Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your putting your beliefs in words on this forum. That is what I'm making my assumptions off. The only way I could be wrong is if your lying.
So me taking a stance that is opposing yours means I want massive wealth redistribution? I'm just trying to figure out how you are getting to point A to point B.
Too bad that is already happening, except not the way I apparently want it to.
From 2005:
From 2008:
From 2010:
And of course I could spent more than a minute and a half posting better figures.
Don't worry your little Republican head, your wealthy overlords are in no danger of losing their wealth or incomes by having it redistributed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
When you manipulate the date put into the models to achieve the outcome you want then they are as worthless as your fake data.
So then it's a massive conspiracy?
Quote:
Study it all you want but it's not reality.
Why isn't it reality?
Quote:
Climate change will always occur that is why it's named what it is.
Yes. The Earth isn't static. I guess you are against understanding our planet's climate.... since you know we have built our entire modern civilization based on it.
You tell me how bit the conpsiracy is. The info is out there for you to ignore. The climate models have been doctored or do you disagree?
Our modern civilization built around climate? Why do people still live in deserts then?
You can study your doctored data and analyze your ice core data or ocean sediment samples and what is in the atmosphere and greenhouse this and that and everything else in between. You want to continue to pour money into folks who lie for a living and I don't. Fact is they don't understand and aren't trying to they are trying to make everyone believe it is the fault of co2 and evil humans. Take out the entire carbon credit game and co2 is evil nonsense and maybe I would get on board. Until then it's all BS because if co2 was doing what they want us to believe it is doing then they would be calling for an immediate halt to it not want to tax people to do it. That is where they lose the argument.
Guy from "Federally-occupied Texas" (boy that moniker really gives you a lot of credibility!),
Perhaps you should become better informed before challenging my "credibility". You might try asking "why" would I put that there, or what it means? Glad you asked, and I'd be happy to bring you up to speed.
First, Texas is designated by FEMA as FEMA REGION 6, among the 10 regions for which FEMA has arbitrarily divided up the United States. ... and you might want to find out which region you reside, and what implications come along with that. So as to avoid the "conspiracy theorist" charge, here is the link to FEMA's website showing the map, and Texas as part of Region VI. FEMA: Regional Operations
This is not just an internal use FEMA document, but defines how the nation would be governed during a declared emergency, and the implementation of martial law. In place, there are 10 appointed federal regional governors who would take over each of the 10 regions, with overriding authority over the various elected state legislatures and state governors of those states within each region. Now you may call such a thing whatever you like, but I choose to call it what it actually is. That the federal government even suggests it has the power to carve up the nation into 10 slices, and appoint a federal governor for each of those 10 regions, while eliminating the lawful authority of state governors and state legislatures, is in fact the pre-planned, operationally defined federal occupation of the United States of America. PERIOD. That this plan has not yet been implemented is irrelevant to the fact that it is in place, and codified in law to be implemented at the federal government's discretion. Given such a power is antithetical to the very foundation of our nation and the constitution is disturbing enough at face value to warrant being broadcast to the clueless masses in hope of informing them. Why? Because the time to challenge such threats to liberty is before they are implemented ... not afterward. Capice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bamba_boy
Just because every observation cannot be perfectly tied to cause and effect doesn't mean that climate-change theory is wrong (or in your words "lies"). Very very good correlations between anthromorphic activity, industrialization, increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and climate change effects are observed in probably 80-90% of the studies and generally agreed to by researchers... even some funded by major oil companies that had an obvious ax to grind and would have loved to have published damning evidence! (well, even EXXON has changed it's tune).
The problem you suffer is that your "observation skills" are not very sharp, as illustrated in your opening remark about by lack of credibility, which was actually a reflection of your lack of knowledge. This lack of knowledge can be corrected, but I'm not sure what to do about the naiveté' demonstrated in your reference to "Even EXXON. blah, blah, blah". Let me ask you ... are you familiar with the story of "Br'er Rabbit"? Well, that theme applies here. As the story goes, Br'er Rabbit pleads ... whatever you do, please don't throw me in the briar patch ... of course, that was the trickster rabbit's home ground, as he employed reverse psychology on his captor to do what he secretly wanted him to do ... release him into his home, the briar patch!
Now this is not complex ... and it doesn't require one to "think outside the box" ... all you need do is simply think, rather than react with the conditioned responses you're trapped in now. Think about global warming policies .. and CO2 restrictions, and shutting down coal plants, and the enormous increases in energy costs associated with those activities. Now, ask yourself another simple question ... who would be an "obvious" beneficiary of soaring energy costs? Corporations in the business of providing energy resources perhaps? It certainly wouldn't be the consumer. And what does EXXON do again? Oh yes, they sell energy resources ... but they wouldn't want the price of their products to skyrocket, would they?
