Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > General Board

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old 12-23-2013, 09:26 PM   #51
KingOrfeo
Literotica Guru
 
KingOrfeo is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 25,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrodeau View Post
There are heat waves happening now in Argentina, Australia and New Jersey.
And it's unseasonably warm here in Florida.
__________________
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. . . . Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

-- Thomas Jefferson
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2013, 09:29 PM   #52
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
 
Sean Renaud's Avatar
 
Sean Renaud is online now
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fontana
Posts: 26,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by vetteman View Post
Nothing you've posted "proves" man made global warming.
But you're accepting global warming?
__________________
Liar to 4est: Are you a cheese?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2013, 09:52 PM   #53
renard_ruse
The world is Russia
 
renard_ruse's Avatar
 
renard_ruse is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,551
Quote:
Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science...
Um, yeah, so this is going to be a non-biased and fair article.
__________________
The media decides, the sheep believe.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2013, 09:57 PM   #54
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 17,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean View Post
That's just an out and out lie.

One could be forgiven for wondering what the fuss is all about.




Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset (the CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world— 1772-2012)



http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/


_______________
Temperatures from University of Alabama-Huntsville (NASA)



http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte..._2013_v5.6.png

_______________
Temperatures from Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif


_______________
Global Land and Sea Temperatures from Hadley Centre, Climate Research Unit, UK Meteorology Office, University of East Anglia



http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...1995/normalise


_______________
Global Land and Sea Temperatures from Hadley Centre, Climate Research Unit, UK Meteorology Office, University of East Anglia
CO2 from Earth Sciences Research Laboratory (Mauna Loa) NASA




http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had...1995/normalise


_______________
The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1855, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO2 content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO2 record ends in the year 1777.





http://www.climate4you.com/images/GI...CA%20DomeC.gif



  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2013, 10:04 PM   #55
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
 
phrodeau's Avatar
 
phrodeau is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire (away on business)
Posts: 42,817
Once again, Trysail shows us the relentless increase of global temperatures in recent decades in easy-to-read graphs.

He even uses normalized graphs to show that global temps have remained too high for a considerable time.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2013, 10:11 PM   #56
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 17,401


Seventeen (17) years.


No significant warming.


None. Zero. Nil. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.



  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2013, 10:15 PM   #57
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
 
phrodeau's Avatar
 
phrodeau is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire (away on business)
Posts: 42,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by trysail View Post


Seventeen (17) years.


No significant warming.


None. Zero. Nil. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.



345 consecutive months of above average temperatures.

Lots. Many. Plenty. A plethora. Scads. Tons. A buttload.

(By the way, in math that's over 28 years.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2013, 10:15 PM   #58
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
 
koalabear's Avatar
 
koalabear is offline
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: over there----->
Posts: 102,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Renaud View Post
But you're accepting global warming?
The planet has warmed at least six times before. Even before peeps came along, go live with Al Gore.
__________________
GBers are like Bran Muffins, not much substance, yet they produce a lot of shit. "^^"
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2013, 10:20 PM   #59
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 17,401

When it was warming, the reason was CO2 and climate was simple;
now that it’s not warming, the reason isn’t known and climate is complex.






  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2013, 11:15 PM   #60
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
 
dan_c00000 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dazzle1 View Post
I believe the sample data is too small and the projection are just that. the fact that advocates have fudged data like East anglia proves that.

I suggest you read the Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomberg.

And i assume becuase I dare critize the terrorist supporter Greenwald was your response for point 1. He belong in a cell next to Bradley Manning
It's "belongs".

How We Know Global Warming is Real

by Dr. Tapio Schneider

Dr. Tapio Schneider discusses the science behind human-induced climate change. He is a climate scientist and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at the California Institute of Technology.

BUY this issue >
DOWNLOAD this article in PDF >

The Science Behind Human-induced Climate Change

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. They are about 35% higher than before the industrial revolution, and this increase is caused by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, as are methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, and a host of other trace gases. They occur naturally in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases act like a blanket for infrared radiation, retaining radiative energy near the surface that would otherwise escape directly to space. An increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and of other greenhouse gases augments the natural greenhouse effect; it increases the radiative energy available to Earth’s surface and to the lower atmosphere. Unless compensated for by other processes, the increase in radiative energy available to the surface and the lower atmosphere leads to warming. This we know. How do we know it?

figure 1
Figure 1. Carbon dioxide concentrations in Antarctica over 400,000 years. “The graph combines ice core data with recent samples of Antarctic air. The 100,000-year ice age cycle is clearly recognizable.” (Data sources: Petit et al. 1999; Keeling and Whorf 2004; GLOBALVIEW-CO2 2007.)

