Comments Paleocon has made

My mistake folks

I was looking for a place to engage in an intellectual debate about climate change.

This is clearly not the place.

It is a club where folks gather who share an economic interest. The link between authors and the Democrat party is stunning. Google for political contributions + author's name.  

Chalk another win for "consensus" and "diversity". Silence anyone with a difference of opinion.

A review of my posts will find plenty examples of legitimate questions and points. Mt silly posts certainly pale in comparison to the calls for exterminating humans from some.

I will find a place where other scientists meet.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Unbiased moderator

NPR. Right down the middle.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=7664 ...

Imagine a scenario where...wait...that's right Fox News was boycotted. But then Hillary thught she got the fairest shake from Fox as the were not Obamaniacs like Gwen.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Progressive?

Call yourself whatever you like. Follow the lead of the NYT et al. Communist leaders of the USSR and China were always referred to as "right wing".

It is the idea that is fodder for categorization, not the person. I would wager that you are a great person. Just misguided and under educated.

Words mean things and that meaning is affected by context. The meaning of "liberally" on the back of a bottle of sunscreen is not relevant here.

Back to the topic at hand. Let's see if you can spot liberal views.

Liberal or Conservative?

"We need to support local, sustainable, organic farms. Corporate Farming is killing the planet."

Liberal or Conservative?

"Large scale farming is the most efficient method to produce food with a given amount of resources."

"Bush failed to protect the twin towers...."

From who? Israel? tell us what you really think.

"...diminished and degraded us in the eyes of the world..."

The eyes of the world? What about the nose of the world? Concern about what others think about you is a juvenile (liberal) affliction. I don't care what Mahmūd Ahmadinejād thinks about us. I wonder if Jews wrung their hands and asked "Why do the Nazis hate us so much?" Envy and spite are emotions that liberals can relate to. It fuels class envy...the font of Democrat power.

Here is my peace offering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcher_plant

I think we can agree that this is an example of the miraculous diversity worth preserving?

;-)

Look, Obama is going to be the next President...my family is going to be raped financially. We will no longer be able to save for our kid's education. That money is going to the government to fund programs we will never qualify for. That will make liberals feel good. They won't be better off, but it will make them happy that I will be worse off. On Gates Foundation wants to boost local agriculture in developing nations posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

Wait...I thought you had a speech impediment

Now that I can understand the words you are saying, I think you are making even less sense.

There must be a lack of the "Anolo-gene" in liberal DNA.

You equate questioning the judgement of withholding DDT from Africans with denying African-Americans and women the right to vote?

But first, you assume that I would have a problem with a daughter or son marrying someone of the same sex if that was their orientation? Gay? In love? Get freaking married if you want to. Adopt children. Create a family. That is what makes for a better world.

I think it is great that liberals did great things 50 years ago. But that was then. Time to get out of the 60s.

Today liberalism is about class envy and wealth redistribution.

The United States engaged in a preemptive strategy to go after the next most likely threat after 9-11. Iraq acted like someone hell bent on "suicide by cop" based upon it's behavior. Liberals believed that we deserved 9-11 but they had to bite their tongues and stifle their hatred for this country because even they couldn't argue with the whole WMD issue. Nothing else mattered to liberals. Just the WMDs. They were the only things keeping liberals from admitting what they really felt. That is why liberals are so furious about Iraq. When no WMDs were found, they realized that they could have been having F U S A! rallies the whole time. They feel like they were raped. Forced to hide their hatred and wave little American flags. The jury is still out on Iraq. Adults understand this. There have been no attacks on the homeland (I don't like that term, by the way). The point of going over there was to take the fight to the enemy. We have succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. Dead soldiers does not equal "losing a war". It is a price.

Much, much lower than the price in human life and suffering visited upon millions in Africa each year who are prohibited by liberalism from simply spraying their homes with DDT.On Gates Foundation wants to boost local agriculture in developing nations posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

Large scale, efficient agriculture?

That is as right-wing an idea as anything. Liberals are all about "sustainable", local", "organic" subsistence level dirt farming.

