"Denialgate"............

"Denialgate"............ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> "Denialgate"............ (2/17/2012 6:11:44 AM)
"The 'secret, corporate-funded' plan to make Americans doubt climate change" http://news.yahoo.com/secret-corporate-funded-plan-americans-doubt-climate-change-110200601.html .In a sort of reverse "Climategate," the libertarian Heartland Institute is embarrassed by a major leak. Here, 6 of the highlights The war over climate change flared up again this week, after an anonymous tipster leaked a trove of documents from the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, a libertarian group known, among other things, for opposing regulation of greenhouse gasses. In a sort of funhouse-mirror image of "Climategate" — the giant 2009 leak of supposedly conspiratorial emails among climate scientists — the Heartland document dump outlines one group's efforts to sow doubts about the scientific consensus that humans are dangerously changing the long-term climate through gas emissions. The Heartland Institute has implied that nearly all of the documents are authentic — they were apparently obtained when someone posing as a board member convinced a staffer to "re-send" the documents to a new email account. That's criminal fraud, Heartland said, and "we intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes." In the meantime, here are six takeaways from what's already being called "Denialgate":

DarkSteven -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/17/2012 6:18:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 That's criminal fraud, Heartland said, and "we intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes." Good luck, Heartland. The federal government is trying to prosecute Julius Assange for a similar release on the basis that the release compromised national security. And that followed Libby's outing of a CIA agent. Heartland cannot claim any impact on national security. This leak is similar to the Climategate leak, in which no crybabies threatened legal action. There's no case here, and Heartland knows it.

SternSkipper -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/17/2012 8:51:31 AM)
quote: The Heartland Institute has implied that nearly all of the documents are authentic But wait years ago they lost 'documents' to hackers and swore up and down they were faked. Course that's probably cause they included information indicating they were knowingly commissioning a smokescreen. I guess investment-wise it's gonna be a LONG Motherfucking way out of the investments these clowns have in fossil fuels. But always remember folks. It's our job as the middle class to consume the shit they 1% WENT LONG ON! So don't you dare bitch about it.

TheHeretic -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/26/2012 8:11:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper So don't you dare bitch about it. Well, Sternskipper, since the only document in the bunch that had any meat for the bleaters turned out to be a forgery, and a really dumb forgery at that, I think we will go ahead and point that out.

SoftBonds -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/26/2012 9:42:34 AM)
You know how I'd love to see this whole thing resolved? Lets treat it like a business would. Get the experts to put out there predictions, and average the predictions. Then look at cost and benefit. Now most of the experts say climate change is happening, but just for giggles, lets tack a 50% chance that there is human caused climate change as our business case. That means that you look at the costs of a given level of climate change, and then look at the costs of mitigating that level of change, and if the cost of mitigation is less than 50% of the cost of the effects, you mitigate. Would everyone be willing to accept that (common sense IMHO) standard? If climate change would lead to less water for the American Midwest, leading to droughts that wipe out the farms in Iowa and kill the cattle herds of Texas, what amount of spending would be reasonable to save those crops and herds? I think it would be interesting to create a worldwide insurance policy to deal with climate change, paid by a tax on gasses that arguably create climate change, and paid out to folks who can prove their weather events were unusual. Of course, all of this would really hurt the folks funding denial... Alternative idea. We completely scrap current pursuit of legislation to deal with climate change, in exchange for Exxon and friends supporting a law allowing anyone harmed by climate change to sue the companies that are dumping climate changing gasses in the atmosphere for an amount based on the full amount of damages and the portion of greenhouse gasses they emitted, with all gasses from cars legislatively pegged to the oil companies, and other provisions to make sure the corporations, instead of individuals, are the legally liable parties.

TheHeretic -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/26/2012 11:54:48 AM)
Interesting, fun, outside the box ideas, Softbonds. I do see a little problem area. We'd also have to calculate in terms of how much MORE damage is being done to herds and crops by our potential contribution, not by total losses. It isn't like droughts, floods, and the other assorted natural disasters, are a new development in human history, and will magically stop, even if we mitigate at the extreme end of the proposals with a steady-state, rigidly managed, agrarian economy. How many plaintiffs might finally see their day in court, only to be told that their island was due for hurricane anyway, and now pay the court costs, and opposition legal fees?

