected variance is supposed to be over a given linear range +/- some unit, it is quite different to make a prediction on what direction our climate is headed in one way or the other when it has been a common trend that our climate goes through cycles. The earth has NEVER had a constant temperature over any extended period of time. The assumption most people make is that they want to take the simple statistical analysis that is used on an assembly line by quality control professionals (where output should be a constant) and they want to apply the same practice and apply it to something that is not constat/linear (as in sinusoidal weather conditions).
 
#367
#367
gsvol said:
Move inland!!!!

First of all the people that own and opperate the gannet organization (which owns and operates USA Today) are some of the lowest slime every to evolve on Earth.

(and I do know what I'm talking about)

The worst of scenarios would only have sea levels increase by two feet, not the thirty feet forcast by the abject moron al-gorinski!!

Some facts:

'Lochs' are natural occurences created by glaciers in times past during ice ages.

I have no problem with Manhatten being underwater.

There is a cure for ignorance, which you seem to be et up with, it is called knowledge.

Science so far has not come with a cure for stupidity which you also seem to be full of.

If the Arctic Ocean were to totally melt, it wouldn't increase sea levels by one inch.

BTW the Arctic sea ice was greater in extent in 2009 than it has been in at least ten years and Antartica has an ice cap that has been increasing in depth, don't let factoids get in the way of your ignorant rantings.

During the medievil warm period prior to the recent mini ice age the Vikings had productive farms and vinyards in Greenland and that didn't seem to be so catastropic.

Basicly you are FOS. Recognoze that factoid and you might just learn something.
Click to expand...

I have not seen any evidence for global climate change other than what has occurred throughout earth's history. However, if all the earth's ice melted, sea level would rise 60-75 meters(according to scientific studies), not 2 feet. This would have a marked impact on the map of the U.S., Florida would be gone:):dance2::clapping:
 
#368
#368
overseasorange2 said:
I have not seen any evidence for global climate change other than what has occurred throughout earth's history. However, if all the earth's ice melted, sea level would rise 60-75 meters(according to scientific studies), not 2 feet. This would have a marked impact on the map of the U.S., Florida would be gone:):dance2::clapping:
Click to expand...

This would include the Greenland ice sheet, as well as all of Antarctica. That couldn't happen in only the span of a couple of centuries, simply because the amount of ice in those places is so great that it creates it's own weather.

Don't get me wrong, they can melt. They aren't going to melt completely within our lifetimes, though.
 
#369
#369
g8terh8ter_eric said:
His point is, if it is as damaging as they say it could be, why even let people spend money to pollute?? Answer, it's not pollution at all, instead it's a way to get more money out of a company. What they don't realize is how bad this could be towards a bottom line and how it would affect the viability of a company if it has to spend money just so it can stay in business. It's not a cost of business, it would be a cost to operate in the US. It's all about the money my friend, because if it was about science, the companies themselves would take a stand if things were as perilous as some seem to make them.
Click to expand...

Thanks Eric, thats exactly what I was saying.
 
#370
#370
TennTradition said:
That makes no sense. That's only valid if there is no cap or if there is no flexibility in the value of a tax. You set the numbers to get the desired result...that is, get emissions below this number to stabilize the temperature anomaly (due to man's contribution) at x degrees.
Click to expand...

What makes no sense is the claim for the need of such legislation or governmental policy to begin with.

Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D.

The only consistant thing about the UN IPCC is that they are consistently wrong in each and every one of their predictions about climate.




TrueOrange said:
...you have taken some sort of statistics or made a best fit graph before right?
Click to expand...


Instead of being driven by man-made CO2, temperature seems to follow the number of stations in use, first showing a cooling planet as technology moved out of the large cities, and then showing a warmer planet as they were removed in recent years.

Europe’s data is a mess and an outlier and should not be used to out weigh the Pacific and North America record. It is not by accident most or all of the warming disappears when you pull Europe out of the mix – which means there is something statistically wrong here.




overseasorange2 said:
I have not seen any evidence for global climate change other than what has occurred throughout earth's history. However, if all the earth's ice melted, sea level would rise 60-75 meters(according to scientific studies), not 2 feet. This would have a marked impact on the map of the U.S., Florida would be gone:):dance2::clapping:
Click to expand...

Thusly neccessitating the proverbial gator snorkel!! :good!:

First, all the ice isn't going to melt.

When the vikings were farming on the island of Greenland things were not catastropic for the rest of mankind.

Near the end of the last ice age sea level was approximately 300 feet lower than today.




IPorange said:
This would include the Greenland ice sheet, as well as all of Antarctica. That couldn't happen in only the span of a couple of centuries, simply because the amount of ice in those places is so great that it creates it's own weather.

