Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

"Baised by money" is ridiculous. You are talking about bankrupting the world's economies to battle a threat that is not even occurring. We have zero conclusive data that human produced CO2 is causing accelerated warming. We have at best computer models that can't even figure out feedback mechanisms of clouds.

It is absolutely absurd to assume that something is happening and wanting to act on it before we know it is happening. And the worst thing is that you don't even know what you are talking about when you mention global warming. You don't know any of the science behind it (you admitted this) and you just assume that it's all covered by "repeatable experiments that lead to conclusive results" (WRONG!) I can't imagine what is going through your head when you state that we need to do things now when you have no idea what is even occurring. Aren't you even curious?

 

Sued by whom?

Every search I have found (granted a short search) to show only a bunch of climate deniers spreading the notion that NOAA/NASA "is being sued to produce climate records". I see no confirmation of that except from similar sites such as Hotair, climategate etc. (once again, perpetuating a misinformation/falsehood as though it were fact, designed once again to obfuscate).

The interesting thing about law suits is that anyone can sue anyone else over virtually anything. Just because a suit has been filed (and I don't believe it has in this case) it doesn't mean squat! I can post on my web site that I intend to sue Santa for not upholding his end of the contract, but that doesn't mean the suit has merit!

I will happily retract this post, if someone can show me where someone has sued NOAA/NASA, and NOAA/NASA in turn fail to turn over relevant documents. Until then, it is just smoke and more smoke.

And please, provide "real" links, not just reports on the same type of web sites/blogs above!

 

"You are talking about bankrupting the world's economies to battle a threat that is not even occurring."

I've heard this nonsense over and over again, whenever something is proposed that has some public benefit, some public cost. Social Security, medicare, clean water act, clean air act, mandating clean(er) cars, safety standard etc, etc, etc.

It seems what really bankrupts us is bad foreign policy that spends billions if not trillions to protect the very oil supply to which we are wedded, and indeed if we had weaned ourselves a generation or two ago, we would not be in either of these messes.

What is bankrupt is right wing whacko economic policy(ies) that continually reward the rich, the net/net of which is that real wages have been flat for a generation, while the percentage of wealth concentrated in fewer hands has continued to grow.

 

I'm about to sue you because every time I read one of your posts my IQ drops by half a point and I don't know if it will come back up derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

Once again, a learned response that tries to address the issue.

Feel free to spend your resources suing me.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7nv8iDZ_-0&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Simpsons Lisa Global Warming[/ame]

 

As some of our denialists might say,,,DOH!

 

I see using humor to make a point is ineffective with the humorless.

This exchange is like cutting through steel with dental floss.

Yes, taxing changes things. It changes through coercion, which is one of the left's favorite tools to force change. The point, which is missed time and again, is that forcing change without considering the consequences is foolhardy. Forcing change to effect changes to meet non-existent problems is even more so. Imagined (or insignificant) problems don't need forced solutions - especially solutions that cause unnecessary hardship and misery.

 

Please explain :
"Imagined (or insignificant) problems don't need forced solutions - especially solutions that cause unnecessary hardship and misery."

Please explain the "hardship and misery"!

As I have asked RadioPrius, how was I "going to cripple him"?
Or NevadaPrius for examples of "how we are going to bankrupt the world economy?"

No one has been able to come up with any evidence that that is so!

Economic incentive is not "forcing change" You are still free to drive Hummer if you choose, as long as you are willing to pay the price to fuel it etc. You have made the free choice to buy a Prius instead! Please explain how that is an enforced decision?

Let's even allow that a $1/gallon fuel tax "costs you", certainly it can be argued that if the effect of the tax is for you to by a vehicle that is 25% more efficient your net/net cost might me the same. If good public policy were then in place to use that $1 to effectively subsidize alternative energy R&D and to help people with less cope with the changes in energy cost that will come through such a tax, I contend that that is a good thing.

The reality is that we have had a tax on energy since ~1973, but the benefits have not gone to any public good in North America, they have gone to prop up petro-kleptocracies all over the world, and to build indoor ski hills in the dessert!

I know that you guys are going to come back with the tired old argument that "the government" can't be trusted with doing anything right, to which I respond, as I have always, "the government" may not be perfect, but I drive on paved roads, send kids to public schools, fly in planes that are controlled by FAA controllers, breath clean(er) air due to EPA, and on and on and on!

If you give me this line again, I will once again conclude, your issue is not global warming, but tax policy, and specifically how it will effect you.

PS This is not really a left/right issue, but if you want to frame it this way, consider the last 8 years, which has not been a "tax and spend" liberal agenda, but rather a "spend and not tax" agenda, the net result of which is the average tax liability for the very wealthy has gone down both as a percentage of net worth, but as a percentage of income as well. The costs of this has not been paid for by taxes, but rather paid for by borrowing against future generations. Once again, you can complain about all the "bail out money" being spent, but look closely at how much of it has come back to the treasury, with interest!

