The Great Global Warming Poll

[jaa]

ok, now you are just embarrassing yourself. I have already refuted everyone of the baseless slanders you have cut and pasted from the Alarmist thought police.

Should be easy enough to show then. This thread isn't long. Prove me wrong. Put egg on my face. With reference to my itemized quotes in post #75 please. That's the one you took the most unrepresentative sample from to try and shoot down my entire critique of Dr. Ball's character.

I hope you have the decency to apologize if you can't and admit you were wrong. Otherwise people may assume you endorse Ball's lies and have no moral qualms with lying as long as it furthers your agenda.

 

[x-ray peat]

Should be easy enough to show then. This thread isn't long. Prove me wrong. Put egg on my face. With reference to my itemized quotes in post #75 please. That's the one you took the most unrepresentative sample from to try and shoot down my entire critique of Dr. Ball's character.

Read through my responses prior to this and you will see that they have been addressed. I think this dead horse has been kicked enough.

 

[Ideonaut]

Most of the major oil companies are now on board with the global warming lie. They are experiencing record increased growth selling gas to utilities for all the new gas fired generation being built to replace coal fired plants. Eventually when the price of gas goes back up to more historical values they stand to make a killing.

What is true is that they fund environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club to attack the nuclear industry and promote solar and wind technology. They do this because only Nuclear would be capable of displacing any significant amount of gas or oil fired generation. Solar and wind will never be more than niche players.

Why Big Oil wants Trump to stay in Paris climate agreement

That the nuke industry is behind the global warming scare, as intimated in this article Green Glow Over Mexico Quake...Hotter Hurricanes<br>Caused By Fukushima Radioactivity, seems more plausible to me.

 

[jaa]

Read through my responses prior to this and you will see that they have been addressed. I think this dead horse has been kicked enough.

Just what I thought. You're dodging again and with no where left to hide you want to close this conversation out.

It's tough to admit you're wrong after a back and forth like ours. I hope you use this as motivation to examine your beliefs on this subject.

 

[aquaman]

While you two guys bicker :)

Wondering what @x-ray peat and @Queequeg are arguing here? are you saying that man should not make any effort to reduce our impact on the environment? People are somehow arguing it's too costly to reduce our impact on the environment.

The greatest fraud now current in the mass media is the idea that we must choose between the health of our environ-ment and the vitality of the economy or our standard of living.

I come to Ray's comments: "I think we have to start seeing jobs in resource-extraction as an index of poverty, to the extent that they degrade the biosphere. A definition of wealth must consider both quantity and quality of production. "

CO2 production is a pretty good proxy for the use of extracted resources.

In morocco, they are looking at producing a solar plant large enough to power the whole of Europe. Costs currently are higher but these are the early days of huge scale. If the sahara could be put to use, it seems highly plausible that Europe and Africa could be powered by solar. For this we'd need enough political stability of course in more northern African countries which is highly unlikely for many years The colossal African solar farm that could power Europe

The debate about CO2 not being a problem feeds into the "it's a conspiracy, we can't do anything to prevent climate change".

Oil is given something like $20bn a year in US subsidies. Appointing ex-CEOs into top government positions can only lead to more crony capitalism, and holding back the move to non-extractive energy production.

 

[jaa]

@aquaman

This comic sums it up well.

Those against tactics to combat climate change undervalue future lives, overestimate present costs, and give next to no weight to the scientific consensus (i.e. don't even think there's a 10% chance the overwhelming majority could be correct). This is just about the worst way you could think about this issue if you're trying to optimize for outcomes.

 

[x-ray peat]

While you two guys bicker :)

Wondering what @x-ray peat and @Queequeg are arguing here? are you saying that man should not make any effort to reduce our impact on the environment? People are somehow arguing it's too costly to reduce our impact on the environment.

What I and I think most people who took the poll believe is that man made CO2 has such a minute effect on climate that it is a non-issue. The radical reduction in the amount of CO2 to be emitted would radically reduce the quality of life of all people in the world and not do a thing towards changing the temperature/climate. It's not that we are evil and greedy and dont care about the Earth or the next generation. This is the propaganda that the Alarmists have brainwashed everyone with. That's why no one wants to discuss the science but only the motives or character of the skeptics.

Have a look at the Great Global Warming Swindle movie and let us all know exactly what is wrong with what they are saying.

