Politics : πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

BasicTruths said...
They haven't been proved wrong over and over. They have, in fact, been continually confirmed.
So you're resorting to lying because you've totally failed. Typical.
there isn't a single mainstream journal of climate science anywhere in the world where you will find scientists agreeing with you.
Hello! Aristarchus, Copernicus, Galileo, and Wegener!
You are on the lunatic fringe
Ohhhhh! Another gaslighting attempt! Bad boy!
and sorely in need of an education.
I'm attempting to educate you, but clearly you're not paying attention in class. Are you going for an incomplete?


Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.
expand
So you're resorting to lying because you've totally failed. Typical.

The one who is lying is you. If you were telling the truth, you'd be able to cite papers and studies published in respected, mainstream journals of climate science saying this clearly. You can't.

You kind of remind me of some ignorant chain smoker in the 60's laughing off scientific evidence linking smoking to cancer and only paying attention to what the "experts" paid for by the tobacco companies were saying.

Except you are worse. At least dullards in the 60's lived in a world where such data was new. You're living in a world where human made climate change has been established as a fact for over a generation.

Aristarchus, Copernicus, Galileo, and Wegener!

A hilarious fail on your part and a purely delightful example of what a completely ignorant blowhard you really are.

Your first three examples come from periods in history before science ever had established institutions and practices. The word "science" didn't even exist in their lifetimes and scholarly discourse was dominated by religious and political biases that no longer exist in the West. Those non-scientific biases, and those alone, were why their models were not accepted.

Wegener a beautiful example of how science works to eliminate institutional biases when they exist. Wegener did what he was supposed to–he published in respected scholarly journals and when challenged, he offered more evidence, more models, and corrected his mistakes, all in mainstream journals and institutions. It took a few decades, but in the end he won his peers over.

Models telling us that the climate is changing due to human activity followed the same rules, and decades later, these models are as accepted by the scientific community as Wegener's models of continental drift are today.

So actually, cupcake, you are more in the role of the idiots who were castigating and attacking Wegener long after his peers had realized he was right all along.

Oops. This is more evidence that you really weren't paying much attention in school.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

MagneticMonopole said...
So you're resorting to lying because you've totally failed. Typical.

The one who is lying is you. If you were telling the truth, you'd be able to cite papers and studies published in respected, mainstream journals of climate science saying this clearly. You can't.

You kind of remind me of some ignorant chain smoker in the 60's laughing off scientific evidence linking smoking to cancer and only paying attention to what the "experts" paid for by the tobacco companies were saying.

Except you are worse. At least dullards in the 60's lived in a world where such data was new. You're living in a world where human made climate change has been established as a fact for over a generation.

Aristarchus, Copernicus, Galileo, and Wegener!

A hilarious fail on your part and a purely delightful example of what a completely ignorant blowhard you really are.

Your first three examples come from periods in history before science ever had established institutions and practices. The word "science" didn't even exist in their lifetimes and scholarly discourse was dominated by religious and political biases that no longer exist in the West. Those non-scientific biases, and those alone, were why their models were not accepted.

Wegener a beautiful example of how science works to eliminate institutional biases when they exist. Wegener did what he was supposed to–he published in respected scholarly journals and when challenged, he offered more evidence, more models, and corrected his mistakes, all in mainstream journals and institutions. It took a few decades, but in the end he won his peers over.

Models telling us that the climate is changing due to human activity followed the same rules, and decades later, these models are as accepted by the scientific community as Wegener's models of continental drift are today.

So actually, cupcake, you are more in the role of the idiots who were castigating and attacking Wegener long after his peers had realized he was right all along.

Oops. This is more evidence that you really weren't paying much attention in school.
expand
Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?

S. Fred Singer
Professor, University of Virginia - 2007

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and monographs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

In the past few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue thatβ€”should it occurβ€”a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.

This is not to say that we don’t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.

If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.

Man-Made Warming?

The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?

At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a β€œgreenhouse gas” which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced β€œgreenhouse effect” needs to be taken seriously.