SoftBonds -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/26/2012 2:06:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Interesting, fun, outside the box ideas, Softbonds. I do see a little problem area. We'd also have to calculate in terms of how much MORE damage is being done to herds and crops by our potential contribution, not by total losses. It isn't like droughts, floods, and the other assorted natural disasters, are a new development in human history, and will magically stop, even if we mitigate at the extreme end of the proposals with a steady-state, rigidly managed, agrarian economy. How many plaintiffs might finally see their day in court, only to be told that their island was due for hurricane anyway, and now pay the court costs, and opposition legal fees? Yes, I agree with all of your points. Another point brought up to me was that while Iowa stops being good farmland, other areas will improve as farmland, especially in Canada and Russia (which kinda benefit from higher average temperatures). Warming of those areas actually creates wealth, and yes, I am willing to admit that climate change isn't all bad... I just believe that on the balance it hurts more than it helps. Here is yet another point, is it too late anyway? I kinda stumbled on that viewpoint when my 18 YO son suggested that he didn't care about climate change cause the big oil companies would do what they wanted, and it was up to everyone else to just live with it. But after his statement, I started to look into tipping points. In Alaska, huge amounts of methane are trapped in the permafrost. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Alaska is getting warmer. What do you think happens to permafrost when it gets warm? I imagine the same issues exist in Canada, Russia, Greenland, and Scandinavia. Look at a map and you will see there is a lot of land with permafrost. Likewise, the Arctic Ocean has less ice, which means less heat reflected and more heat absorbed, which reduces ice cover, which... And since many of those tipping points have already been reached, is it too late? Are we just debating closing the barn door after all the horses left, in order to save two lame pigs and an old milk cow? I don't know. There is a huge amount of uncertainty, and you are right that "pinning the blame," is a pretty hard thing to do. Heck, "who pays," is a pretty hard question. For China to reach our level of industrialization would produce HUGE amounts of greenhouse gasses. Is it fair of us to tell China to stay in the 3rd world and not catch up for fear of warming? But at the end of the day, CO2 levels are a lot higher than they have ever been. That matters. The original "the sky is falling," worries were by scientists trying to get someone to pay attention, not because they knew what would happen, but because they didn't. We don't have any planets to do experiments on to make sure we don't fuck something up beyond all repair. Heat? Meh, we can move north, heck, plants and animals already are. Drought? Well, it may reduce the number of people the planet can support, but starvation is expected. Besides, while it costs a lot more than other water sources, ocean desalinization does work. If California switched to that source of water, the remaining Rockies water could take care of the West. Not sure what Iowa does, maybe an aqueduct from the Great Lakes? Ocean Acidification? Now that one scares me. Not because I know what will happen, but because I don't...

TheHeretic -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/26/2012 3:59:55 PM)
And meanwhile, one good volcanic eruption, or some really big mushroom clouds over the middle east. might put enough dust in the upper atmosphere to kick us into an ice age, and the warming could be all that prevents it. Look at this situation, where an alleged scientist, sitting on a professional ethics committee for crying out loud, tries to perpetrate the sort of fraud and forgery Owner59 was so kind as to bring to the table. Until the potential AGW realities get separated from the hijackers with the power happy or unrelated agendas, there cannot even be a rational discussion. They are too busy claiming the science is settled on things we are only beginning to understand, and treating Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, as a replacement for Robert's Rules of Order.