Liberals won't let dark skinned people use DDT to save their children from malaria. "Let them sleep in nets" is the mantra. So  millions die every year.

It is shocking how liberals think blacks need to be rounded up into ghettos. "Urbanize them", says the liberal. Then they'll stop breeding?

Liberals see Africans as locusts who threaten the flora and fauna. A Manhattanite writes a check, and an HK91 wielding "elephant security guard" kills another African trying to feed his family.

Shame on you.On Gates Foundation wants to boost local agriculture in developing nations posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

Real Estate trends?

If I believed, I would be buying property like crazy in the areas that will still be able to sustain life. Areas that are unattractive in today's climate, but will be paradise as man changes the climate.

Where are those areas? I imagine that AGW fundamentalists are investing billions in these areas...buying up land like crazy.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Well, GreyFlcn

Score another point for your side, since my replies to your question are being systematically deleted.

I guess that is "consensus". Everyone agrees with you that is allowed to post.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Bush doesn't understand the interwebs

But you are smart enough (definition of someone who didn't vote for Bush) to search.msn.com a person's name + political contributions and see where the conflicts of interest lie.

(Google doesn't buy enough from my company to warrant a mention....DOH!...se how this works?)

Hot tip:

Don't git yer science form scientologists or politicians.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

My posts deleted

That is the liberal way.

"Fairness doctrine".

Donate wheel barrows full of cash to Democrats, then pen an article about the GOP and how stupid they are.

Anyone disagree?

Delete their posts.

The most egregious? A simple link to the transcript from March 9, 1999 where Al Gore said that he "took the initiative in creating the internet"

This was a reply to the Maddow video posted claiming that the "Al Gore invented the internet" quote was a lie.

Facts are not tolerated here, BobG, they are deleted.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Brevity truly is the soul of wit. Your post isn't.

Links to 5th grade science lessons?

Since the debate is over, you must have a link to the data set that would disprove the AGW/ CO2 hypothesis.

I will provide you with the hypothesis refutation data for any current scientific theory you like.

Do you understand what that means? Science is not a tool for pimping a political agenda.

This is what we get when schools are run by the government, I suppose.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Disagree with a liberal, you are an idiot.

Don't say "Yes" if he asks you out on a date, you are a lesbian.

Climate change has not been about science for quite a long while now. Those on the left who continue to pretend that this is not the case are the real "deniers".

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

...and this proves what?

So what percentage of global warming is natural?

What will we do to stop it?

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Insanity

First of all the point of the article isn't very clear. There is a difference between urbanization "causing global warming" and urbanization leading to junk data when it comes to temperature readings over time. AGW Fundamentalists are never going to accept the concept that no warming is occurring at all. They can't even come up with hypothetical data that would lead them to "deny" warming. It could cool a degree a year for the next thousand years and they won't be swayed, apparently. So let's just agree that warming is occurring so we can at least have a conversation instead of wailing and gnashing of Fundy teeth.

How does any of this prove that man is causing a significant impact on the climate?

What percentage of climate change is attributable to man versus nature?

What is the perfect climate?

When did it exists on Earth?

How will we stabilize the planet at this perfect climate?

Is it OK to counter-act the natural rate of change?

Do only people in San Diego, CA get to vote on "best climate", or do sub-Saharan Africans get to vote? Maybe they would like glaciers covering most of North America?

Just don't take any more of my family's money until you can answer THESE questions. Spend as much of your own as you like.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Muller hits a nerve

I have never heard of Earl Killian, but Professor Muller is one of the most respected member's of UC Berkeley's faculty.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=095393D5B42B2266

I anticipate many more 10,000 word essays full of "dismay".

"Dismay" is what AGW fundamentalists feel when faced with "reality".

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

My wife turned to me during Palin's speech...

...and said "Oh my God, Tina Fey is going to have to come back to SNL...she looks just like her."

Hilarious sketch.

The rest of the show was weak this week.

Expect to see more Tina Palin...