But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.

In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called β€œscientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted β€œconsensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s β€œSummary for Policymakers.”

Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the β€œconsensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.

The second reason not to rely on a β€œscientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority viewβ€”or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.

But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.

What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.

What about the factβ€”as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC reportβ€”that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the β€œfinger-prints” matchβ€”β€œfingerprints” meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes.

For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.

The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (seewww.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.

What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vaporβ€”i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.

There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluating which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.

Natural Causes of Warming

A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experienceβ€”a scale of decades, let’s sayβ€”solar variability may be the most important.

Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth’s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).

Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.

A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.

Policy Consequences

If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:

> Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.

> The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.

> Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.

> Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.

None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy pricesβ€”irrespective of what one may believe about global warming.

Science vs. Hysteria

You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What’s going on here?

To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitterβ€”i.e., an energy userβ€”to support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated. β€œEmission trading” among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN’s β€œOil for Food” scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissionsβ€”not even in theory.

It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scareβ€”at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multibillion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of onesided books, movies, and media coverage.

The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and treesβ€”and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.

You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s "An Inconvenient Truth," but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.

Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little facetious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? β€œIt’s not that there won’t be bad things happening in those countries,” economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. β€œBut the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.” Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.

To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.

* * *

The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.

We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore’s movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

BasicTruths said... Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?

S. Fred Singer
Professor, University of Virginia - 2007

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and monographs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

In the past few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue thatβ€”should it occurβ€”a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.

This is not to say that we don’t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.

If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.

Man-Made Warming?

The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?

At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a β€œgreenhouse gas” which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced β€œgreenhouse effect” needs to be taken seriously.

But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.

In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called β€œscientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted β€œconsensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s β€œSummary for Policymakers.”

Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the β€œconsensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.

The second reason not to rely on a β€œscientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority viewβ€”or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.

But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.

What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.

What about the factβ€”as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC reportβ€”that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the β€œfinger-prints” matchβ€”β€œfingerprints” meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes.

For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.

The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (seewww.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.

What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vaporβ€”i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.

There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluating which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.

Natural Causes of Warming

A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experienceβ€”a scale of decades, let’s sayβ€”solar variability may be the most important.

Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth’s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).

Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.

A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.

Policy Consequences

If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:

> Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.

> The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.

> Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.

> Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.

None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy pricesβ€”irrespective of what one may believe about global warming.

Science vs. Hysteria

You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What’s going on here?

To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitterβ€”i.e., an energy userβ€”to support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated. β€œEmission trading” among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN’s β€œOil for Food” scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissionsβ€”not even in theory.

It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scareβ€”at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multibillion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of onesided books, movies, and media coverage.

The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and treesβ€”and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.

You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s "An Inconvenient Truth," but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.

Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little facetious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? β€œIt’s not that there won’t be bad things happening in those countries,” economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. β€œBut the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.” Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.

To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.

* * *

The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.

We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore’s movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.
expand
Oh, looky there–you found a kooky outlier, someone who appears to have been on the wrong side of every issue he opined about. It probably isn't a coincidence that every position he took on issues related to public welfare versus corporate profit seemed to always align with what big business wanted us to believe.

Where was it published, cupcake? In a respected, peer reviewed journal of climate change, or somewhere else? Interesting that you left that part out, isn't it?

Like I said earlier, you can find an idiot with a Phd after their name who will support any crazy nonsense you choose. It proves nothing. What matters is whether the vast majority of experts in a field, looking at the same evidence, agree with each other about reality. And on this issue, they most certainly do:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966#erlac2966s5

From the conclusion of the study:

Our results confirm, as has been found in numerous other previous studies of this question, that there is no significant scientific debate among experts about whether or not climate change is human-caused. This issue has been comprehensively settled, and the reality of ACC is no more in contention among scientists than is plate tectonics or evolution. The tiny number of papers that have been published during our time period which disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus have had no discernible impact, presumably because they do not provide any convincing evidence to refute the hypothesis thatβ€”in the words of IPCC AR5β€”'it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century', and, most recently in IPCC AR6β€”'it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land'.