 

Legal fallout of Climategate - CEI to sue NASA

and...

NASA Faces FOI Lawsuit Over Climate Data

...Christopher Horner, Senior Fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), has notified NASA and its Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) that he will sue in late December if that agency does not fulfill Freedom of Information (FOI) requests Horner placed in 2007.
Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports the FOI requests deal with repeated changes NASA has made to average temperature readings. Within the past three years, NASA has reported four different years as having the hottest temperatures on record: 1998 was first replaced by 1934, only to be switched again a short time later by a tie between 1998 and 2006. NASA originally recalculated the numbers in response to pressure from Steve McIntyre with ClimateAudit.org, who questioned disparities between official NASA tabulations and raw data reported by individual weather stations.
Dinan reports Horner's prediction that "what is there is highly damaging. These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this." According to Dinan, NASA spokesman Mark Hess says the agency is collecting "responsive, relevant" information to answer Horner's requests. Hess could not explain why NASA has taken so long to provide the records. The FOI Act allows up to 30 days for agencies to respond..

 

This is a demonstrably different statement:

Christopher Horner, Senior Fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), has notified NASA and its Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) that he will sue in late December if that agency does not fulfill Freedom of Information (FOI) requests Horner placed in 2007.

then spreading the misinformation that "NASA/NOAA has been sued for failing to disclose". Post #776 It is yet another example of how one can (and does) use language to misinform, under the guise of fact.

 

Haha Why am I not surprised you get your information from cartoons?

 

Is that at all similar to saying that "GLOBAL WARMING IS BASED ON REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS THAT LEAD TO CONCLUSIVE PROOF" ? Because you said that, and it's a complete lie.

You guys are doing worse than grasping at straws. The only argument Alric could put up was something he misunderstood/didn't know about the word retrodiction and the only thing you can comment on is the past tense use of a verb. I mean you guys are beyond desperate. You've been beaten into the ground, stepped on, laughed at, and yet you can't produce a single fact.

 

No it is not similar in the slightest. I have explained (dozens of times) what was meant by my comment and it is factually correct.

I suppose you can fault my analysis, but you can't argue that it is a deliberate lie. I am not suggesting that ufoura was deliberately lying per se, what I am suggesting is that this is how misinformation spreads, to the point of being considered fact. Well meaning (sometimes!) folks repeating information over and over again, each time adding a layer of legitimacy to it, until such time it is accepted as "fact"

As I said before, it is demonstrably different statement to say "So and so has been sued for such and such" that it is to say "so and so will be sued if they don" do such and such"! Not only is it a demonstrably different statement, it leads to different opinion, even if they are factually wrong.

 

Don't you love that you get trouble over the use of the english language instead of them discussing the issues of 1. Why is NASA ignoring the FOI act? 2. Why did they admit McIntyre was correct about 1934 only to go back and change it? and. 3. What could NASA be hiding by not complying with the FOIA?

 

Your commentary on your statement that "AGW is based on repeatable experiments that lead to conclusive results" could not be further from the truth. It is not factually correct and no amount of side-stepping it will ever make it correct. Just admit you made a huge mistake and let's move on.

 

Just change "experiments" to "observations" and it would be 100% accurate.

 

Icarus, I no longer care what you conclude. I have very patiently, in the course of many posts. explained specific points to you in addition to what I believe and why I believe it.

Again - yes, I am biased. I believe in freedom of the individual, free markets, property rights - all the priciples of a civil society in which men are free to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I do not believe in large government, statism, or coercion.

How does this have anything to do with AGW? AGW is the major tactic of communists, socialists, Marxists, etc. - totalitarians of all stripes - to gain power and control over people. If their elites enrich themselves along the way, well that's just the way it is.

These collective schemes historically develop along the same lines. While shouting the slogans that gain them followers (Do I REALLY have to give another history lesson?), all end the same way. A power-mad dictator or a small controlling cabal force compliance through the most direct means. Those who object or are skeptical (sound familiar?) are ridiculed, hounded, ignored by 'the experts', defamed, sent to re-education centers, gulags, forced to recant, put on trial, tortured, disappeared, etc.. The people who were to benefit from the initial promises of 'The Workers Paradise', 'Complete Equality', 'Saving the Planet', getting rid of the 'enemy' or whatever always get the short end of the stick. They lose the power to vote out the rulers, their weapons are confiscated, they become total slaves to the state.

It used to be that enlightened powers could come along, thwart the evil rulers and save the people. If the entire world falls under the thrall of a governing body with the power to first tax, then physically coerce the population into submission, where will the saviours come from? Is it insane to worry about a global body with the power to tax? Some will say yes. I say no.

I'm done with you. Thanks for the hours of amusement, but I grow bored.

 

And if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.

 

Mann’s WaPo Editorial Climate Audit