Now, it is not my express purpose to insult you ... rather, I'd like to help you become better informed. But we've first got to get past this mindset of "knowing" that you have, because what you think you know is in fact the opposite of actual reality, and that is a tough spot to begin the process. You can't fix a poorly constructed house if the foundation is faulty. Time to tear it all down, and start over. And that is where you are ... as much as that might be distasteful and difficult to accept. But you've got to stop shooting the messengers, or you will remain stuck where you are, in a poorly informed condition which has you convinced that up is actually down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bamba_boy
What exactly are your qualification and what exactly have you studied data-wise to make yourself more of an expert than guys like James Hansen at NASA who have worked the problem on many independent data sets over some 30-40 years?
You're not likely to relish the answer here either, but you asked. The fact is, no one needs any special qualification to identify such a blatant pile of manure as man made CO2 caused global warming really is. It's possibly the most absurd fiction ever passed along and accepted by people who think they are rationally intelligent, educated persons. Fact is, people should know better, and an absurdity of this magnitude needs no special training to identify ... just fundamental common sense. I'm talking about the basic kind of sense here ... the kind that tells you to get in out of the rain ... the kind that prevents you from stepping out in front of moving vehicles .... the kind that immediately rejects the idea that a dented fender could be the cause of the car accident. Nothing special ... just rudimentary intelligence, or the understanding of one's need to utilize it, rather than accept every BS story circulating, at face value, such that so many seem too willing to do these days.
Now it's just going to rougher and bumpier from here, so buckle up ... and keep in mind when I use the term "you", I am referring to those among us who believe as you do ... not singling you out personally. OK?
The problem which is well defined in your question to me about what "qualifies me" to disagree with such figures as the fellow from NASA is a problem of epidemic proportions in our society, to which I thankfully do not suffer. That's the simple answer. This affliction I refer to is based on one of two possible causes .... intellectual laziness, or a deep seated feeling of intellectual inferiority, which must defer to "experts" opinions on these matters too big for the average Joe to rely on his own analysis.
Let me ask you the hard question .... do you feel intellectually inferior to "James Hanson"? Or are you just too lazy to bother investigating the issues on your own? Has "James Hanson" proven not only his expertise on the subject, but also proven his trustworthiness to the extent that would allow your blind acceptance of his claims at face value? Or have you even bothered to check? These are the questions you should be asking yourself, and not asking me what my qualifications are.
I'm not going to critique James Hanson right now, though I could, but this applies to all such granting of status to virtual strangers who claim to be "authorities" on whatever subject might be at hand. The truth is, this is a reflection of being "trained" to blindly accept authority ... whether that authority comes in the form of a uniformed police officer .. a government official ... a doctor wearing his much revered "white coat" or some academic with the letters PhD attached to the end of his or her name.
Question: would you run around making a fool of yourself, declaring that the Moon is indeed made of cream cheese because James Hanson said that NASA uncovered new evidence indicating that to be true? This may be a far fetched analogy, but I do that precisely to demonstrate a point. The CO2 caused global warming is not far removed from that level of absurdity ... you just don't understand the issue enough to recognize that.
Guys like James Hanson and thousands of others in this field of "Global Warming" have their entire professional careers dedicated to this fraud, and they are either idiots or pathological liars capitalizing on the global warming gravy train.
He's being paid handsomely, as are all the rest ... while I'm not receiving a dime for attempting to inform you of the truth.
Your choice. I can provide information, but a cannot make anyone think. That's up to them.
You tell me how bit the conpsiracy is. The info is out there for you to ignore. The climate models have been doctored or do you disagree?
Disagree.
Quote:
Our modern civilization built around climate? Why do people still live in deserts then?
For the same reason people can survive in Siberia. Or do you think there is no water or arable land in deserts? And how many people live in deserts compared to coasts or in temperature zones? Nice try but thinking things through isn't your strong suit.
Quote:
You can study your doctored data and analyze your ice core data or ocean sediment samples and what is in the atmosphere and greenhouse this and that and everything else in between. You want to continue to pour money into folks who lie for a living and I don't.
So climate scientist, physicist, oceanologists, ecologists, herpetologists, atmospheric scientists, biologists, etc. all lie for a living? Or did you think studying the climate didn't involve so many different disciplines? That's a rather large conspiracy you believe in.
Quote:
Fact is they don't understand and aren't trying to they are trying to make everyone believe it is the fault of co2 and evil humans.
Cite sources where they are explicitly "trying to make everyone believe it is the fault of co2 and evil humans."
Or how about you stop using exaggerations and embellishments to get your point across.
Quote:
Take out the entire carbon credit game and co2 is evil nonsense and maybe I would get on board.
Again cite these sources where Co2 is evil or just shut up.