Did you like the part about plate tectonics? I imagine you are regretting your mistake in bringing up Wegener, at least if you have any degree of healthy self-awareness.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

MagneticMonopole said... Oh, looky there–you found a kooky outlier, someone who appears to have been on the wrong side of every issue he opined about. It probably isn't a coincidence that every position he took on issues related to public welfare versus corporate profit seemed to always align with what big business wanted us to believe.

Where was it published, cupcake? In a respected, peer reviewed journal of climate change, or somewhere else? Interesting that you left that part out, isn't it?

Like I said earlier, you can find an idiot with a Phd after their name who will support any crazy nonsense you choose. It proves nothing. What matters is whether the vast majority of experts in a field, looking at the same evidence, agree with each other about reality. And on this issue, they most certainly do:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966#erlac2966s5

From the conclusion of the study:

Our results confirm, as has been found in numerous other previous studies of this question, that there is no significant scientific debate among experts about whether or not climate change is human-caused. This issue has been comprehensively settled, and the reality of ACC is no more in contention among scientists than is plate tectonics or evolution. The tiny number of papers that have been published during our time period which disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus have had no discernible impact, presumably because they do not provide any convincing evidence to refute the hypothesis thatβ€”in the words of IPCC AR5β€”'it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century', and, most recently in IPCC AR6β€”'it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land'.

Did you like the part about plate tectonics? I imagine you are regretting your mistake in bringing up Wegener, at least if you have any degree of healthy self-awareness.
expand
Well, good for you because you've now resorted to trying to demonize the man who authored that well-balanced piece that exposes all the fallacies in your global climate change nonsense theories.

He's obviously no "kooky outlier," but thanks for your little meltdown claiming he has to be because he disagrees with you.

You just hang on with your belief that humankind is a major cause of climate change and we are all going to die in a couple of decades if we don't make radical changes now.

Several inescapable facts for you to ponder:

1. Climate models used by government agencies to create policies β€œhave failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models β€œhave over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

2. Therefore it follows that is the reason climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.

3. No matter how many scientists believe as you do, consensus does not equal truth.

4. No matter how many times you say those who disagree with you are wrong or "kooky," neither you nor anyone can say with certainty that earth will self-destruct in coming years because of mankind's doing.

5. I can smell another cute little meltdown brewing in your brain because of the smoke coming out of your ears.

6. You drank the Kool-Aid. I didn't.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

BasicTruths said... Well, good for you because you've now resorted to trying to demonize the man who authored that well-balanced piece that exposes all the fallacies in your global climate change nonsense theories.

He's obviously no "kooky outlier," but thanks for your little meltdown claiming he has to be because he disagrees with you.

You just hang on with your belief that humankind is a major cause of climate change and we are all going to die in a couple of decades if we don't make radical changes now.

Several inescapable facts for you to ponder:

1. Climate models used by government agencies to create policies β€œhave failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models β€œhave over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

2. Therefore it follows that is the reason climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.

3. No matter how many scientists believe as you do, consensus does not equal truth.

4. No matter how many times you say those who disagree with you are wrong or "kooky," neither you nor anyone can say with certainty that earth will self-destruct in coming years because of mankind's doing.

5. I can smell another cute little meltdown brewing in your brain because of the smoke coming out of your ears.

6. You drank the Kool-Aid. I didn't.
expand
Again you are forced to lie about climate models being inaccurate, continuing your pattern of utter desperation. And again you fail to cite sources from respected, mainstream journals of science. This is no accident.

The fact is that climate models have been very successful at making predictions:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm



No matter how many scientists believe as you do, consensus does not equal truth.

If most umpires on the spot think the pitcher threw a strike, he almost certainly threw a strike. If most doctors examining a blood test see high levels of cholesterol, the patient almost certainly has high cholesterol. If the vast majority of geologists looking at the evidence think South America and Africa were once part of the same continent, South America and Africa were almost certainly once part of the same continent. If the vast majority of biologists looking at the evidence think humans and chimps shared a common ancestor thousands of years ago, humans and chimps almost certainly shared a common ancestor thousands of years ago.