I come to Ray's comments: "I think we have to start seeing jobs in resource-extraction as an index of poverty, to the extent that they degrade the biosphere. A definition of wealth must consider both quantity and quality of production. "

CO2 production is a pretty good proxy for the use of extracted resources.

Ray does not believe that man made CO2 is doing anything but helping the environment. You have your facts wrong. CO2 is not a good proxy for extracted resources but it is a good proxie for life on Earth. A war against CO2 is a war against humanity. I will explain this further below. But getting back to resource extraction, thee are ways to do that on an environmentally sustainable basis that both benefits society as well as preserves the environment. A war against CO2 does nothing to stop exploitative gold, silver, copper, uranium etc mining techniques and does nothing to prevent clear cutting of rain forests.

In morocco, they are looking at producing a solar plant large enough to power the whole of Europe. Costs currently are higher but these are the early days of huge scale. If the sahara could be put to use, it seems highly plausible that Europe and Africa could be powered by solar. For this we'd need enough political stability of course in more northern African countries which is highly unlikely for many years The colossal African solar farm that could power Europe

that is only when the sun is at its zenith. What does Europe do when its dark out?

The debate about CO2 not being a problem feeds into the "it's a conspiracy, we can't do anything to prevent climate change".
Oil is given something like $20bn a year in US subsidies. Appointing ex-CEOs into top government positions can only lead to more crony capitalism, and holding back the move to non-extractive energy production.

You are forgetting that all Governments of the World under the leadership of the UN are pushing the global warming lie. Trump's hollow protestations will soon be reversed and forgotten in a few years.

 

[x-ray peat]

@aquaman

This comic sums it up well.

Those against tactics to combat climate change undervalue future lives, overestimate present costs, and give next to no weight to the scientific consensus (i.e. don't even think there's a 10% chance the overwhelming majority could be correct). This is just about the worst way you could think about this issue if you're trying to optimize for outcomes.

This is a false argument. The cost to fight the phantom of Global Warming is in the trillions of dollars. By instituting a tax on carbon that is high enough to significantly curtail fossil fuel use you will drive much of the world into poverty. African and the rest of the developing nations will no longer be able to develop. So from our point of view what you are proposing is shear insanity. Its like giving everyone in Houston a teaspoon and telling them to start bailing out the city. As the movie above sums up, "this would be laughable if it wasn't so serious."

 

[jaa]

You are forgetting that all Governments of the World under the leadership of the UN are pushing the global warming lie. Trump's hollow protestations will soon be reversed and forgotten in a few years.

This is patently false. The governments in the UN aren't under the leadership of the UN. They can leave any time and countries in the UN have gone against the UN a bunch. Just because it's a coalition does not mean countries are beholden to its leaders. Not to mention all the countries who aren't in the UN.

And the part about Trump is laughable. Please describe the fantasy scenario of how the world looks in a few years when Trump's master plan is finally revealed. That should be a hoot.

Speaking of falsehoods, still waiting on you clearing up my misconceptions about Dr. Ball's lies.

This is a false argument. The cost to fight the phantom of Global Warming is in the trillions of dollars. By instituting a tax on carbon that is high enough to significantly curtail fossil fuel use you will drive much of the world into poverty. African and the rest of the developing nations will no longer be able to develop. So from our point of view what you are proposing is shear insanity. Its like giving everyone in Houston a teaspoon and telling them to start bailing out the city. As the movie above sums up, "this would be laughable if it wasn't so serious."

So to make a valid argument I just have to spout a lot of hyperbole while arguing against a position that doesn't exist and making nonsensical analogies which if they made sense would make my position seem like a massive win?

And are you suggesting the problem is so far out of our control now that it's best not to try to mitigate it at all? So man made climate change is real, except we were to slow act and now we're ****88 so **** it? This a departure from what you typically bandy about.

 

[x-ray peat]

And are you suggesting the problem is so far out of our control now that it's best not to try to mitigate it at all? So man made climate change is real, except we were to slow act and now we're ****88 so **** it? This a departure from what you typically bandy about.

For the hundredth time, man made climate change is not real. Even if you cant accept that, please stop misrepresenting everyone's view that doesn't line up with yours.