How do we know carbon dioxide concentrations have increased?

The concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in atmospheric samples have been measured continuously since the late 1950s. Since then, carbon dioxide concentrations have increased steadily from about 315 parts per million (ppm, or molecules of carbon dioxide per million molecules of dry air) in the late 1950s to about 385 ppm now, with small spatial variations away from major sources of emissions. For the more distant past, we can measure atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in bubbles of ancient air preserved in ice (e.g., in Greenland and Antarctica). Ice core records currently go back 650,000 years; over this period we know that carbon dioxide concentrations have never been higher than they are now. Before the industrial revolution, they were about 280 ppm, and they have varied naturally between about 180 ppm during ice ages and 300 ppm during warm periods (Fig. 1). Concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide have likewise increased since the industrial revolution (Fig. 2) and, for methane, are higher now than they have been in the 650,000 years before the industrial revolution.

figure 2
Figure 2. Greenhouses gases then and now.

How do we know the increase in carbon dioxide
concentrations is caused by human activities?

There are several lines of evidence. We know approximately how much carbon dioxide is emitted as a result of human activities. Adding up the human sources of carbon dioxide — primarily from fossil fuel burning, cement production, and land use changes (e.g., deforestation) — one finds that only about half the carbon dioxide emitted as a result of human activities has led to an increase in atmospheric concentrations. The other half of the emitted carbon dioxide has been taken up by oceans and the biosphere — where and how exactly is not completely understood: there is a “missing carbon sink.”

Human activities thus can account for the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations. Changes in the isotopic composition of carbon dioxide show that the carbon in the added carbon dioxide derives largely from plant materials, that is, from processes such as burning of biomass or fossil fuels, which are derived from fossil plant materials. Minute changes in the atmospheric concentration of oxygen show that the added carbon dioxide derives from burning of the plant materials. And concentrations of carbon dioxide in the ocean have increased along with the atmospheric concentrations, showing that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations cannot be a result of release from the oceans. All lines of evidence taken together make it unambiguous that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is human induced and is primarily a result of fossil fuel burning. (Similar reasoning can be evoked for other greenhouse gases, but for some of those, such as methane and nitrous oxide, their sources are not as clear as those of carbon dioxide.)

How can such a minute amount of carbon dioxide
affect Earth’s radiative energy balance?

Concentrations of carbon dioxide are measured in parts per million, those of methane and nitrous oxide in parts per billion. These are trace constituents of the atmosphere. Together with water vapor, they account for less than 1% of the volume of the atmosphere. And yet they are crucially important for Earth’s climate.

Earth’s surface is heated by absorption of solar (shortwave) radiation; it emits infrared (longwave) radiation, which would escape almost directly to space if it were not for water vapor and the other greenhouse gases. Nitrogen and oxygen, which account for about 99% of the volume of the atmosphere, are essentially transparent to infrared radiation. But greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation and re-emit it in all directions. Some of the infrared radiation that would otherwise directly escape to space is emitted back toward the surface. Without this natural greenhouse effect, primarily owing to water vapor and carbon dioxide, Earth’s mean surface temperature would be a freezing -1°F, instead of the habitable 59°F we currently enjoy. Despite their small amounts, then, the greenhouse gases strongly affect Earth’s temperature. Increasing their concentration augments the natural greenhouse effect.

figure 3
Figure 3. How We Know the Globe is Warming.

How do increases in greenhouse gas concentrations
lead to surface temperature increases?

Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases increases the atmosphere’s “optical thickness” for infrared radiation, which means that more of the radiation that eventually does escape to space comes from higher levels in the atmosphere. The mean temperature at the level from which the infrared radiation effectively escapes to space (the emission level) is determined by the total amount of solar radiation absorbed by Earth. The same amount of energy Earth receives as solar radiation, in a steady state, must be returned as infrared radiation; the energy of radiation depends on the temperature at which it is emitted and thus determines the mean temperature at the emission level. For Earth, this temperature is -1°F — the mean temperature of the surface if the atmosphere would not absorb infrared radiation. Now, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations implies raising the emission level at which, in the mean, this temperature is attained. If the temperature decreases between the surface and this level and its rate of decrease with height does not change substantially, then the surface temperature must increase as the emission level is raised. This is the greenhouse effect. It is also the reason that clear summer nights in deserts, under a dry atmosphere, are colder than cloudy summer nights on the U.S. east coast, under a relatively moist atmosphere (Figs. 4 and 5).

figure 4 and 5
Figure 4 and 5. Two Cheers for the Greenhouse Effect. Some global warming is necessary in order to make the Earth habitable for creatures like us. These two graphics show how it works. The IPCC caption reads: “Estimate of the Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance. Over the long term, the amount of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the Earth and atmosphere is balanced by the Earth and atmosphere releasing the same amount of outgoing longwave radiation. About half of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. This energy is transferred to the atmosphere by warming the air in contact with the surface (thermals), by evapotranspiration and by longwave radiation that is absorbed by clouds and greenhouse gases. The atmosphere in turn radiates longwave energy back to Earth as well as out to space.” Source: Kiehl and Trenberth (1997). (Graphics are FAQ 1.1, 1.3, Figure 1 from the IPCC Report.)

In fact, Earth surface temperatures have increased by about 1.3°F over the past century (Fig. 3). The temperature increase has been particularly pronounced in the past 20 years (for an illustration, see the animations of temperature changes). The scientific consensus about the cause of the recent warming was summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations… The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.”

figure 6
Figure 6. The History of Climate Models. The IPCC caption reads: “The complexity of climate models has increased over the last few decades. The additional physics incorporated in the models are shown pictorially by the different features of the modelled world.” (Graphic is Figure 1.2 from the IPCC Report.)

The IPCC conclusions rely on climate simulations with computer models (Fig. 6). Based on spectroscopic measurements of the optical properties of greenhouse gases, we can calculate relatively accurately the impact increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have on Earth’s radiative energy balance. For example, the radiative forcing owing to increases in the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the industrial era is about 2.3 Watts per square meter. (This is the change in radiative energy fluxes in the lower troposphere before temperatures have adjusted.) We need computer models to translate changes in the radiative energy balance into changes in temperature and other climate variables because feedbacks in the climate system render the climate response to changes in the atmospheric composition complex, and because other human emissions (smog) also affect climate in complex ways. For example, as the surface and lower atmosphere warm in response to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations, the atmospheric concentration of water vapor near the surface increases as well. That this has to happen is well established on the basis of the energy balance of the surface and relations between evaporation rates and the relative humidity of the atmosphere (it is not directly, as is sometimes stated, a consequence of higher evaporation rates).

Water vapor, however, is a greenhouse gas in itself, and so it amplifies the temperature response to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations and leads to greater surface warming than would occur in the absence of water vapor feedback. Other feedbacks that must be taken into account in simulating the climate response to changes in atmospheric composition involve, for example, changes in cloud cover, dynamical changes that affect the rate at which temperature decreases with height and hence affect the strength of the greenhouse effect, and surface changes (e.g., loss of sea ice). Current climate models, with Newton’s laws of motion and the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer at their core, take such processes into account. They are able to reproduce, for example, Earth’s seasonal cycle if all such processes are taken into account but not, for example, if water vapor feedback is neglected. The IPCC’s conclusion is based on the fact that these models can only match the observed climate record of the past 50 years if they take human-induced changes in atmospheric composition into account. They fail to match the observed record if they only model natural variability, which may include, for example, climate responses to fluctuations in solar radiation (Fig. 7).

figure 3
Figure 7. Global and Continental Temperature Change. The IPCC caption reads: “Comparison of observed continental — and global — scale changes in surface temperature with results simulated by climate models using either natural or both natural and anthropogenic forcings. Decadal averages of observations are shown for the period 1906–2005 (black line) plotted against the center of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for the period 1901–1950. Lines are dashed where spatial coverage is less than 50%. Darker shaded bands show the 5 to 95% range for 19 simulations from five climate models using only the natural forcings due to solar activity and volcanoes. Lighter shaded bands show the 5 to 95% range for 58 simulations from 14 climate models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings.” (Graphic is Figure SPM.4 from the IPCC Report.)