None of these are certainties. They are just high probabilities of truth.

There, you just got a lesson in epistemology. You probably don't know what that word even means.

6. You drank the Kool-Aid. I didn't.

A more blatant case of projection couldn't be produced if I tried.

You cherry pick scholars advocating utterly fringe positions their peers have vehemently rejected and ignore what the vast majority of climate scientists believe, concentrating on right wing propaganda sites rather than respected scientific sources that don't have political axes to grind.

You do so for purely ideological reasons and exercise zero critical thinking skills. This is why, for example, you fell for the ridiculous myth that global cooling was ever a concern in the scientific community. No one with an ounce of scientific education would have made such a dumb assertion.

Education–you need it. You'll never get it.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

MagneticMonopole said... Again you are forced to lie about climate models being inaccurate, continuing your pattern of utter desperation. And again you fail to cite sources from respected, mainstream journals of science. This is no accident.

The fact is that climate models have been very successful at making predictions:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm



No matter how many scientists believe as you do, consensus does not equal truth.

If most umpires on the spot think the pitcher threw a strike, he almost certainly threw a strike. If most doctors examining a blood test see high levels of cholesterol, the patient almost certainly has high cholesterol. If the vast majority of geologists looking at the evidence think South America and Africa were once part of the same continent, South America and Africa were almost certainly once part of the same continent. If the vast majority of biologists looking at the evidence think humans and chimps shared a common ancestor thousands of years ago, humans and chimps almost certainly shared a common ancestor thousands of years ago.

None of these are certainties. They are just high probabilities of truth.

There, you just got a lesson in epistemology. You probably don't know what that word even means.

6. You drank the Kool-Aid. I didn't.

A more blatant case of projection couldn't be produced if I tried.

You cherry pick scholars advocating utterly fringe positions their peers have vehemently rejected and ignore what the vast majority of climate scientists believe, concentrating on right wing propaganda sites rather than respected scientific sources that don't have political axes to grind.

You do so for purely ideological reasons and exercise zero critical thinking skills. This is why, for example, you fell for the ridiculous myth that global cooling was ever a concern in the scientific community. No one with an ounce of scientific education would have made such a dumb assertion.

Education–you need it. You'll never get it.
expand
Thanks for that cute little meltdown that I predicted.
You cherry pick scholars advocating utterly fringe positions their peers have vehemently rejected
That's a total lie.
concentrating on right wing propaganda sites
Another lie. Have you no shame?
you are forced to lie about climate models being inaccurate, continuing your pattern of utter desperation.
The fact that you say climate models haven't been inaccurate doesn't wash. They have been shown to be inaccurate and have produced flawed results and predictions many times.
1. Climate models used by government agencies to create policies β€œhave failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models β€œhave over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

2. Therefore it follows that is the reason climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.
You really stepped in it with this one:
If most umpires on the spot think the pitcher threw a strike, he almost certainly threw a strike.
Balls and strikes are observable on recorded footage. You want to compare that to your beliefs about the infallibility of climate models and whether they have been proven correct or will prove correct in the future?

Apples and oranges.

You and your climate change sheeple scientists cannot predict the future of the earth's climate accurately.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

It's your desperation.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

BasicTruths said... Thanks for that cute little meltdown that I predicted.
You cherry pick scholars advocating utterly fringe positions their peers have vehemently rejected
That's a total lie.
concentrating on right wing propaganda sites
Another lie. Have you no shame?
you are forced to lie about climate models being inaccurate, continuing your pattern of utter desperation.
The fact that you say climate models haven't been inaccurate doesn't wash. They have been shown to be inaccurate and have produced flawed results and predictions many times.
1. Climate models used by government agencies to create policies β€œhave failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models β€œhave over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

2. Therefore it follows that is the reason climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.
You really stepped in it with this one:
If most umpires on the spot think the pitcher threw a strike, he almost certainly threw a strike.
Balls and strikes are observable on recorded footage. You want to compare that to your beliefs about the infallibility of climate models and whether they have been proven correct or will prove correct in the future?