Don't get me wrong, they can melt. They aren't going to melt completely within our lifetimes, though.
Click to expand...


One such e-mail was in response to a discussion about the 2009 temperature data set and was sent on the 27th of October, 2009 from Dr. Michael Mann to the now-discredited Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann states the following: "As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations."

Face the facts ip, you've been conned into believing something that just isn't true. :)
 
#371
#371
g8terh8ter_eric said:
His point is, if it is as damaging as they say it could be, why even let people spend money to pollute?? Answer, it's not pollution at all, instead it's a way to get more money out of a company. What they don't realize is how bad this could be towards a bottom line and how it would affect the viability of a company if it has to spend money just so it can stay in business. It's not a cost of business, it would be a cost to operate in the US. It's all about the money my friend, because if it was about science, the companies themselves would take a stand if things were as perilous as some seem to make them.
Click to expand...

Then the statement is still based upon a few false premises. CO2 isn't a byproduct that we know how to get around (like, let's say, NOx) ... you can't just set a zero threshold and expect life to go on. Instead, you try to understand what an OK level of emission is (understanding that we can't just stop turning fossil fuels into it tomorrow).

It isn't that you're paying for the right to emit, it is that you are paying so that you won't emit as much. Enforcing a cap/trade or tax by no means proves that it is a money making venture. How would you propose to enforce emission limits without setting a price penalty? Also, there are temperature increases that are not so threatening and some that are believed to be so. I've generally heard that 2 degrees wouldn't be too bad...so the idea is that you set emissions targets that would allow you to stabilize at atmospheric concentrations that lead to an acceptable level of increase (let's say 2 degrees) instead of something considerably higher.

Obviously you have to accept the notion that higher CO2 can cause higher temperatures (which I think is the easiest notion to accept). Then, you have to accept the forecasts of what will happen at these higher temperatures (harder to accept, IMO). Then, you have to accept that setting the price point would actually be set in a way to actually enforce these targets (which is doubtful).
 
Last edited:
#372
#372
TennTradition said:
Then the statement is still based upon a few false premises. CO2 isn't a byproduct that we know how to get around (like, let's say, NOx) ... you can't just set a zero threshold and expect life to go on. Instead, you try to understand what an OK level of emission is (understanding that we can't just stop turning fossil fuels into it tomorrow).

It isn't that you're paying for the right to emit, it is that you are paying so that you won't emit as much. Enforcing a cap/trade or tax by no means proves that it is a money making venture. How would you propose to enforce emission limits without setting a price penalty? Also, there are temperature increases that are not so threatening and some that are believed to be so. I've generally heard that 2 degrees wouldn't be too bad...so the idea is that you set emissions targets that would allow you to stabilize at atmospheric concentrations that lead to an acceptable level of increase (let's say 2 degrees) instead of something considerably higher.

Obviously you have to accept the notion that higher CO2 can cause higher temperatures (which I think is the easiest notion to accept). Then, you have to accept the forecasts of what will happen at these higher temperatures (harder to accept, IMO). Then, you have to accept that setting the price point would actually be set in a way to actually enforce these targets (which is doubtful).
Click to expand...

Really?? We all breath out CO2, so what would come after taxing those businesses, taxing our breathing?? Hell, they gonna make farmers pay for cow farts?? See, once you go down that slippery slope, there is no return. Once they start taxing businesses, then nothing will be off limits. It's about MONEY, plain and simple. That's what EVERYTHING is about that has to do with taxes, and it's only going to get worse, IMO. Eventually, we are going to be solely dependent on the government if we keep going down the path we are currently on. See, I could go with the whole thing, if it was based on just cleaning up the earth, which I do agree with, but trying to regulate a naturally occurring gas because a VERY small minority of scientists think that it makes our planet warmer is ludicrous. I think that if the government gets too deep in our pockets, there will be a revolution, hopefully sooner than later.
 
#373
#373
There's no doubt that a tax or cap and trade is a money-making venture - but that doesn't mean that enforcing caps or taxes makes the entire AGW idea a money-making venture. Ideally, every cent collected through a program like this would be spent on increasing energy efficiency, investment in renewable energy technology, etc. However, the government is not going to be that efficient, it is going to be a big pool of money that will be tapped into by other interests, etc. I have concerns about the effect of caps or taxes on the economies of the world if they are actually enforced at levels that mean something, without a doubt. I also have concerns that a cap or tax would end up being an ineffective (due to its administration - either the tax isn't set right or the credits are inappropriately doled out) tool and would end up just being a pool of money to be raided for unrelated purposes. At the same time, I have concerns that we could see increased pressures on populations least-suited to adapt to climate changes, particularly when it comes to water shortages. In summary, it pretty much sucks.
 
