re: Some ????'s for lefties/greenies/GW supporters

quote:

---

I'm not going to sacrifice my own comfort so the rest of you can continue to guzzle gasoline,

---

quote:

---

Electricity has to be generated, Spidey.

---

Awesome. Pass cap and trade. The market will figure out how to do it with less carbon - and eventually - with next to zero.




Either way - I'm not paying TWICE for global warming simply because you refuse to acknowledge you'll have to pay for it ONCE no matter what happens. You expect me to absorb BOTH the cost of the damage to the environment AND the cost to prevent that damage? No thanks. I'm not some ignorant greenie tree loving hippie, I'm not bearing your burden AND mine, frick that.

quote:

---

Absorbing both wouldn't be possible, unless the prevention measure failed.

---

And therefore was a costly, wasteful exercise in "feelgoodism".

quote:

---

Great. It does nothing to establish the MWP was globally warmer.

---

well the only way to actually know that would be to have records of temperature. The computer models may or may not be accurate because a whole hell of alot goes into temp than Co2 levels.

quote:

---

And it was written by complete shills doing fake science.

---

tell me how it is fake.

quote:

---

The authors of the paper didn't see fit to expose it to criticism by the peer review process, so why should I bother? If the very people who wrote it didn't think it would withstand anonymous peer review, clearly it isn't worth spit.

---

why would he expose it to peer review, when everybody that challenges the prevailing thought is automatically written off.

:begin hijack/rant:
There is a book you should read it is called the Soul Made Flesh by Carl Zimmer. It deals with medicine and the study of anatomy over the centuries. The parrallels between the current GW/CC scenario and the centuries of "medical research" are extremely similar. You have a central power that preaches a doctrine for political power (the Catholic Church and other religious groups dting back to the ancient Greeks and Romans in the book and IPCC today). They do everything in their power to discredit anybody who disagrees with them by the same tactics that you are using (except the AGW ppl haven't gone to burning at the stake yet). It turns out some of the ppl that were discredited for not doing proper techniques (aristotelian or building on the work of Galen) or using "fake science" were actually right.

:end hijack/rant:

quote:

---

The authors of the paper didn't see fit to expose it to criticism by the peer review process,

---

you want peer reviewed here ya go 1 page summary

quote:

---

NIPCC is an international network of some 50 independent scientists from 15 countries, many of
them distinguished and with no financial stake in the debate. Their new report consists of two
volumes, each approximately 1,000 pages long, together citing nearly 6,000 peer-reviewed
studies.
Here is what the scientists found:
# There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.
# Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC
forecasts.
# Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to
melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.
# The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.
Here is what this means for public policy:
# Global warming is not a crisis. The threat was exaggerated.
# There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so.
# It’s time to repeal unnecessary and expensive policies.
# Future policies should aim at fostering economic growth to adapt to natural climate change.
What about those who still say global warming is a crisis?
# The UN’s new report walks back nearly a dozen earlier claims, contains more than a dozen
errors, and tries to cover up new discoveries that contradict its earlier claims.
# The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relies heavily on the UN’s reports for its
finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. That finding is now falsified.
# Environmental g

---

here is a link to the whole 1,000 page study. I ain't got time for that but maybe you do

quote:

---

tell me how it is fake.

---

This is how it works.

You set up a website. You give it an official sounding name like "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change". You put papers on it. You get one or two other guys to read the papers and to be a member of your 'foundation'. Then you call it a peer reviewed paper. Exxon Mobil sends you checks.

quote:

---

why would he expose it to peer review

---

Because he wants to do science?

quote:

---

, when everybody that challenges the prevailing thought is automatically written off.

---

How could they be? All the folks "challenging the prevailing view" refuse to submit their papers to peer review to even be written off!

quote:

---

you want peer reviewed here ya go 1 page summary

---

The NPICC was actually founded by Fred Singer and is funded by

Do you even know who Fred Singer is? He is most famously known for denying that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. He's a paid shill. His purpose in life is to produce misleading documents to fool the masses.

quote:

---

Idso, Craig D.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
USA
Idso, Sherwood B.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
USA

---

And of COURSE the lead author is Craig Idso!


Funny how his name turns up on just about every denialist "publication"

Do you actually read the publications or do you just dismiss everyting if it IPCC doesn't say it? All you have done is attack the source not the info.

quote:

---

Yeah. Many of them from such rock solid climate science journals such as "Iron & Steel Technology" and "Economics Bulletin". I'm not kidding.

---

again do you actually read and consider the arguments or do you just disapprove it because you dislike the publication, author etc.?

quote:

---

Yeah. Many of them from such rock solid climate science journals such as "Iron & Steel Technology" and "Economics Bulletin". I'm not kidding.

again do you actually read and consider the arguments or do you just disapprove it because you dislike the publication, author etc.?

---

? That IS the argument. The 1350+ paper study by Popular Technology includes papers from journals that aren't even remotely related to climate science. Economists aren't qualified to speak as experts on climate scientists any more than the guy who takes your order at McDonald's.