Climate feedbacks are the central source of scientific (as opposed to socio-economic) uncertainty in climate projections. The dominant source of uncertainty are cloud feedbacks, which are incompletely understood. The area covered by low stratus clouds may increase or decrease as the climate warms. Because stratus clouds are low, they do not have a strong greenhouse effect (the strength of the greenhouse effect depends on the temperature difference between the surface and the level from which infrared radiation is emitted, and this is small for low clouds); however, they reflect sunlight, and so exert a cooling effect on the surface, as anyone knows who has been near southern California’s coast on an overcast spring morning. If their area coverage increases as greenhouse gas concentrations increase, the surface temperature response will be muted; if their area coverage decreases, the surface temperature response will be amplified. It is currently unclear how these clouds respond to climate change, and climate models simulate widely varying responses. Other major uncertainties include the effects of aerosols (smog) on clouds and the radiative balance and, on timescales longer than a few decades, the response of ice sheets to changes in temperature.

Uncertainties notwithstanding, it is clear that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, in the global mean, will lead to warming. Although climate models differ in the amount of warming they project, in its spatial distribution, and in other more detailed aspects of the climate response, all climate models that can reproduce observed characteristics such as the seasonal cycle project warming in response to the increases in greenhouse gas concentrations that are expected in the coming decades as a result of continued burning of fossil fuels and other human activities such as tropical deforestation. The projected consequences of the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have been widely publicized. Global-mean surface temperatures are likely to increase by 2.0 to 11.5°F by the year 2100, with the uncertainty range reflecting scientific uncertainties (primarily about clouds) as well as socio-economic uncertainties (primarily about the rate of emission of greenhouse gases over the 21st century). Land areas are projected to warm faster than ocean areas. The risk of summer droughts in mid-continental regions is likely to increase. Sea level is projected to rise, both by thermal expansion of the warming oceans and by melting of land ice.

SUBSCRIBE to eSkeptic and get free science articles in your inbox once a week.

Less widely publicized but important for policy considerations are projected very long-term climate changes, of which some already now are unavoidable. Even if we were able to keep the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration fixed at its present level — this would require an immediate and unrealistically drastic reduction in emissions — the Earth surface would likely warm by another 0.9–2.5°F over the next centuries. The oceans with their large thermal and dynamic inertia provide a buffer that delays the response of the surface climate to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. The oceans will continue to warm over about 500 years. Their waters will expand as they warm, causing sea level rise. Ice sheets are thought to respond over timescales of centuries, though this is challenged by recent data from Greenland and Antarctica, which show evidence of a more rapid, though possibly transient, response. Their full contribution to sea level rise will take centuries to manifest. Studies of climate change abatement policies typically end in the year 2100 and thus do not take into account that most of the sea level rise due to the emission of greenhouse gases in the next 100 years will occur decades and centuries later. Sea level is projected to rise 0.2–0.6 meters by the year 2100, primarily as a result of thermal expansion of the oceans; however, it may eventually reach values up to several meters higher than today when the disintegration of glaciers and ice sheets contributes more strongly to sea level rise. (A sea level rise of 4 meters would submerge much of southern Florida.)

Certainties and Uncertainties

While there are uncertainties in climate projections, it is important to realize that the climate projections are based on sound scientific principles, such as the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, with measurements of optical properties of gases. The record of past climate changes that can be inferred, for example, with geochemical methods from ice cores and ocean sediment cores, provides tantalizing hints of large climate changes that occurred over Earth’s history, and it poses challenges to our understanding of climate (for example, there is no complete and commonly accepted explanation for the cycle of ice ages and warm periods). However, climate models are not empirical, based on correlations in such records, but incorporate our best understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological processes being modeled. Hence, evidence that temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in some climate changes on the timescales of ice ages, for example, only shows that temperature changes can affect the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, which in turn feed back on temperature changes. Such evidence does not invalidate the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, or the conclusion that the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the past decades is human induced.