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Ignorance, Arrogance, and Condescension

Hallmarks of liberal intellectual discourse.

Diverse points of view? No...Trolls!

Troll is the "N word" the left loves best.

That and "Denier".

Why can none of you geniuses come up with a set of data that would disprove your hypothesis regarding AGW? It isn't complicated. Obviously you don't see that data today. But if you can't establish what would disprove your assertions, you admit that this is about religion and politics. Not science.

Just like Feminism just admitted that it is about liberalism and not women.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Palin exposes the feminist lie

Palin simply forces the left to be honest and open about what they believe. That infuriates the left. They have had to admit that feminism isn't about women, it is about liberalism.

Now environmentalists are being smoked out of their holes. Environmentalism is not about the environment. It is about socialism.

That makes them angry. Like hungry badgers dragged from a rabbit hole.

By the way, there are two ways to hunt wolves if you actually intend to kill them. Poisoned carcasses. And aerial hunting. Otherwise they are too smart.  Liberals always underestimate the intelligence and the wonder that is instinct when it comes to animals. Always portraying them as helpless, hapless dolts...completely outmatched by bad men with guns.

Hunters know how juvenile and silly that is.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

GPS versus AGW

I can tell you exactly where each GPS satellite will be at any instant based upon a quick calculation.

What percentage of climate change is attributable to human activity versus the natural rate of change?

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Sustainably? LOL.

The bottom line is this:

Leftists are willing to let Africans starve and die from malaria so leftists can feel good about themselves.

The idea that small farms are the most efficient way of producing food and raising living standards is insanity at this point in history.

Where is the most productive soil in the world? Is it the community plot in Berkeley, or the 10,00 acre farm in Iowa that is planted, maintained and harvested based upon a GPS integrated map of the farm?

Who feeds more people per square foot and frees the human spirit to soar to new heights as the body us unshackled from oppressive manual labor?

"Sustainable" = "enslaved"

Africans are not your pets, leftists.

Sustainability is measured by the left in static terms. It ignores man's ability to innovate. It is a juvenile concept.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

McBush...OK...I get it

As I have said before, McCain represents me better than Obama does.  I won't defend every stupid thing he has supported.

McCain is a lifelong politician. My vote for McCain is a vote against Obama. Very simple.

Obama represents a virulent strain of class warfare that depends up class envy and spite. These are among the basest of human emotions and people who exploit them disgust me. There is nothing uplifting of hopeful about state sponsored wealth redistribution as a means to acquire power.

When Gore appealed to racists with his Willie Horton ads against Dukakis, I was disgusted. (Back when I the President of the Young Democrats in college.)

The left in this country is blinded by the color of his skin. On Conclusions of 'hockey stick' graph stand up to further scrutiny posted 1 year, 2 months ago 20 Responses

Respectfully, I submit the following

John,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-2/saphr ...

Are you talking about something else?

Presidents can't "vote" for Bills. They can "veto" them. Is this a spelling issue?  :-) LOL

DaveOn Conclusions of 'hockey stick' graph stand up to further scrutiny posted 1 year, 2 months ago 20 Responses

Caribou Barbie...HILARIOUS!

So the benthic sediments are ruined?

News flash:

The majority of your fellow humans are more concerned with AIDS research, daycare, Burning Man motor homes,  continuing abortions, banning guns, and losing the war in Iraq.

All of which are fueled by oil.

Maybe you could link to some horror pics of the benthic disaster to drum up some sympathy.

By the way, try beating someone else over the head with enviro-babble.

Gas chromatography fingerprinting allows us to determine that the hydrocarbons in the benthic sediments of Prince William Sound are the result of natural seepage NOT spilled oil.

Oil is natural. There are organisms that eat it. Oil seeps out of the sea floor.

Get over it.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Nazis point to operational death camps as proof

...that Jews are sub-human.

But this is old now.  There is a 100% chance anthropogenic carbon will be heavily regulated in the near future and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.  At this point, the positive and clear thinking actions of many others completely outweigh and crush your cynical neuroses.