Apples and oranges.

You and your climate change sheeple scientists cannot predict the future of the earth's climate accurately.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

It's your desperation.
expand
You can't back up your bullshit with sources published in respected scientific journals, precisely because it is bullshit.

My position reflects verified, uncontroversial objective reality, thus I've been able to back up everything I say with citations to literally hundreds of reputable scientific sources.

The contrast could not be more stark.

Case closed.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

MagneticMonopole said... You can't back up your bullshit with sources published in respected scientific journals, precisely because it is bullshit.

My position reflects verified, uncontroversial objective reality, thus I've been able to back up everything I say with citations to literally hundreds of reputable scientific sources.

The contrast could not be more stark.

Case closed.
expand
Still mad, bro?

Citations and consensus are not "verified, uncontroversial objective reality" no matter how many times you claim they are.

You cannot predict the future and climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.










https://skepticalscience.com/

Still hilarious. Love the Cranky Uncle.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

BasicTruths said... Still mad, bro?

Citations and consensus are not "verified, uncontroversial objective reality" no matter how many times you claim they are.

You cannot predict the future and climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.










https://skepticalscience.com/

Still hilarious. Love the Cranky Uncle.

expand
Citations and consensus are not "verified, uncontroversial objective reality" no matter how many times you claim they are.

Literally the only way of assessing the nature of objective physical reality is to see what the current consensus is among experts in a scientific field, shit for brains.

You are on the losing side. Case closed.

You cannot predict the future and climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.

As my source has demonstrated with a wealth of citations to the actual data, this is a lie.

You are on the losing side. Case closed.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

MagneticMonopole said...
Citations and consensus are not "verified, uncontroversial objective reality" no matter how many times you claim they are.

Literally the only way of assessing the nature of objective physical reality is to see what the current consensus is among experts in a scientific field, shit for brains.

You are on the losing side. Case closed.

You cannot predict the future and climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.

As my source has demonstrated with a wealth of citations to the actual data, this is a lie.

You are on the losing side. Case closed.
expand
Yes, the case is closed in your literally defective little brain.

But as anyone with a logical, reasoned mind knows, you can't tell the future and climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.

And lest you forget:
Citations and consensus are not "verified, uncontroversial objective reality" no matter how many times you claim they are.
Do you drive an EV?

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

BasicTruths said... Yes, the case is closed in your literally defective little brain.

But as anyone with a logical, reasoned mind knows, you can't tell the future and climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.

And lest you forget:
Citations and consensus are not "verified, uncontroversial objective reality" no matter how many times you claim they are.
Do you drive an EV?
expand
Feel free to have the last word, because I won this argument a long time ago and I'm done dealing with your stupid, delusional ass. If you have to keep lying over and over, you've literally got nothing. Bye bye.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

MagneticMonopole said... Feel free to have the last word, because I won this argument a long time ago and I'm done dealing with your stupid, delusional ass. If you have to keep lying over and over, you've literally got nothing. Bye bye.
expand
Feel free to have the last word, because I won this argument a long time ago and I'm done dealing with your stupid, delusional ass. If you have to keep lying over and over, you've literally got nothing. Bye bye.
I accept your full and complete admission of defeat.

You won nothing. Talk about delusion.

Everyone knows you can't predict the future of the earth's climate and climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.
Do you drive an EV?
That question scared you off, huh?

Could that be because you're not a team player on TEAM GREEN?

Could it be that you're just a virtue signalling poser who wants everyone else to suffer so you can live your life unconcerned about polluting the planet?

How big is your carbon footprint?