If you think that exposing the truth about the NSA and where you're tax dollars go is terrorism you're a fucking dumbass.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2013, 11:23 PM   #61
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
 
dan_c00000 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,586
Conservative groups and big business (like oil and tobacco companies) have been at climate change denial for years. They tried to beg Rachel Carson as a liar or "terrorist" to use little dickheads words.

I'd suggest you read Merchants of Doubt which breaks down why and how climate change is systematically denied. It also details that the vast majority of scientists (97% if I remember correctly) agree that climate change is both happening and caused by people. You'll find the other 3% are funded by the Koch brothers, the Heartland Institute, and other right wing lie factories.

That was a serious amount of ownage. So congrats you've made my owned list right next to trysail, vette, busy body, jenninflorida, james the racist, and a host of other pieces of shit.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2013, 01:10 AM   #62
renard_ruse
The world is Russia
 
renard_ruse's Avatar
 
renard_ruse is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_c00000 View Post
Conservative groups and big business (like oil and tobacco companies) have been at climate change denial for years. They tried to beg Rachel Carson as a liar or "terrorist" to use little dickheads words.

I'd suggest you read Merchants of Doubt which breaks down why and how climate change is systematically denied. It also details that the vast majority of scientists (97% if I remember correctly) agree that climate change is both happening and caused by people. You'll find the other 3% are funded by the Koch brothers, the Heartland Institute, and other right wing lie factories.

That was a serious amount of ownage. So congrats you've made my owned list right next to trysail, vette, busy body, jenninflorida, james the racist, and a host of other pieces of shit.
So you're saying there's a conspiracy to deny a conspiracy. Um, ok, "Dan." (I thought "Dan's" big issue was white "racism" why is she/he/it blathering about global warming? )
__________________
The media decides, the sheep believe.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2013, 07:17 AM   #63
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
 
trysail's Avatar
 
trysail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 'twixt here and there
Posts: 17,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by renard_ruse View Post
So you're saying there's a conspiracy to deny a conspiracy. Um, ok, "Dan." (I thought "Dan's" big issue was white "racism" why is she/he/it blathering about global warming? )

These are people who look at a graph showing temperatures that are flat and then, somehow, declare otherwise.

How do you converse with people who look at 2+2 and come up with 5 ?



  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2013, 09:37 AM   #64
KingOrfeo
Literotica Guru
 
KingOrfeo is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 25,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by renard_ruse View Post
So you're saying there's a conspiracy to deny a conspiracy.
No, there's a conspiracy to deny anthropogenic climate change. The latter is not a conspiracy, it is not a thing anyone ever intended at all, just a by-product of a fossil-fuel-burning industrial civilization.
__________________
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. . . . Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

-- Thomas Jefferson
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2013, 09:45 AM   #65
KingOrfeo
Literotica Guru
 
KingOrfeo is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 25,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by vetteman View Post
What we do know is man made global warming is bullshit. A scheme . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOrfeo View Post
Whose?
I repeat.
__________________
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. . . . Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

-- Thomas Jefferson
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2013, 09:59 AM   #66
RobDownSouth
Nom Nom Nom Nom
 
RobDownSouth's Avatar
 
RobDownSouth is offline
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 36,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by trysail View Post

How do you converse with people who look at 2+2 and come up with 5 ?
You simply say, "Math obviously confuses you, Trysail. Why don't you stick to posting colorful yet misleading graphs?".
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2013, 10:47 AM   #67
Dazzle1
Literotica Guru
 
Dazzle1 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDownSouth View Post
You simply say, "Math obviously confuses you, Trysail. Why don't you stick to posting colorful yet misleading graphs?".
Yes thats what you tell Al Gore and his syncophants.

Carbon Credits are a bigger crimethan Bernie Madoffs Ponzi scheme.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2013, 11:35 AM   #68
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
 
phrodeau's Avatar
 
phrodeau is offline
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire (away on business)
Posts: 42,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by trysail View Post

These are people who look at a graph showing temperatures that are flat and then, somehow, declare otherwise.

How do you converse with people who look at 2+2 and come up with 5 ?