You sound like Mugabe gleefully announcing that farms would be taken by "war veterans".

Frightening stuff, but at least you are honest about what this is all about.

Wealth transfer.On Conclusions of 'hockey stick' graph stand up to further scrutiny posted 1 year, 2 months ago 20 Responses

In other words, Wolverine is an elitist

Your arrogance and condescension is only outstripped by your complete lack of self awareness when measured on the "Are you serious?" scale.

What do you want to use a measuring stick? IQ? Formal education? World travel? Languages spoken? Money donated to NPR?

I don't agree with you, but I don't trade on your deficiencies in the aforementioned categories.  

Make your argument. I won't hold your lack of education or intelligence against you.

Your opinions are just as valid as mine.

Try showing others the same level of respect.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Article of faith alert!

"...even when you're looking into the abyss as a civilization..."

Please explain to those of us who see with eyes filled with wonder the progress in the world that has lifted so many beyond subsistence living.

What fuels your boundless hatred?

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

7 wolves and 3 sheep vote on what's for dinner

All of the lofty discourse leads to only one central question.

How much can the consumers take from the producers before the producers decide producing just isn't worth the effort?

People make decisions at the margin. Is it worth working to earn the next dollar if you only get to keep 35 cents?

By the way, there is exactly ZERO nobility in spending other people's money against their will. If Reich wants to redistribute wealth, let him redistribute all of his own.

If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have a problem with capital gains taxes being too low, they are free to send all of the money they currently spend on their foundations straight to the IRS.  

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

That's right, ignore us...

That has always been a winning strategy. Arrogance and condescension.

Reasoned debate? No.

We are slack-jawed, trailer park livin' inbreds.

Spawned to be taxed.

Keep it up.

I am sure Obama will win.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Any increase in ocean temps

...would be the result of conditions that pre-date industrialization.

Warmer oceans TODAY indicate NOTHING about man's effect on climate.

AGW Fundamentalists can have faith in whatever they like, of course.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

It helps Obama buy votes

By taking money from me, Obama can buy quite a few votes. 20, actually. 3 will actually show up and vote, but that is enough.

That is all that matters.

Then there are all of the Professional Climate Pimps. We know who butters their bread and who they will vote for.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

On the roots of AGW Fundamentalism

At the roots of AGW Fundamentalism are world outlooks and attitudes including:

1. A fundamental view that humans are not part of nature, but instead are a pestilence visited upon it.

2. Acceptance of the concept that human activity above all other inputs is responsible for climate change, despite the lack of evidence.

3. Denial of the connection between your paycheck and the need for a "climate crisis" that can be attributed to human activity.

4. Profound confusion over whether or not Darwin was correct about species diversity.  

Your conflict of interest is only slightly greater than that of the tobacco execs defending cigarettes.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

China is leading the way, huh?

I better start heating my house with coal, I guess.

More condescension and arrogance from Climate Fundamentalists who apparently don't even know what the "consensus" is of which they speak. Add a dash of ignorance and we get broad statements about people who may have different religious beliefs than your own.

Here is a great example of someone who is absolutely certain that AGW Fundamentalists are correct...

http://www.maniacworld.com/Badly-in-Need-of-Science-Lesso ...

This didn't start out as a joke.

I have never met a group of less open minded folks   who didn't speak in tongues. At least those whack jobs don't have the power to tax my family.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Try reading my post again

Are you denying the strange "coincidence"?

The fact that the environmental "movement" has at it's core an anti-Western, collectivist sentiment?

Please point me in the direction of anyone in the mainstream environmental community who isn't a proponent of wealth redistribution and legislated "simple living".

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

This isn't about energy or the environment

It is about collectivism finding a modern home.

They will never accept wind or solar farms if it means abundant, affordable energy and an increase in standards of living.

This is merely a vehicle for wealth redistribution and social change.

The day our roads are filled with tea-kettle "hydrogen" powered cars that "emit nothing but pure water" from their tailpipes is the day the left suddenly considers water vapor a greenhouse gas. And talk of disruptive micro-climates that will need to be studied...