 

[jaa]

For the hundredth time, man made climate change is not real. Even if you cant accept that, please stop misrepresenting everyone's view that doesn't line up with yours.

It's not a misrepresentation if it was a question (though that accusation of misrepresentation is a misrepresentation).

Are you going to show exactly where I was wrong about Dr. Ball per my request? Or were you lying about your refutations and now want to hide from the whole thing instead of owning up to it?

 

[x-ray peat]

Are you going to show exactly where I was wrong about Dr. Ball per my request? Or were you lying about your refutations and now want to hide from the whole thing instead of owning up to it?

"I want my two dollars."

 

[jaa]

"I want my two dollars."

Ok then just so we're clear you were bullshitting about my claims against Dr. Ball being refuted by you and you will not own up to that and to the best of your knowledge Dr. Ball is a fraud. Got it.

You're not squirming out of this one.

 

[x-ray peat]

Ok then just so we're clear you were bullshitting about my claims against Dr. Ball being refuted by you and you will not own up to that and to the best of your knowledge Dr. Ball is a fraud. Got it.

You're not squirming out of this one.

"two d0llars!"

 

[jaa]

"two d0llars!"

Well I guess this whole discussion has bore a bit of sour fruit. Anyone who is enough of a masochist to read our exchange will learn that anything you post is absolutely worthless.

 

[Queequeg]

That the nuke industry is behind the global warming scare, as intimated in this article Green Glow Over Mexico Quake...Hotter Hurricanes<br>Caused By Fukushima Radioactivity, seems more plausible to me.

I dont think that the oil companies are behind the global warming fraud but just that they are happily on board making tons of money selling their gas to the power sector. I am sure the nuke industry is on board as well but I dont think they are nearly powerful enough to pull off a world wide fraud of this magnitude. This is the stuff of governments and globalists.

Not sure what to make about the green glow. I remember reading about this occurring before other earthquakes and I think a lot of people were saying it was due to HAARP. I also remember one video that recorded a weird on/off electrical buzzing sound that was not natural right before the Chile earthquakes a few years back. But I do agree that there is a lot of radiation in the atmosphere from Fukashima so who really knows.

 

[Ideonaut]

Tough choice between a cooling and no idea what's going to happen, I think they are both true. That is to say that I believe we are on the cusp of a cooling trend from natural factors (whatever natural means, I mean sun cycles) and also that the vast overwhelming majority of climate, and most other, scientists have no idea what's going on or what will happen in the future.

It is reasonable to think that one of the main things they're doing with the f'ing chemtrails is f'ing with the weather/climate. The utterly evil military has for decades been open about its aim of "owning" the weather. This possibility should have been an option in the vote.

 

[Kyle M]

It is reasonable to think that one of the main things they're doing with the f'ing chemtrails is f'ing with the weather/climate. The utterly evil military has for decades been open about its aim of "owning" the weather. This possibility should have been an option in the vote.

Whatever the military scientists can get grants for I guess.

 

[Waremu]

Person who created the poll: could you please add another option?

Climate change is natural, but affects both cooling and warming periods.

This is what I believe, from all the evidence I have seen., so I won’t vote in any of the other ones. Climate change isn’t just warming or cooling, but periods in the earths history of cooling and then warming. I do believe climate change exists and that we come out of warming periods into cooling periods and that this is largely influenced by the sun and other natural things and events relating to the solar system and the planet. I think man has very little to do with the actual warming periods, though I will say that I am more concerned about pollution and what man has done to the environment for that reason, and I don’t think we have gone about how we have used many of the finite natural resources in a very smart way and that will have ramifications that will last so long that it could be considered close to permanent — but that’s another conversation altogether.

 

[yerrag]

Has the Mini-Ice Age started already?

I'm in Manila and this year has been pleasantly cool and I find myself not using the AC as much. I'd remember growing up in the 70s where the 'ber months would be the start of pleasantly cool weather. So we'd have 5-6 months of relatively dry and cool weather, which is closer to what Mediterranean climate would be. This year seems to be like what my childhood years would be like.

When I look back at vintage pictures of Manila in the 30s-50s, the style then involved men dressed in suits, although it's white sharkskin (that's what it's called, not really shark skin) and they were dapper. I thought maybe it was even colder then, because I couldn't imagine wearing suits in the tropical climate we've had in recent decades.

What's it been like in your neck of the woods?