DesideriScuri -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/27/2012 3:06:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Interesting, fun, outside the box ideas, Softbonds. I do see a little problem area. We'd also have to calculate in terms of how much MORE damage is being done to herds and crops by our potential contribution, not by total losses. It isn't like droughts, floods, and the other assorted natural disasters, are a new development in human history, and will magically stop, even if we mitigate at the extreme end of the proposals with a steady-state, rigidly managed, agrarian economy. How many plaintiffs might finally see their day in court, only to be told that their island was due for hurricane anyway, and now pay the court costs, and opposition legal fees? Yes, I agree with all of your points. Another point brought up to me was that while Iowa stops being good farmland, other areas will improve as farmland, especially in Canada and Russia (which kinda benefit from higher average temperatures). Warming of those areas actually creates wealth, and yes, I am willing to admit that climate change isn't all bad... I just believe that on the balance it hurts more than it helps. Here is yet another point, is it too late anyway? I kinda stumbled on that viewpoint when my 18 YO son suggested that he didn't care about climate change cause the big oil companies would do what they wanted, and it was up to everyone else to just live with it. But after his statement, I started to look into tipping points. In Alaska, huge amounts of methane are trapped in the permafrost. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Alaska is getting warmer. What do you think happens to permafrost when it gets warm? I imagine the same issues exist in Canada, Russia, Greenland, and Scandinavia. Look at a map and you will see there is a lot of land with permafrost. Likewise, the Arctic Ocean has less ice, which means less heat reflected and more heat absorbed, which reduces ice cover, which... And since many of those tipping points have already been reached, is it too late? Are we just debating closing the barn door after all the horses left, in order to save two lame pigs and an old milk cow? I don't know. There is a huge amount of uncertainty, and you are right that "pinning the blame," is a pretty hard thing to do. Heck, "who pays," is a pretty hard question. For China to reach our level of industrialization would produce HUGE amounts of greenhouse gasses. Is it fair of us to tell China to stay in the 3rd world and not catch up for fear of warming? Not only would it take massive amounts of CO2 for China to get where we are today, they are already the #1 exporter (lol) of CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions 1. China 23.33% global CO2 emissions 2. USA 18.11% global CO2 emissions quote: But at the end of the day, CO2 levels are a lot higher than they have ever been. That matters. The original "the sky is falling," worries were by scientists trying to get someone to pay attention, not because they knew what would happen, but because they didn't. We don't have any planets to do experiments on to make sure we don't fuck something up beyond all repair. Global temperatures, however, have not increased as global CO2 has risen in the last decade or so. quote: Heat? Meh, we can move north, heck, plants and animals already are. Drought? Well, it may reduce the number of people the planet can support, but starvation is expected. Besides, while it costs a lot more than other water sources, ocean desalinization does work. If California switched to that source of water, the remaining Rockies water could take care of the West. Not sure what Iowa does, maybe an aqueduct from the Great Lakes? Ocean Acidification? Now that one scares me. Not because I know what will happen, but because I don't... The problem I have with the "Denialgate" reporting is that little snippets were quoted. I can take the last quoted part of what you posted and turn it into, "Meh, we can ... reduce the number of people... planet ... starvation ... costs a lot more." Add in some cherry twists and turns for the period of ellipses and you will have a very evil quote attributed to you. Depending on who has access to the true/original documents, this may or may not be refutable. The part about "indoctrinating" our children? If you're only presenting one side as possible (even if you only say "it's possible that"), aren't you indoctrinating already? While Kindergarten or First Grade may be a tad bit early, the "indoctrination" to the plain facts that there is no absolute, irrefutable evidence that Man is the cause of climate change, or that changing our carbon output would be able to change the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to the degree (no pun intended) necessary to impact climate change. Until there is absolute irrefutable evidence, either in support of or refuting, Man's impact on climate change, and whether or not CO2 is even the true culprit, we will have to present it as "theory" or hypotheses. I don't believe CO2 is driving climate change. I don't believe Man is driving climate change. I can be convinced that my current beliefs are not correct, but I'm not changing them until I'm convinced.