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Can't get Stewie's voice out of my head now.

Thanks a lot, Dr. X.

LOL  

Brian will foil his nefarious petscapades. Not to worry.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Your gut is correct

Wind power of this type could produce affordable and abundant energy, therefore it will absolutely be deemed a threat to the planet by Big Consensus Science. Anthropogenic Wind Change. Bad.

First, though, expect to see water vapor suddenly acknowledged as a greenhouse gas, This will happen as soon as we cut CO2 enough to put downward pressure on human living standards.

This is a Collectivist boot. This is a Collectivist boot on your neck. Any questions?

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Ever see a cloud chamber?

We are bombarded every second of our lives.

Life spans continue to increase.

At least some of you are honest about your desire to crush the human spirit under the boot of collectivism.  

Renewable and sustainable don't have to exclude affordable and abundant.

But that wouldn't accomplish the tearing down of the producers by the spiteful, would it?

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

What about the other 80 percent?

The consensus is that 80 percent of the problem is outside of the US.

On the subject of "too many people", I agree whole heartedly and support the idea that only animals should donate to:

AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Shale doesn't support terrorism

Shale and coal conversion provide homegrown oil.

I believe that if oil stays above $70 a barrel, at least coal conversion is profitable.

I wonder what we could do to mitigate environmental costs at $120 a barrel?

Again...as a stepping stone to a better ultimate solution. On Bush admin proposes low royalty rates in push for U.S. oil-shale development posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 Responses

$1 per gallon electricity?

Gas at $10 a gallon is what I am hoping for. It keeps all of the people who vote for the folks standing in the way of nuclear power off the roads and onto the bus where they belong. The folks who can't ride across campus to work on a recombent bike will start wondering what the heck is up. Even taxing those who earn more than they do won't get them off of the bus. Maybe they will have an awakening. Until then, there will be less traffic.

Often misunderestimated

So, I guess I nailed it

Clearly the lack of intelligent response indicates that I am on the right track.

Often misunderestimated

Too much basic science

In fact, basic science is not sufficient to explain and model our climate. It is the sum of many chaotic inputs. AGW fundamentalism depends upon the concept that it is, instead, something that can be described with "basic science".

Would you have us believe that it is this simple?

"Man releases CO2. CO2 increases greenhouse effect. Earth warms. Bad, bad things happen. Man must make changes. The fact that those changes line up perfectly with Haight-Ashburyism is a coincidence. Ignore the man behind the curtain."

The arrogance and condescension of the left and their propensity to rationalize their ideology never ceases to amaze me.

Often misunderestimated

So many straw men

I never used the phrase "climate skeptic".

I said I am skeptical. Skeptical that humans are affecting the climate to a degree that warrants significant behavioral change.

There is no "mountain of evidence" that quantifies just how much we are contributing to climate change compared to other factors. This would help rationalize how much pain we need to experience.

Do you really expect those of us who you are demanding money from just "shut up and pay up" without asking questions?

Often misunderestimated

I am skeptical and when I hear "DENIER!"

It makes me wonder what you are trying to hide and what your true motives are. Then I see the job titles. And the money involved.

People who use the word "denier" use it with the vitriol of a racist using the "N" word. It is quite disturbing.

Often misunderestimated

I would ask basic questions

What is the ideal climate for Earth?

After we eliminate humankind's contribution to climate change, what will we do to stop the natural rate of change?

Your carbon footprint would frighten Sasquatch. I know that you support the purchase off carbon offsets, but how does planting a tree which will eventually die, decay and release CO2 offset anything?

The rest would be follow up questions.

Often misunderestimated

My SUV is greener than your Prius

I only drive it when I need it's capabilities. A Prius driven 12,000 miles a year is far worse than an SUV driven 2500 miles a year.

Yet the Pious squint and feel so self satisfied when they see an SUV.

Frankly, I think the Prius is an awesome vehicle. I would love a two seater with a solar panel roof based upon the synergy hybrid drive system...with plug-in capability.

