On Oct 31, 12:18 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The one valid argument leftist radicalism has had going for it lately > is this consensus by scientists across the world on global warming and > a supposed correlated anthropogenic [human] cause to a rise in > atmospheric CO2.
You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of the right. Nothing could be further from the truth.The numpties of GW are now in both ends of the political spectrum. The entire CO2 myth was stated by Thatcher and Reagan in the 1980s. There were two main reasons for this. IN the UK Thatcher wanted an environmental argument to break the power of the coal unions, whilst in the US they need ammunition against the growing power of the middle east oil interests. Both countries wished to put nuclear power on a more positive footing and so the IPCC was founded to look at ways to discredit Fossil fuels in general. This was aided by a growing lobby of anti-pollution greens and interests from a burgeoning nuclear industry. You have only to consult the history of the IPCC to find who were the key players in its establishment and what the terms, goals and aims were at the time of its foundation.
As many are basically ignorant of most things I point out that IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that PM Thatcher and President Reagan were both right wing leaders of the Western World.
Also for those dingbats that have been asleep on still unborn in the 1980s here is a link for you to read if you are able.
"She was a chemist, you know," says Spencer R. Weart, director of the Center for the History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics in College Park, Md. "Margaret Thatcher was the first major world leader to come out and warn that climate change, that the greenhouse effect, was a serious matter."
On Nov 4, 12:36 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 12:18 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > The one valid argument leftist radicalism has had going for it lately > > is this consensus by scientists across the world on global warming and > > a supposed correlated anthropogenic [human] cause to a rise in > > atmospheric CO2.
> You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate > is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of > the right.
The left uses the GW myth to shape an international socialist governance and the right does not.
On Nov 4, 12:36 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: [snip]
> You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate > is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of > the right.
> On Nov 4, 12:36 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [snip]
> > You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate > > is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of > > the right.
"Gallup recently released a survey showing that Republicans are much more likely to believe in creationism--the idea that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago--than Democrats or independents are. Notably, Republicans are also significantly more likely to attend weekly church services, a factor that past research has shown is tied to belief in creationism."
And the lefties are deeply envious of the organization and commitment they see in religion. They are desperately attempting to get in on the deal and make it an article of faith that they must be given wider powers to deal with the enviro-apocalypse.
Plus, you seem to think you've posted something that is surprising to me. Socks
On Nov 6, 10:04 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:36 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 12:18 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > The one valid argument leftist radicalism has had going for it lately > > > is this consensus by scientists across the world on global warming and > > > a supposed correlated anthropogenic [human] cause to a rise in > > > atmospheric CO2.
> > You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate > > is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of > > the right.
> The left uses the GW myth to shape an international socialist > governance and the right does not.
Stop running around with cloth in your ears and a plug up your arse! GW is not a left/right issue you stupid Yank. The world is larger than the USA you moron! ANd if you have that assumption in the US it does not follow that it is so on the rest of the earth. Fac ut vivas!
> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 12:36 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 31, 12:18 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > The one valid argument leftist radicalism has had going for it lately > > > > is this consensus by scientists across the world on global warming and > > > > a supposed correlated anthropogenic [human] cause to a rise in > > > > atmospheric CO2.
> > > You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate > > > is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of > > > the right.
> > The left uses the GW myth to shape an international socialist > > governance and the right does not.
> Stop running around with cloth in your ears and a plug up your arse! > GW is not a left/right issue you stupid
The Treaty in Copenhagen is for the purpose of bringing down the US economy (and your piddling euro-socialist economies as well) and redistribution of wealth from the US to the third world. In the words of President Potatohead himself:
"The developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead, and that includes the United States . . . and . . wealthy nations have a responsibility to help developing nations financially to make the changes"
> On Nov 9, 6:29 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 10:04 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 12:36 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 31, 12:18 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > The one valid argument leftist radicalism has had going for it lately > > > > > is this consensus by scientists across the world on global warming and > > > > > a supposed correlated anthropogenic [human] cause to a rise in > > > > > atmospheric CO2.
> > > > You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate > > > > is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of > > > > the right.
> > > The left uses the GW myth to shape an international socialist > > > governance and the right does not.