You're a big joke here thanks to your losing to logic and reason.
Citations and consensus are not "verified, uncontroversial objective reality" no matter how many times you claim they are.
I bet you wish you'd never opened your big, fat mouth in this thread.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

BasicTruths said...
Feel free to have the last word, because I won this argument a long time ago and I'm done dealing with your stupid, delusional ass. If you have to keep lying over and over, you've literally got nothing. Bye bye.
I accept your full and complete admission of defeat.

You won nothing. Talk about delusion.

Everyone knows you can't predict the future of the earth's climate and climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.
Do you drive an EV?
That question scared you off, huh?

Could that be because you're not a team player on TEAM GREEN?

Could it be that you're just a virtue signalling poser who wants everyone else to suffer so you can live your life unconcerned about polluting the planet?

How big is your carbon footprint?

You're a big joke here thanks to your losing to logic and reason.
Citations and consensus are not "verified, uncontroversial objective reality" no matter how many times you claim they are.
I bet you wish you'd never opened your big, fat mouth in this thread.

expand
Could that be because you're not a team player on TEAM GREEN?

Never owned a car, never will. Walking, biking, public transportation, and the occasional rideshare serve all my needs just fine.

This is a minor, virtually meaningless personal sacrifice, not anything like the kind of systemic solution which will be necessary to prevent the coming catastrophe.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

MagneticMonopole said...
Could that be because you're not a team player on TEAM GREEN?

Never owned a car, never will. Walking, biking, public transportation, and the occasional rideshare serve all my needs just fine.

This is a minor, virtually meaningless personal sacrifice, not anything like the kind of systemic solution which will be necessary to prevent the coming catastrophe.
expand
Well, then you must live relatively close to everywhere you need to travel. How convenient and quaint for you.

If you are even being truthful.
systemic solution which will be necessary to prevent the coming catastrophe
Okay, Chicken Little. Calm down before you pop a vein in your neck. You must find it hard to get to sleep at night with these thoughts swimming in your head.

Remember when you said, "scientists have been overwhelmingly telling us that we need to stop using energy sources like coal and oil and transition to clean energy. Not doing so immediately and extensively is going to cost us much, much more in the long run than any costs we incur up front" earlier?

Nutjobs like you don't seem to understand how ridiculous "not doing so immediately and extensively" is.

I'm sure you've seen the parade of lefty virtue signalers espousing the view that if people would "transition to clean energy," they wouldn't have to be concerned with rising gasoline prices.

They're all completely tone deaf given the fact it would be decades before even 50% of people who need cars to get to work, etc. could buy EVs. If they could even afford them.

So by your thinking, the "coming catastrophe" is a certainty.

No, it's not.
Citations and consensus are not "verified, uncontroversial objective reality" no matter how many times you claim they are.

You cannot predict the future and climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.

I accept your full and complete admission of defeat again.

Good job, Uncle Cranky.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

BasicTruths said... Well, then you must live relatively close to everywhere you need to travel. How convenient and quaint for you.

If you are even being truthful.
systemic solution which will be necessary to prevent the coming catastrophe
Okay, Chicken Little. Calm down before you pop a vein in your neck. You must find it hard to get to sleep at night with these thoughts swimming in your head.

Remember when you said, "scientists have been overwhelmingly telling us that we need to stop using energy sources like coal and oil and transition to clean energy. Not doing so immediately and extensively is going to cost us much, much more in the long run than any costs we incur up front" earlier?

Nutjobs like you don't seem to understand how ridiculous "not doing so immediately and extensively" is.

I'm sure you've seen the parade of lefty virtue signalers espousing the view that if people would "transition to clean energy," they wouldn't have to be concerned with rising gasoline prices.

They're all completely tone deaf given the fact it would be decades before even 50% of people who need cars to get to work, etc. could buy EVs. If they could even afford them.

So by your thinking, the "coming catastrophe" is a certainty.

No, it's not.
Citations and consensus are not "verified, uncontroversial objective reality" no matter how many times you claim they are.

You cannot predict the future and climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.

I accept your full and complete admission of defeat again.

Good job, Uncle Cranky.
expand
Is that Monopole? I've had to put him on ignore. He's depressingly indoctrinated and no amount of reason could ever find it's way through. Just block him and save yourself the wasted effort.