You post bullshit, and you know it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2013, 11:44 AM   #69
FGB
Really Really Experienced
 
FGB's Avatar
 
FGB is offline
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lufkin Texas
Posts: 499
The government spends A hell of a lot more money than that trying to weaponize it.
__________________
Trouble? I AM Trouble!

Relax I am fgarvb1. Click the safety back on!


There are many systems of philosophy and political life which try to base law and all human relationships upon the nature of man. Man is made the measure of all things. All such systems, whether communism or humanism, or socialism, are doomed to fail because of one fatal flaw: they do not recognize the sinful, self-centered nature of man.
They ignore God and deify man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2013, 11:59 AM   #70
Dazzle1
Literotica Guru
 
Dazzle1 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOrfeo View Post
And it's unseasonably warm here in Florida.
It is going to be fairly cold in boston for Christmas as it suppose to be in thw winter

When are climate change advocates going to admidt their warnings are based on models?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-24-2013, 12:02 PM   #71
KingOrfeo
Literotica Guru
 
KingOrfeo is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 25,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by FGB View Post
The government spends A hell of a lot more money than that trying to weaponize it.
To weaponize what?
__________________
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. . . . Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

-- Thomas Jefferson
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-25-2013, 08:12 PM   #72
KingOrfeo
Literotica Guru
 
KingOrfeo is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 25,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by vetteman View Post
Who wrote that propaganda?
RationalWiki.
__________________
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. . . . Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

-- Thomas Jefferson
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-26-2013, 12:42 PM   #73
KingOrfeo
Literotica Guru
 
KingOrfeo is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 25,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by vetteman View Post
What we do know is man made global warming is bullshit. A scheme to cripple the American economy while ripping off billions from the American taxpayer for the benefit of Third Wold economies. So give it a fucking rest.
Global Warming Conspiracy Theory:

Quote:
"I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that’s going on."

—Tim Ball[1]


"Apparently, global warming is a liberal conspiracy. You know, because of all the things we have to gain from it, like, uh...um...you know, things like...um...NOTHING AT ALL, YOU LYING BASTARDS!"

—Marcus Brigstocke[2]

The Great Global Warming Conspiracy Theory refers to the questionable ideas bandied about by global warming denialists that global warming either isn't happening or is being over-hyped by a group of people who feel that they have some advantage to gain by promoting the evidence for global warming.

Besides the general nonsensical nature of many of these theories, they generally fail to answer how the conspiracy reaches back to John Tyndall's discovery of the greenhouse effect in 1859 (perhaps Al Gore invented a time machine after he was done with the Internet).[3]

Out of one, many

As is typical of many conspiracy theories, there is not one theory but several contradictory ones. Some of the ones identified here are now a little out of date, and no doubt conspiracy theorists have now invented some other tortured reasons for people backing the "conspiracy."

Because of the multiplicity of contradictory theories it is a good idea to get a global warming denialist to explicitly state which particular "theory" they are backing. There are two reasons for this:
* Amateur conspiracy theorists are usually not very bright and frequently don't know much about their own theory, and consequently can't give a direct answer - only that there must be a conspiracy.
* In the event that the person does have a clear idea, you obviously must know which one so as not to waste your time talking about another one.

The following are some of the many specific conspiracies identified regarding global warming. Note that this lists conspiracies rather than flat-out denials, though they often go in tandem.

It's an attempt by the UN to take over the USA

Apparently, an individual named "Maurice Strong" is behind an attempt to use the United Nations and its Framework Convention on Global Climate Change to...well...take over either the world[4] or the United States.[5] He is apparently assisted in this by World Economic Forum, the Club of Rome, the Aspen Institute, the Fabian Society and Communist China - he is, however, opposed by none other than The Dalai Lama![6] Christopher Monckton loves this one.[7]

It's that nasty Jacques Chirac

It's an attempt by former French President Jacques Chirac and the secret Bilderberg Group to use the Kyoto Accords to take over the world.[8]

It's the scientists

It's an attempt by scientists, politicians and environmentalists to take over the world. According to William M. Gray, they wish to find "a political cause that would enable them to organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence.'" Apparently Al Gore has something to do with it.[9] Muahahaha!