> > Stop running around with cloth in your ears and a plug up your arse! > > GW is not a left/right issue you stupid
> The Treaty in Copenhagen is for the purpose of bringing down the US > economy (and your piddling euro-socialist economies as well) and > redistribution of wealth from the US to the third world. In the words > of President Potatohead himself:
> "The developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate > over the last century still have a responsibility to lead, and that > includes the United States . . . and . . wealthy nations have a > responsibility to help developing nations financially to make the > changes"
You have failed the enlightenment test of maturity. You respond with a childish ideological Americentric right wing knee jerk reaction without looking at the facts. The governments meeting in Copenhagen are wrong, not because they are left wing but because they are just plain wrong. All of their economies are at risk. Their leaders come from a spectrum of left and right and centre - and quite frankly countries where your stupid left/ right distinction is meaningless and irrelevant. If you didn't have your American head up your American arse you might be able to see that. Take out your butt plug and smell the coffee!
On Nov 9, 7:19 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The governments meeting in Copenhagen are wrong, not because they are > left wing but because they are just plain wrong.
To be left-wing is wrong, and they are both.
> All of their > economies are at risk.
The Wealth of Nations is irrelevant to euro-socialists. Only social justice is important.to them. The global warming hoax is only a means to an end. America's problem has always been Europe. Nice music and all that art stuff, though, for the most part.
On Nov 9, 9:33 am, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And the lefties are deeply envious of the organization and commitment > they see in religion. They are desperately attempting to get in on the > deal and make it an article of faith that they must be given wider > powers to deal with the enviro-apocalypse.
And so they have turned AGW into their own religion - the evidence for which is that they deny anything which questions their faith, e.g. the undeniable cooling of the last 10yrs.
Or, just like self-flagellating monks attempt by their own individual acts to atone for the sins of mankind, so enviroHysterics engage in their own versions of extreme self-denial, rejecting technology in the name of adding to the drudgery of life, deluding themselves that it makes the slightest difference to the condition of the earth.
On 10 Nov, 00:19, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The governments meeting in Copenhagen are wrong, not because they are > left wing but because they are just plain wrong.
People are wrong because the evidence contradicts their beliefs.
The peer-reviewed evidence supports GW. YOu are not on the high ground here. You reject the rightards' silly conspiracy theory, but accept their science-denial, which is exactly parallel in every way to evolution-denial.
On Nov 10, 12:58 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 7:19 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The governments meeting in Copenhagen are wrong, not because they are > > left wing but because they are just plain wrong.
> To be left-wing is wrong, and they are both.
> > All of their > > economies are at risk.
> The Wealth of Nations is irrelevant to euro-socialists. Only social > justice is important.to them. The global warming hoax is only a means > to an end. America's problem has always been Europe. Nice music and > all that art stuff, though, for the most part.
Adam SMith lies at the very heart of left wing politics. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
On Nov 10, 10:01 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 10 Nov, 00:19, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The governments meeting in Copenhagen are wrong, not because they are > > left wing but because they are just plain wrong.
> People are wrong because the evidence contradicts their beliefs.
> The peer-reviewed evidence supports GW. YOu are not on the high > ground here. You reject the rightards' silly conspiracy theory, but > accept > their science-denial, which is exactly parallel in every way > to evolution-denial.
There is a serious problem with the GW debate, that renders peer- reviewed "evidence" null and void. All the so-called evidence is circumstantial and unclear, being open to a range of interpretations. But the key problem is a huge gap on the basic physics of CO2. There is no physics to account for how 0.01% increase in atmospheric CO2 could possibly contribute to any significant GW. All the ice-core evidence points to CO2, not as a causal agent but as an INDICATOR of GW. There is a marked increase in CO2 800 - 1000 years following GW. If you can produce evidence as to HOW the heat capacity of Carbon might contribute significant temperature rises then you might make us happy, but intil then you mught as well button up.
> On Nov 9, 9:33 am, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > And the lefties are deeply envious of the organization and commitment > > they see in religion. They are desperately attempting to get in on the > > deal and make it an article of faith that they must be given wider > > powers to deal with the enviro-apocalypse.
> And so they have turned AGW into their own religion - the evidence for > which is that they deny anything which questions their faith, e.g. the > undeniable cooling of the last 10yrs.
> Or, just like self-flagellating monks attempt by their own individual > acts to atone for the sins of mankind, so enviroHysterics engage in > their own versions of extreme self-denial, rejecting technology in the > name of adding to the drudgery of life, deluding themselves that it > makes the slightest difference to the condition of the earth.
> Fred Weiss
This certainly does characterise many of the environmental movement - mainly those that had not been listened to for 30 years. But it does not account for the new wave of politicians that seem to have got carried away with the idea. These I think are in the business of playing safe and there are others that are concerned about the conservation of oil - which IS GOING TO RUN OUT! What I think lies behind this obsession with CO2 is not GW (as that is far from proven) but they are guided by the importance to stimulate alternative energy sources, and to conserve remaining oil supplies before it all runs out. So the hysterical 'lefty plot to destroy' civilisation, and the 'self denial mea culpa' nutcases are basically irrelevant. We still need to use less oil whilst we work out alternatives for the future before the energy gap ruins the economies.