SoftBonds -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/27/2012 6:56:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Interesting, fun, outside the box ideas, Softbonds. I do see a little problem area. We'd also have to calculate in terms of how much MORE damage is being done to herds and crops by our potential contribution, not by total losses. It isn't like droughts, floods, and the other assorted natural disasters, are a new development in human history, and will magically stop, even if we mitigate at the extreme end of the proposals with a steady-state, rigidly managed, agrarian economy. How many plaintiffs might finally see their day in court, only to be told that their island was due for hurricane anyway, and now pay the court costs, and opposition legal fees? Yes, I agree with all of your points. Another point brought up to me was that while Iowa stops being good farmland, other areas will improve as farmland, especially in Canada and Russia (which kinda benefit from higher average temperatures). Warming of those areas actually creates wealth, and yes, I am willing to admit that climate change isn't all bad... I just believe that on the balance it hurts more than it helps. Here is yet another point, is it too late anyway? I kinda stumbled on that viewpoint when my 18 YO son suggested that he didn't care about climate change cause the big oil companies would do what they wanted, and it was up to everyone else to just live with it. But after his statement, I started to look into tipping points. In Alaska, huge amounts of methane are trapped in the permafrost. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Alaska is getting warmer. What do you think happens to permafrost when it gets warm? I imagine the same issues exist in Canada, Russia, Greenland, and Scandinavia. Look at a map and you will see there is a lot of land with permafrost. Likewise, the Arctic Ocean has less ice, which means less heat reflected and more heat absorbed, which reduces ice cover, which... And since many of those tipping points have already been reached, is it too late? Are we just debating closing the barn door after all the horses left, in order to save two lame pigs and an old milk cow? I don't know. There is a huge amount of uncertainty, and you are right that "pinning the blame," is a pretty hard thing to do. Heck, "who pays," is a pretty hard question. For China to reach our level of industrialization would produce HUGE amounts of greenhouse gasses. Is it fair of us to tell China to stay in the 3rd world and not catch up for fear of warming? Not only would it take massive amounts of CO2 for China to get where we are today, they are already the #1 exporter (lol) of CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions 1. China 23.33% global CO2 emissions 2. USA 18.11% global CO2 emissions quote: But at the end of the day, CO2 levels are a lot higher than they have ever been. That matters. The original "the sky is falling," worries were by scientists trying to get someone to pay attention, not because they knew what would happen, but because they didn't. We don't have any planets to do experiments on to make sure we don't fuck something up beyond all repair. Global temperatures, however, have not increased as global CO2 has risen in the last decade or so. quote: Heat? Meh, we can move north, heck, plants and animals already are. Drought? Well, it may reduce the number of people the planet can support, but starvation is expected. Besides, while it costs a lot more than other water sources, ocean desalinization does work. If California switched to that source of water, the remaining Rockies water could take care of the West. Not sure what Iowa does, maybe an aqueduct from the Great Lakes? Ocean Acidification? Now that one scares me. Not because I know what will happen, but because I don't... The problem I have with the "Denialgate" reporting is that little snippets were quoted. I can take the last quoted part of what you posted and turn it into, "Meh, we can ... reduce the number of people... planet ... starvation ... costs a lot more." Add in some cherry twists and turns for the period of ellipses and you will have a very evil quote attributed to you. Depending on who has access to the true/original documents, this may or may not be refutable. The part about "indoctrinating" our children? If you're only presenting one side as possible (even if you only say "it's possible that"), aren't you indoctrinating already? While Kindergarten or First Grade may be a tad bit early, the "indoctrination" to the plain facts that there is no absolute, irrefutable evidence that Man is the cause of climate change, or that changing our carbon output would be able to change the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to the degree (no pun intended) necessary to impact climate change. Until there is absolute irrefutable evidence, either in support of or refuting, Man's impact on climate change, and whether or not CO2 is even the true culprit, we will have to present it as "theory" or hypotheses. I don't believe CO2 is driving climate change. I don't believe Man is driving climate change. I can be convinced that my current beliefs are not correct, but I'm not changing them until I'm convinced. One odd question: "The part about "indoctrinating" our children?" Um, where did I say anything about that? Anyway... Simple question, did the skyscrapers in New York form naturally from wind and rain effects on limestone, or did someone make them? Was the US interstate highway system discovered by early explorers, a convenient natural formation of rock exposed by wind, or did someone make it? We have an effect on our environment. No, I do not know that it will make temperatures go up, we still don't have good ideas about the effects of clouds. That said, we do know there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has ever been before. I think it is 30% higher than any previous measurable level, and we are not talking about "since industrialization," here, this is using ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years. The Ocean is doing it's part to absorb that CO2, with a scary effect, it is turning the CO2 into carbonic acid. This is significantly changing the PH level of the Ocean. So my question to you is, are you going to stick with "We can't know for sure, so I'm going to ignore it," or are you willing to pursue greater knowledge and at least talk about ways to mitigate risks? Do you have any guess as to the cost of doing nothing if you are wrong?

Owner59 -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/28/2012 8:08:27 AM)
"Everest could soon become impossible to climb because of global warming, says top Sherpa" //www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2107013/Everest-soon-impossible-climb-global-warming-says-Sherpa.html#ixzz1nh2tW9Os One of the most prolific climbers of all time, who has conquered Everest a record 21 times, says he may not be able to do it again. Why? Because climate change is making the world’s highest and most treacherous peak unclimbable, Asa Sherpa contends. Apa, popularly known as the 'Super Sherpa,' who first conquered Everest in 1989, told AFP that the absence of snow on the mountain concerns him greatly