Quote:
Until then it's all BS because if co2 was doing what they want us to believe it is doing then they would be calling for an immediate halt to it not want to tax people to do it. That is where they lose the argument.
Only in your fantasy land would immediately halting burning fossil fuels be a viable and proper solution if AGW was real. That is why to people with logic and reasoning, you will never win an argument.
Perhaps you should become better informed before challenging my "credibility". You might try asking "why" would I put that there, or what it means? Glad you asked, and I'd be happy to bring you up to speed.
First, Texas is designated by FEMA as FEMA REGION 6, among the 10 regions for which FEMA has arbitrarily divided up the United States. ... and you might want to find out which region you reside, and what implications come along with that. So as to avoid the "conspiracy theorist" charge, here is the link to FEMA's website showing the map, and Texas as part of Region VI. FEMA: Regional Operations
This is not just an internal use FEMA document, but defines how the nation would be governed during a declared emergency, and the implementation of martial law. In place, there are 10 appointed federal regional governors who would take over each of the 10 regions, with overriding authority over the various elected state legislatures and state governors of those states within each region. Now you may call such a thing whatever you like, but I choose to call it what it actually is. That the federal government even suggests it has the power to carve up the nation into 10 slices, and appoint a federal governor for each of those 10 regions, while eliminating the lawful authority of state governors and state legislatures, is in fact the pre-planned, operationally defined federal occupation of the United States of America. PERIOD. That this plan has not yet been implemented is irrelevant to the fact that it is in place, and codified in law to be implemented at the federal government's discretion. Given such a power is antithetical to the very foundation of our nation and the constitution is disturbing enough at face value to warrant being broadcast to the clueless masses in hope of informing them. Why? Because the time to challenge such threats to liberty is before they are implemented ... not afterward. Capice?
What threats to liberty? Geeze people get worked up over silly things. I guess somehow maintaining federal power in the events of unimaginable natural disasters is a threat to our liberties. What about martial law? Let's hear your outrage over that.
Or perhaps you don't want federal authority, you'd rather secede eh? You'd rather not salute the American flag, huh?
Quote:
The problem you suffer is that your "observation skills" are not very sharp, as illustrated in your opening remark about by lack of credibility, which was actually a reflection of your lack of knowledge. This lack of knowledge can be corrected, but I'm not sure what to do about the naiveté' demonstrated in your reference to "Even EXXON. blah, blah, blah". Let me ask you ... are you familiar with the story of "Br'er Rabbit"? Well, that theme applies here. As the story goes, Br'er Rabbit pleads ... whatever you do, please don't throw me in the briar patch ... of course, that was the trickster rabbit's home ground, as he employed reverse psychology on his captor to do what he secretly wanted him to do ... release him into his home, the briar patch!
Now this is not complex ... and it doesn't require one to "think outside the box" ... all you need do is simply think, rather than react with the conditioned responses you're trapped in now. Think about global warming policies .. and CO2 restrictions, and shutting down coal plants, and the enormous increases in energy costs associated with those activities. Now, ask yourself another simple question ... who would be an "obvious" beneficiary of soaring energy costs? Corporations in the business of providing energy resources perhaps? It certainly wouldn't be the consumer. And what does EXXON do again? Oh yes, they sell energy resources ... but they wouldn't want the price of their products to skyrocket, would they?
Now, it is not my express purpose to insult you ... rather, I'd like to help you become better informed. But we've first got to get past this mindset of "knowing" that you have, because what you think you know is in fact the opposite of actual reality, and that is a tough spot to begin the process. You can't fix a poorly constructed house if the foundation is faulty. Time to tear it all down, and start over. And that is where you are ... as much as that might be distasteful and difficult to accept. But you've got to stop shooting the messengers, or you will remain stuck where you are, in a poorly informed condition which has you convinced that up is actually down.
You're not likely to relish the answer here either, but you asked. The fact is, no one needs any special qualification to identify such a blatant pile of manure as man made CO2 caused global warming really is. It's possibly the most absurd fiction ever passed along and accepted by people who think they are rationally intelligent, educated persons. Fact is, people should know better, and an absurdity of this magnitude needs no special training to identify ... just fundamental common sense. I'm talking about the basic kind of sense here ... the kind that tells you to get in out of the rain ... the kind that prevents you from stepping out in front of moving vehicles .... the kind that immediately rejects the idea that a dented fender could be the cause of the car accident. Nothing special ... just rudimentary intelligence, or the understanding of one's need to utilize it, rather than accept every BS story circulating, at face value, such that so many seem too willing to do these days.
Now it's just going to rougher and bumpier from here, so buckle up ... and keep in mind when I use the term "you", I am referring to those among us who believe as you do ... not singling you out personally. OK?