Drive the first 20 miles (?) on batteries alone...that would absolutely rock.

But I also want affordable, abundant electricity to charge it up at night. Lets use nuke, coal, CNG and oil to build the wind and solar infrastructure we need.

Why? Because there isn't a conservative alive who doesn't like the idea of moving forward, improving standards of living, cleaning up the air, and standing on our own energy feet.

Can we come together and work toward that goal, or is the only answer soaking feet in buckets of water on hot days and eating any children you can find? (I meant grinding them up to fertilize plants that you would then eat, of course.)

Seriously. Do you have to be a Marxist to be in the environmental club?On Toyota may put solar panels on new Prius to power air conditioning posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

The scientific method.

We observe that the climate is changing. We hypothesize that man is causing the change. We predict based upon what we have observed and what we hypothesize. Then we experiment and/or make continued observations to test the hypothesis.

What data would lead us to conclude that our predictions have been proven wrong?

What data would disprove the hypothesis that man is causing climate change?

Often misunderestimated

Since an AGW Fundamentalist brought it up...

What is the proper number of Polar bears? Do the Orcas who also eat seals have a vote? What about the seals that the bears eat? Do they think there are too few polar bears?

I already know that your answer will be "Troll!", I am just not convinced that it passes for intellectualism on Grist.

I agree that what ever space you inhabit should be confiscated and given to animals, however. On Conservation land in flood zone opened to grazing posted 1 year, 4 months ago 11 Responses

It was meant to be humorous

I don't want to live on fish oil. LOL.

Plants absorb CO2 and they are growing faster as CO2 is more available. But they eventually hit a wall when the nitrogen they need is not as available in the soil.

Plants don't have lungs, and they don't breathe.

And I am not a troll.

The propensity to call names is directly related to a lack of cogent argument.

It amazes me that folks can keep a straight face and use the term "denier". As long as that passes for intelligent conversation, I suppose my term "AGW Fundamentalist" is just as valid.

My point: Fossil fuels should be used to get us where we need to be.

Solar panels and wind turbines are not woven out of hemp in communes.

Often misunderestimated

Another denier

Only a denier would make the claim that money can't solve the problem.  The best thing to do to save Earth is to take money from some people, extract a postage and handling fee, and give what is left to others.

Like the extremely successful UN Oil for Food program which employed thousands of Policy Directors and the like. Many earned more than $200,000 US per year.

AGW is the growth industry of the 21st century.

Often misunderestimated

Renewable, no. Transmutable, yes.

Well...maybe not in the mind of the ardent alchemist, but the consumption of coal to produce energy that, in turn, runs factories where solar PV panels and wind turbines are produced isn't all bad.

AGW Fundies don't want coal renewed even if it could be. It releases too much of the stuff that plants breathe.

So let's figure out a way to use coal as best we can to get us to the next level.

Oh yeah, and fission.

I want cheap, abundant, clean and green energy. We may need to improvise until we get there, folks.

Sustainability should equal cheap, so sustainable is one Holy Word I can genuflect to.

Often misunderestimated

They both start with an "E", though

Economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. It is a human behavioral science to a large degree.

What is money? It is an artificial store of value.

The founder of Patagonia Inc. can use his to buy up land in South America to be preserved forever in pristine condition. What is wrong with money?

A hungry man will kill the last white rhino to feed his children if he values it more as food than as a symbol.

Money is donated to make sure this doesn't happen.

What is wrong with money?

Often misunderestimated

People don't starve because others grow food

Humankind is also the only organism on Earth that is capable of self-loathing.

Malthus and the equivalent of today's AGW Fundamentalist could not imagine, nor would they have granted deniers of the day, the possibility of the technical improvements we now take for granted.

Automated application of seed, water, and fertilizer based upon GPS data and computer models?

Geometric population expansion Fundamentalists laughed at the Deniers who suggested that as per capita production reached certain levels (known to be impossible by Fundamentalists) that societies would hover just above "replacement level".