DesideriScuri -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/28/2012 11:38:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Interesting, fun, outside the box ideas, Softbonds. I do see a little problem area. We'd also have to calculate in terms of how much MORE damage is being done to herds and crops by our potential contribution, not by total losses. It isn't like droughts, floods, and the other assorted natural disasters, are a new development in human history, and will magically stop, even if we mitigate at the extreme end of the proposals with a steady-state, rigidly managed, agrarian economy. How many plaintiffs might finally see their day in court, only to be told that their island was due for hurricane anyway, and now pay the court costs, and opposition legal fees? Yes, I agree with all of your points. Another point brought up to me was that while Iowa stops being good farmland, other areas will improve as farmland, especially in Canada and Russia (which kinda benefit from higher average temperatures). Warming of those areas actually creates wealth, and yes, I am willing to admit that climate change isn't all bad... I just believe that on the balance it hurts more than it helps. Here is yet another point, is it too late anyway? I kinda stumbled on that viewpoint when my 18 YO son suggested that he didn't care about climate change cause the big oil companies would do what they wanted, and it was up to everyone else to just live with it. But after his statement, I started to look into tipping points. In Alaska, huge amounts of methane are trapped in the permafrost. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Alaska is getting warmer. What do you think happens to permafrost when it gets warm? I imagine the same issues exist in Canada, Russia, Greenland, and Scandinavia. Look at a map and you will see there is a lot of land with permafrost. Likewise, the Arctic Ocean has less ice, which means less heat reflected and more heat absorbed, which reduces ice cover, which... And since many of those tipping points have already been reached, is it too late? Are we just debating closing the barn door after all the horses left, in order to save two lame pigs and an old milk cow? I don't know. There is a huge amount of uncertainty, and you are right that "pinning the blame," is a pretty hard thing to do. Heck, "who pays," is a pretty hard question. For China to reach our level of industrialization would produce HUGE amounts of greenhouse gasses. Is it fair of us to tell China to stay in the 3rd world and not catch up for fear of warming? Not only would it take massive amounts of CO2 for China to get where we are today, they are already the #1 exporter (lol) of CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions 1. China 23.33% global CO2 emissions 2. USA 18.11% global CO2 emissions quote: But at the end of the day, CO2 levels are a lot higher than they have ever been. That matters. The original "the sky is falling," worries were by scientists trying to get someone to pay attention, not because they knew what would happen, but because they didn't. We don't have any planets to do experiments on to make sure we don't fuck something up beyond all repair. Global temperatures, however, have not increased as global CO2 has risen in the last decade or so. quote: Heat? Meh, we can move north, heck, plants and animals already are. Drought? Well, it may reduce the number of people the planet can support, but starvation is expected. Besides, while it costs a lot more than other water sources, ocean desalinization does work. If California switched to that source of water, the remaining Rockies water could take care of the West. Not sure what Iowa does, maybe an aqueduct from the Great Lakes? Ocean Acidification? Now that one scares me. Not because I know what will happen, but because I don't... The problem I have with the "Denialgate" reporting is that little snippets were quoted. I can take the last quoted part of what you posted and turn it into, "Meh, we can ... reduce the number of people... planet ... starvation ... costs a lot more." Add in some cherry twists and turns for the period of ellipses and you will have a very evil quote attributed to you. Depending on who has access to the true/original documents, this may or may not be refutable. The part about "indoctrinating" our children? If you're only presenting one side as possible (even if you only say "it's possible that"), aren't you indoctrinating already? While Kindergarten or First Grade may be a tad bit early, the "indoctrination" to the plain facts that there is no absolute, irrefutable evidence that Man is the cause of climate change, or that changing our carbon output would be able to change the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to the degree (no pun intended) necessary to impact climate change. Until there is absolute irrefutable evidence, either in support of or refuting, Man's impact on climate change, and whether or not CO2 is even the true culprit, we will have to present it as "theory" or hypotheses. I don't believe CO2 is driving climate change. I don't believe Man is driving climate change. I can be convinced that my current beliefs are not correct, but I'm not changing them until I'm convinced. One odd question: "The part about "indoctrinating" our children?" Um, where did I say anything about that? Anyway... Simple question, did the skyscrapers in New York form naturally from wind and rain effects on limestone, or did someone make them? Was the US interstate highway system discovered by early explorers, a convenient natural formation of rock exposed by wind, or did someone make it? We have an effect on our environment. No, I do not know that it will make temperatures go up, we still don't have good ideas about the effects of clouds. That said, we do know there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has ever been before. I think it is 30% higher than any previous measurable level, and we are not talking about "since industrialization," here, this is using ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years. The Ocean is doing it's part to absorb that CO2, with a scary effect, it is turning the CO2 into carbonic acid. This is significantly changing the PH level of the Ocean. So my question to you is, are you going to stick with "We can't know for sure, so I'm going to ignore it," or are you willing to pursue greater knowledge and at least talk about ways to mitigate risks? Do you have any guess as to the cost of doing nothing if you are wrong? 