The problem which is well defined in your question to me about what "qualifies me" to disagree with such figures as the fellow from NASA is a problem of epidemic proportions in our society, to which I thankfully do not suffer. That's the simple answer. This affliction I refer to is based on one of two possible causes .... intellectual laziness, or a deep seated feeling of intellectual inferiority, which must defer to "experts" opinions on these matters too big for the average Joe to rely on his own analysis.
Let me ask you the hard question .... do you feel intellectually inferior to "James Hanson"? Or are you just too lazy to bother investigating the issues on your own? Has "James Hanson" proven not only his expertise on the subject, but also proven his trustworthiness to the extent that would allow your blind acceptance of his claims at face value? Or have you even bothered to check? These are the questions you should be asking yourself, and not asking me what my qualifications are.
I'm not going to critique James Hanson right now, though I could, but this applies to all such granting of status to virtual strangers who claim to be "authorities" on whatever subject might be at hand. The truth is, this is a reflection of being "trained" to blindly accept authority ... whether that authority comes in the form of a uniformed police officer .. a government official ... a doctor wearing his much revered "white coat" or some academic with the letters PhD attached to the end of his or her name.
Question: would you run around making a fool of yourself, declaring that the Moon is indeed made of cream cheese because James Hanson said that NASA uncovered new evidence indicating that to be true? This may be a far fetched analogy, but I do that precisely to demonstrate a point. The CO2 caused global warming is not far removed from that level of absurdity ... you just don't understand the issue enough to recognize that.
Guys like James Hanson and thousands of others in this field of "Global Warming" have their entire professional careers dedicated to this fraud, and they are either idiots or pathological liars capitalizing on the global warming gravy train.
He's being paid handsomely, as are all the rest ... while I'm not receiving a dime for attempting to inform you of the truth.
Your choice. I can provide information, but a cannot make anyone think. That's up to them.
All those words, yet no substance. I like the cream cheese analogy, it was hilariously stupid.
I care that it IS warming, but not why, and the reason for that is that I seriously doubt that we can do much to stop it.
The earth will do what it wants to do. read up about the Medieval Warming Period, human civilizations in Asia and Europe and the Americas flourished. A warmer planet means more food with longer growing seasons, and a more benign climate. Instead of getting caught up in the doom and gloom of what the planet might look like with a warmer climate, read about what is was like.
The research published in the journal Science (Sept. 8) demonstrates that abrupt climate change has been a systemic feature of Earth's climate for hundreds of thousands of years and may play an active role in longer term climate variability through its influence on ice age terminations.
ScienceDaily (June 21, 2012) — Intense warm climate intervals--warmer than scientists thought possible--have occurred in the Arctic over the past 2.8 million years.
What threats to liberty? Geeze people get worked up over silly things. I guess somehow maintaining federal power in the events of unimaginable natural disasters is a threat to our liberties. What about martial law? Let's hear your outrage over that.
Or perhaps you don't want federal authority, you'd rather secede eh? You'd rather not salute the American flag, huh?
All those words, yet no substance. I like the cream cheese analogy, it was hilariously stupid.
Obviously, you are determined to remain in an uninformed state, or you are simply the new breed of American like so many others .... the dependent man-child, stuck in a permanent state of arrested development, and terrified at the prospect of facing the world on your own terms. One who psychologically clings to the federal shirt as a replacement for the security of mommy's bosom.
Yes ... martial law would be very bad. The other term for that is "Military Dictatorship". Having unelected FEMA overlords ruling over your life and everything you do, as directed by the central dictatorship, would be very very bad. But I understand that there will be wonderful activities planned at the FEMA Camp ... where you will be kept safe from the outside world. And they have playgrounds with swings and slides and everything.
The earth will do what it wants to do. read up about the Medieval Warming Period, human civilizations in Asia and Europe and the Americas flourished. A warmer planet means more food with longer growing seasons, and a more benign climate. Instead of getting caught up in the doom and gloom of what the planet might look like with a warmer climate, read about what is was like.
Come on now ... who really wants more plentiful food and a more temperate climate? Isn't deindustrialization and a return to more simple times, like horses and buggies and rickshaws, candlelight and potbellied stoves to gather the family around to keep warm in permanent winter much more romantic?
Repeat after me ... austerity is prosperity ... austerity is prosperity ... one more time ... austerity is prosperity. Are you feeling it now? Bad is so good, and worse is even better. Thata boy ... you've got it now ... keep repeating that mantra and we might not need to send you to the re-education center after all.
What is that supposed to mean? I only said "start here" not "obsess here."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Who thinks everything happens is caused by humans? I want links for these people.
Maybe you are that uninformed.
Scientists have suggest numerous times that mankind may responsible for the extinction of the woolly mammoth, and many people do think any and all warming of the planet is due to our production of CO2. Isn't that what most of the AGW enthusiasts believe? Isn't that what the Democratic Party leadership believes?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