It's because scientists are denied funding

It's all a hoax invented by all the world's climate scientists to get funding.[10] The "evil" scientists have managed to fool the UN, the European Union, and the entire world.[11] This angle is also rather ironic considering that a sinecure at a denialist think tank can easily pay better than an actual post as a climatology professor.

It's a green scam

All climate scientists obviously own stock in green and renewable energy companies and they're pushing the theory to inflate their retirement funds and the green energy companies will make out like bandits.[12]

It's the environmentalists

It's a plot by those nasty environmentalists who want to prevent Africa developing a carbon economy. Alternatively, it's a plot by environmentalists who want to promote a carbon economy in Africa while damaging the USA's industrial output.[13] Two "theories" for the price of one!

It's a plot by left-wingers to destroy the industrialized world

This one suggests that it's associated with the anti-globalisation movement and it's an attempt to cripple the world economy.[14] How accepting international treaties while being against globalization is a good question to ask.

It's an attempt to promote nuclear power

According to this "theory," it's all about an attempt by Margaret Thatcher, and presumably her successors, to make the people of the world accept non-CO2-producing nuclear power.[15] It's not exactly clear what Phase 2 is, but Phase 3 seems to be "profit." This was promoted in the film The Great Global Warming Swindle.

As it becomes clear that "politically correct" renewable energy sources such as wind and ground-based solar are unable to meet the needs of civilisation, expect this one to be uttered more often by fossil fuel industry opponents. It is noteworthy that the UK nuclear power industry has been handed over to the French! (see Jacques Chirac above)

It's the Weather Channel

Follow the money. Who profits from extreme weather? The elite cabal of the Weather Channel, of course. By manipulating the climate for better ratings, the CEO stands to make literally thousands hundreds tens of dollars. This conspiracy may or may not be entirely serious and may be ranked among the likes of the conspiracy that Princess Diana was murdered by florists who wanted to boost sales.

It's a government attempt to control corporations

This theory claims that a carbon emissions tax (as proposed again by Al Gore, OMG!) would allow the United States government to gain substantial influence over industry (which, after the way they've managed to facilitate a global recession, wouldn't be a bad thing, if the recession wasn't mostly caused by problems in the housing market, of course).[16]

Exactly why Al Gore would benefit from the US government controlling corporations is unclear. Furthermore, with all the investment the government is presently being forced to make in industry, it may end up controlling a lot of it whether it has a carbon tax or not.

It's a Commie plot

Supported by, among others, Frederick Seitz and Eric S. Raymond, this claim is that global warming was a Soviet plot meant to undermine capitalism.[17] Terms like "memetic weapon"[18]. and "leftover KGB psyops" have been thrown around, making this one of the loonier approaches.

It's a global eugenics and/or depopulation scheme

This brand of the conspiracy theory states that global warming is a front for the implementation of a worldwide eugenics program or a scheme to depopulate the planet and kill off the "useless eaters."[19][20] Quotes from nutty hard greens (Pentti Linkola is a perennial favorite) often come in handy for "proving" this. A particularly amusing if little-known variant of this conspiracy theory posits that the depopulation plan was initiated by the anthropologist Margaret Mead at a 1975 conference on overpopulation.[21] This theory is more popular in the conspiracist pro-life circles due to its connection with the issue of abortion and it also makes for some good red-baiting material due to China's one-child policy, and you don't want to end up like those dirty Reds now do you?

The real conspiracy

There actually is a conspiracy surrounding climate change, and it's not what you'll hear from most conspiracy theorists: between 2003 and 2010, more than $7 billion were spent by conservative billionaires to fund anti-AGW organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.[22] Follow the money, indeed.
__________________
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. . . . Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

-- Thomas Jefferson
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-26-2013, 01:13 PM   #74
neci
dickpirate
 
neci's Avatar
 
neci is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: beneath the sea
Posts: 28,065
this is why i honestly no longer believe in tax deductible charitable organizations.
__________________
i want to thank you for taking time out of your day to come and witness my hanging.
george w. bush
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-26-2013, 02:50 PM   #75
KingOrfeo
Literotica Guru
 
KingOrfeo is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 25,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by neci View Post
this is why i honestly no longer believe in tax deductible charitable organizations.
. . . Eh?!
__________________
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. . . . Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

-- Thomas Jefferson
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:56 AM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.