1. Never quoted "indoctrination" to you. It came from the article. 2. Yes, we have an effect on our environment. But, my claim was that we don't yet know if Man is driving climate change. Nor do we know whether or not CO2 is driving climate change. If CO2 is driving climate change, why hasn't the climate changed as global atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase? 3. A great end-around is the hypersensationalizing of consequences and then framing the choices around that claim. That is exactly what you are doing, whether you know it or not (you do claim that you don't know if climate change is caused by us). There are a great many things that are well worth preventing. There are many things that are worth taking action against, even when it's possible that those things may or may not happen. According to the Global Warming sensationalists, we only have 10 years to do something before we've crossed the point of no return. Well, VP and Presidential candidate Gore, we're almost 12 years beyond that claim and, well, either we're past the point of no return, or the people who are making all the claims don't know wtf is really going on. All the supporters rely on the computer models out of the CRU. When you look at the predictions that model made, they are wrong. The facts and measurements do not follow the model. None have ever explained that. How is it we are supposed to rely on computer models that have yet to show themselves to be accurate. Now, you may be willing to make changes, but who else is? Al Gore isn't. He just keeps blasting carbon with his lifestyle and buying "carbon credits" which doesn't actually change CO2 amounts. I don't know if it was you that brought up the water issue in California or not. I will let you know that I honestly want to cut off all monetary aid to every foreign country. I am a firm believer that we help out other countries, but not by giving them a check. I fully believe tying all foreign aid (not including emergency disaster relief) to products or services that provide real, residual value. For instance, if we were to build a desalination plant or 3 in Haiti, what do you think that fresh water would help with? If nothing else, it would improve public health and reduce epidemic breakouts. Instead, we've given $2B+ to Haiti that was essentially siphoned off by those in charge. Desert areas in Africa and the Middle East could support plant life. Imagine what would happen to CO2 levels if we covered the deserts with greenery. If CO2 is the culprit, we might end up with a friggin' ice age. I recycle. I freecycle (instead of throwing away usable things, I offer it for free via a Yahoo group; if no one wants it, it's either donated, or taken to the landfill). I had my house built facing north so the largest portions of unbroken rooftop would face south, which is the best direction for my area if you want to install solar panels. I've priced residential wind turbines. I actively use CFL's to reduce power consumption. I have looked into retrofitting my house with an "on demand" hot water heater, and for installation of a geothermal heat pump. I have done none of this with the express intent of reducing my carbon footprint (because I honestly believe it's BS), but to actively save money and reduce my resource usage. My yard was mud when we moved in. It is now 95% covered with grass. There are trees here. I have a garden and take my compostable waste and put it in the garden. My belief is that we all need to get more regional. Have community farmer's markets where the entire community can come together, have a damn good time, and get locally grown produce and foods. My son and I built a "solar oven" as a summer project (because of my awesomely horrible carpentry skills, it failed miserably). You want to cripple manufacturing? Or, increase the costs of goods for everything? Go ahead. I'm working towards getting off the grid. If I have to raise my own damn chickens, cows and pigs, I'll find a way to do that. You can continue to pay ever-increasing prices for everything. Don't expect to soak the rich, either. It won't happen. They have enough money now. They can stop working. They can stop investing. They can close their plants. Then what? If you take 90% of every dollar in earnings over $350,000 (which is where the top tax bracket lib's point to would be in today's dollars) and maintain the lower tax brackets, will that be enough? Well, I actually know that it won't even cover the $1.5T deficit Obama budgeted for the 2010 fiscal year. Take that money away and there will be less the following year, and less the following year, etc. Even if you soak the rich and it helps for a year, what do you think is going to happen to all the jobs those closed plants used to support? It is a never ending cycle. Global Warming is most likely yet another scam to redistribute wealth. Period.