But back to the toddler's view that there are poor people because there are rich people...

I suggest that you look for a job as a sustainability analyst in a sub-Saharan African village. They consume very little. They also produce very little. It doesn't leave a lot left over to support hand-wringing as a profession.

The only threat to "sustainability" is desire to regress.

Often misunderestimated

Let me guess who gets to decide the cost

Externalities associated with the release of greenhouse gases can be measured by econometric models. What goes into the model is as exact a science as witchcraft. That is why the Economics departments are not always near the rest of the science departments at Universities. LOL.

Ironic that AGW Fundamentalists in the "hard science" community turn to the "science" that belongs on the Humanities side of campus for support.

Even more ironic is the fact that I was educated in Economics where Pigou was a fellow.

Before gigo was a word, he expressed the concept that calculating externalities was only possible with hard data.

If AGW Fundamentalists were not so blinded by religious zeal, they would focus on external costs like OPEC THREATENING THE WORLD OVER IRAN and accomplish the very same goal.

Often misunderestimated

Nuclear winter?

My boyhood hero, Carl Sagan, and all of the non-deniers of his day (there was scientific consensus on the topic and no room for whacky debate) explained to us that we would experience a nuclear winter if Sadaam were to set fire to the Kuwaiti oil fields. At a minimum, we would experience a "year without summer" and massive crop failures. The real concern, however, was his prediction that the oxygen producing layer of phytoplankton in the world's oceans would die off and end our species. The folks who refused to deny were wrong and went about the business of AGW as though the whole "nuclear winter thing" never happened.

Nuclear power can provide safe, affordable, green electricity that will advance the standards of living of those who leverage it.  Known uranium reserves could only provide 20 to 25 years of worldwide energy based upon a 100 percent conversion to nuclear fission (if that were possible) and the current worldwide consumption of 10 TW. So, obviously, it isn't THE answer...but it needs to be part of the answer.

In the US, we need wind, solar, NG, nuclear and domestic oil. We don't need to sit in cold dark rooms wearing itchy hemp shirts.

Often misunderestimated

NG for cars

Like any good businessman or politician, Mr. Pickens proposal is designed to offend the least. How can you argue with the logic of leveraging our natural resources if it is more efficient to do so? He dismisses nuclear as something that takes too long. Gigawatts of wind don't pop up overnight.

Nuclear plants that produce cheap electricity can free up capital to invest in wind and solar. The time scale we are talking about can accommodate the time required to bring plants on line.

We need a commitment from the left that our goal is renewable, sustainable, green, clean, AFFORDABLE, ABUNDANT energy that will drive our standard of living to new heights. Not a hair-shirt that everyone must wear.

Often misunderestimated

Arrogance and condescension

The hallmarks of the True Believer.

Global Warming Fundamentalists.

Often misunderestimated

Because you have no credibility, that's why

True Believers talk about "sustainable", but not "affordable".

True Believers are not interested in expanding the comforts we enjoy.

Advancement means "live simply" to the True Believer.

True Believers don't want growth and loathe "consumption".

No credibility.

Often misunderestimated

Consumer choice, not "Johns" choice

Well, I say you don't need a wheel barrow. Or a computer. What other choices have you made?

I say that all of them are irrational and the government needs to step in and regulate you.

Your post was a joke, right?

Often misunderestimated

What is the point?

Clearly a CO2 "cap and trade" scheme would lead to one of the greatest transfers of wealth in the history of mankind if implemented. Great for Big Environment, but how are you going to sell it to the world? Not the part of the world you are going to send the checks to, the ones you are going to "tax".

What is the ideal climate you are promising in exchange? When can we expect it to arrive? What set of data would have to be gathered to prove once and for all that AGW is not worth addressing?

Example: I am an Atheist. If, however, the clouds were to part, and a chariot drawn by angels were to deliver Jesus himself to my doorstep...and if he were to turn my swimming pool water into wine/ walk on it...I would change my mind.

So, is there any data that would change your mind?

Respectfully,

Dave Nicholson

Often misunderestimated