#374
#374
TennTradition said:
Enforcing a cap/trade or tax by no means proves that it is a money making venture.

Also, there are temperature increases that are not so threatening and some that are believed to be so. I've generally heard that 2 degrees wouldn't be too bad...

Obviously you have to accept the notion that higher CO2 can cause higher temperatures (which I think is the easiest notion to accept).
Click to expand...

Those in the forefront of the push for cap and trade stand to make $$ trillions annually in the carbon trade market and of course more money for governments and in particular the UN to throw around, steal and do what ever they wish with.

No, 2 degrees wouldn't be bad at all, neither would 4 or 5.

Long range forcasters who seem to be one hell of a lot more informed, have much more knowledge, have integrity (which the UN IPCC completely lacks), and have been much more accurate, predict that by the end of the 21st century we may be enterting another ice age, and that IS something to worry about and try to prepare for.

There is a problem with how those measurements are made, I understand we have cut US reporting stations from about 6,000 in 1970 to 1,500 today. Some questions:

Who made the decision to cull the weather station data in each of the regions and on what basis?

Where are the papers justifying this and who are the authors?

Who is the controlling authority?

Who funds them?

What happened to the weather stations that were culled?

Are they still producing information available locally and databased locally by whoever is running them?

Are they still operational and are their data sets still available or accessible?

Why did the number of weather stations used drop in different regions at different times in these databases referenced?

Who controls these databases and how does one access them?

Do these databases still contain the raw data from all the weather stations that were culled?

Are their older papers in the literature, local or international which reference temperature data from stations that were culled?

For instance, are there any European or country specific papers such as Russian that use data from weather stations that were culled from 1988-2000?

As smart as you seem to be and with all the evidence contrary to IPCC findings presented here and with the recent dicrediting of both the methodology and integrity of the IPCC, not to mention the dubious quality of their conclusions, I simply cannot fathom why you still support them.

Really I'm at a loss there. :no:

BTW, it isn't obvious that higher CO2 levels will cause higher temperatures, you should know better than to say that if you have read the MIT Lindzen/Choi (sp?) paper on that topic.

Another thing is that we do know that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing but tree ring data from the last 1,000 years shows the Earth has been cooling for last forty years, that's why the IPCC dropped tree ring data in their studies after 1969.









g8terh8ter_eric said:
Really?? We all breath out CO2, so what would come after taxing those businesses, taxing our breathing?? Hell, they gonna make farmers pay for cow farts?? See, once you go down that slippery slope, there is no return. Once they start taxing businesses, then nothing will be off limits. It's about MONEY, plain and simple. That's what EVERYTHING is about that has to do with taxes, and it's only going to get worse, IMO. Eventually, we are going to be solely dependent on the government if we keep going down the path we are currently on. See, I could go with the whole thing, if it was based on just cleaning up the earth, which I do agree with, but trying to regulate a naturally occurring gas because a VERY small minority of scientists think that it makes our planet warmer is ludicrous. I think that if the government gets too deep in our pockets, there will be a revolution, hopefully sooner than later.
Click to expand...

Then there is the problem of what some government appointed commisar of CO2 desides about who can omit what and how much???

They want us to buy this pig in a poke and discuss the details later.

We do know that energy costs for every American houshold would be thousands of dollars higher annually, and that based on dubious at best reasons for doing so.
 
#375
#375
TennTradition said:
There's no doubt that a tax or cap and trade is a money-making venture - but that doesn't mean that enforcing caps or taxes makes the entire AGW idea a money-making venture. Ideally, every cent collected through a program like this would be spent on increasing energy efficiency, investment in renewable energy technology, etc. However, the government is not going to be that efficient, it is going to be a big pool of money that will be tapped into by other interests, etc. I have concerns about the effect of caps or taxes on the economies of the world if they are actually enforced at levels that mean something, without a doubt. I also have concerns that a cap or tax would end up being an ineffective (due to its administration - either the tax isn't set right or the credits are inappropriately doled out) tool and would end up just being a pool of money to be raided for unrelated purposes. At the same time, I have concerns that we could see increased pressures on populations least-suited to adapt to climate changes, particularly when it comes to water shortages. In summary, it pretty much sucks.
Click to expand...

What bothers me is that we are being sold a bill of goods under false pretenses.

Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher while CO2 was lower.


Warmer citing polls, not science, and lots of more good articles.

Scroll down to 'Czechgate' to see another example of how data has been falsified to support the absurd UN IPCC AGW hypothesis.

One more time; THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top