> On Nov 10, 10:01 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 10 Nov, 00:19, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The governments meeting in Copenhagen are wrong, not because they are > > > left wing but because they are just plain wrong.
> > People are wrong because the evidence contradicts their beliefs.
> > The peer-reviewed evidence supports GW. YOu are not on the high > > ground here. You reject the rightards' silly conspiracy theory, but > > accept > > their science-denial, which is exactly parallel in every way > > to evolution-denial.
> There is a serious problem with the GW debate, that renders peer- > reviewed "evidence" null and void. All the so-called evidence is > circumstantial and unclear, being open to a range of interpretations.
All evidence is, full stop. The point is that the experts have come down overwhelmingly on one interpretation and you don't know any better than they.
> But the key problem is a huge gap on the basic physics of CO2.
Says who? You're not a physicist. CO2 is known to absorb specific LW frequencies, leading to a greenhouse effect.
>There > is no physics to account for how 0.01% increase in atmospheric CO2 > could possibly contribute to any significant GW.
Where did you get that figure from? WHo sayss CO2 is the only greenhouse gas or the only forcing factor.
> All the ice-core evidence points to CO2, not as a causal agent but as > an INDICATOR of GW. There is a marked increase in CO2 800 - 1000 years > following GW. > If you can produce evidence as to HOW the heat capacity of Carbon > might contribute significant temperature rises then you might make us > happy, but intil then you mught as well button up.
Since you are a layperson and have fallen for a common misunderstanding your rudeness is uncalled-for.
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]
To read more about CO2 and ice cores, see Caillon et al., 2003, Science magazine
Guest Contributor: Jeff Severinghaus Professor of Geosciences Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego.
On Nov 10, 5:35 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 12:58 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote: .
> > The Wealth of Nations is irrelevant to euro-socialists. Only social > > justice is important.to them. The global warming hoax is only a means > > to an end. America's problem has always been Europe. Nice music and > > all that art stuff, though, for the most part.
> Adam SMith lies at the very heart of left wing politics. Your > ignorance knows no bounds.
Adam Smith founded liberal economics. The great neo-liberals of our time, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and the conservatives who followed them in the U.S., if not in the U.K., are classical liberals. The left-wing, in contrast, is traditional anti-liberal totalitarianism or libertarian anarchism having sometimes only in common with Smith his labor theory of value which has been proven false in the "right-wing" Austrian School of economics.
On Nov 10, 5:51 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote: .
> So the hysterical 'lefty plot to destroy' civilisation, and the 'self > denial mea culpa' nutcases are basically irrelevant. We still need to > use less oil
Who's this "we"? You can do you want, but leave me out of your silly lifestyle of self-abnegation.
On 10 Nov, 11:22, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > So the hysterical 'lefty plot to destroy' civilisation, and the 'self > > denial mea culpa' nutcases are basically irrelevant. We still need to > > use less oil
> Who's this "we"?
People who don't believe the Magic Oil Pixie is going to keep magicing up more oil as we use it up.
On Nov 10, 6:41 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 10 Nov, 11:22, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > So the hysterical 'lefty plot to destroy' civilisation, and the 'self > > > denial mea culpa' nutcases are basically irrelevant. We still need to > > > use less oil
> > Who's this "we"?
> People who don't believe the Magic Oil Pixie is going > to keep magicing up more oil as we use it up.
The pixie dust of solar energy, for example, uses more oil and/or fossil fuels than than it saves, as do the batteries involved in all of those green alternatives. Only morons think that plugging their battery-driven anything into their A/C outlet is somehow saving on fossil fuels and that solar energy is practicable in most situations.
The free-market means AS THE PRODUCT OR COMMODITY RUNS OUT, the price goes up and alternatives either come into existence or existing alternatives become more feasible. The fact that the price of oil. accounting for inflation, is still like the price it was in the early 1980's means WE ARE NOT RUNNING OUT OF OIL within the range of those who are competent to judge the market WHEN THEY CAN SEE LITTLE NEW GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN PRODUCING SUPPLY.
The international socialist push for energy alternatives has only one purpose: to destroy the U.S. economy by replacing effective, efficient and cheap energy with ineffective, inefficient and expensive energy.
|