Owner59 -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/28/2012 1:05:03 PM)
And............ if it isn`t "just a cycle"? Do you have kids or grand-kids or nieces and nephews? What about their futures? How do we know that you`re not just one more dupe of denialgate?

DomKen -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/28/2012 1:19:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 2. Yes, we have an effect on our environment. But, my claim was that we don't yet know if Man is driving climate change. Nor do we know whether or not CO2 is driving climate change. If CO2 is driving climate change, why hasn't the climate changed as global atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase? First off CO2 is definitely driving climate change. Physics would have to be wrong on some very basic points for that to be untrue. 1998 was the hottest year on record due to the strongest El Nino in the last 100 years. Warming has not continued only if you use 1998 as your baseline. In reality 2001 through 2011 were 11 of the 13 hottest years since 1880.

SoftBonds -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/28/2012 1:53:30 PM)
Simple test to see if CO2 causes climate change: Compare average Temps of Venus and Mercury. If CO2 doesn't cause climate change, Mercury (half as far from the sun) will be a lot hotter. If CO2 traps heat, Venus will be hotter. And the winner is??? Venus is almost as hot as the sunward side of Mercury and a heck of a lot hotter than Mercury's shadow side. Making Venus, further from the sun, the planet with the higher average temp...

Hippiekinkster -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/28/2012 2:07:14 PM)
Uh, please trim your quotes.

masternoname -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/28/2012 3:39:10 PM)
global change has been happening long before man started making his contributions to the world. now it really sucks that eventually things are going to change but thats life. now before anyone gets there panties in a wad. I didnt say we shouldnt take care of the earth we live on, we just shouldnt expect that nothing will ever change It already has quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "Everest could soon become impossible to climb because of global warming, says top Sherpa" //www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2107013/Everest-soon-impossible-climb-global-warming-says-Sherpa.html#ixzz1nh2tW9Os One of the most prolific climbers of all time, who has conquered Everest a record 21 times, says he may not be able to do it again. Why? Because climate change is making the world’s highest and most treacherous peak unclimbable, Asa Sherpa contends. Apa, popularly known as the 'Super Sherpa,' who first conquered Everest in 1989, told AFP that the absence of snow on the mountain concerns him greatly

DesideriScuri -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/28/2012 6:15:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 2. Yes, we have an effect on our environment. But, my claim was that we don't yet know if Man is driving climate change. Nor do we know whether or not CO2 is driving climate change. If CO2 is driving climate change, why hasn't the climate changed as global atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase? First off CO2 is definitely driving climate change. Physics would have to be wrong on some very basic points for that to be untrue. 1998 was the hottest year on record due to the strongest El Nino in the last 100 years. Warming has not continued only if you use 1998 as your baseline. In reality 2001 through 2011 were 11 of the 13 hottest years since 1880. So, what you are saying is that since 1998, warming has not occurred. Has atmospheric CO2 declined? If CO2 has risen and temperature has not, how are you going to explain that? Is CO2 the strongest greenhouse gas? Nope. Does CO2 have the largest impact on greenhouse effects? Nope. That distinction would belong to water vapor. Water vapor isn't as strong as CO2, but it is so much more prevalent that it's overall effect is larger. Let's ban water vapor!!!

DesideriScuri -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/28/2012 6:19:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds Simple test to see if CO2 causes climate change: Compare average Temps of Venus and Mercury. If CO2 doesn't cause climate change, Mercury (half as far from the sun) will be a lot hotter. If CO2 traps heat, Venus will be hotter. And the winner is??? Venus is almost as hot as the sunward side of Mercury and a heck of a lot hotter than Mercury's shadow side. Making Venus, further from the sun, the planet with the higher average temp... Because other than CO2 content in their atmosphere and relative distance from the sun, they are exactly the same.

TheHeretic -> RE: "Denialgate"............ (2/28/2012 6:44:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 How do we know that you`re not just one more dupe of denialgate? First off, Owner59, before using a word like "dupe," you need to offer all the participants of this forum a sincere apology for having helped to spread this act fraud and forgery you were so eager to crow about. YOU are the dupe of "Denialgate," or "Fakegate," as it has since been renamed. Now I do understand how hard that might be for you, so can start by apologizing to the true believers of AGW, whose credibility you have further run into the mud. The guy you cited has apologized on Huff n Poo, so maybe you can try following his template?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.7832031