Check my block list because you're probably on it.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Rittenhouse The Righteous said... Is that Monopole? I've had to put him on ignore. He's depressingly indoctrinated and no amount of reason could ever find it's way through. Just block him and save yourself the wasted effort.
expand
Oh, yeah. You should unblock him and read some of the hilarious moronic bilge he pushed in this thread. Like "coming catastrophe" to try to scare everyone and justify his support of Biden undoing all the things Trump did to make us energy independent and keep gas prices reasonable.

I tried to tell him it's dumb to say we have to drastically reduce oil-based fuel consumption immediately before alternate fuels are ready, widely available, and affordable, but he couldn't see the logic in that. I was not surprised, given his typical crazed greenie track record.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

BasicTruths said... Oh, yeah. You should unblock him and read some of the hilarious moronic bilge he pushed in this thread. Like "coming catastrophe" to try to scare everyone and justify his support of Biden undoing all the things Trump did to make us energy independent and keep gas prices reasonable.

I tried to tell him it's dumb to say we have to drastically reduce oil-based fuel consumption immediately before alternate fuels are ready, widely available, and affordable, but he couldn't see the logic in that. I was not surprised, given his typical crazed greenie track record.
expand
Like "coming catastrophe" to try to scare everyone and justify his support of Biden undoing all the things Trump did to make us energy independent and keep gas prices reasonable.

It's like your goal in life is to demonstrate what a completely uneducated, out of touch dumb fuck you are as often as possible.

Energy independence? The USA is the highest producer of oil and natural gas on the entire planet, shit for brains. Literally the only reason we have to import any at all is that we allow greedy energy companies to own and sell the stuff in the manner of their choosing. Which leads us to. . .

Reasonable gas prices? That again is in the hands of gas companies and their greed, not the government. They could lower gas prices and still make bank. They are simply taking advantage of the situation to increase their profits.

You are really quite unbelievably pathetic, and sorely in need of an education that you are too brainwashed to ever learn from.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

MagneticMonopole said...
Like "coming catastrophe" to try to scare everyone and justify his support of Biden undoing all the things Trump did to make us energy independent and keep gas prices reasonable.

It's like your goal in life is to demonstrate what a completely uneducated, out of touch dumb fuck you are as often as possible.

Energy independence? The USA is the highest producer of oil and natural gas on the entire planet, shit for brains. Literally the only reason we have to import any at all is that we allow greedy energy companies to own and sell the stuff in the manner of their choosing. Which leads us to. . .

Reasonable gas prices? That again is in the hands of gas companies and their greed, not the government. They could lower gas prices and still make bank. They are simply taking advantage of the situation to increase their profits.

You are really quite unbelievably pathetic, and sorely in need of an education that you are too brainwashed to ever learn from.
expand
Somebody's mad again, bro. That's what happens when you get mocked for having illogical, unreasoned positions about global climate and claim you can predict the future.
It's like your goal in life is to demonstrate what a completely uneducated, out of touch dumb fuck you are as often as possible.
This is you talking about yourself, except for the fact that you aren't completely uneducated.

You were wrongly educated by crazed climate alarmist freaks. When did you get this so-called education, Uncle Cranky? I'm interested in when this calamity occurred.

Do you teach at the university level?

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

BasicTruths said... Oh, yeah. You should unblock him and read some of the hilarious moronic bilge he pushed in this thread. Like "coming catastrophe" to try to scare everyone and justify his support of Biden undoing all the things Trump did to make us energy independent and keep gas prices reasonable.

I tried to tell him it's dumb to say we have to drastically reduce oil-based fuel consumption immediately before alternate fuels are ready, widely available, and affordable, but he couldn't see the logic in that. I was not surprised, given his typical crazed greenie track record.
expand
he couldn't see the logic…
Which is why he's on block. He's too far gone to reason with.

Check my block list because you're probably on it.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Rittenhouse The Righteous said...
he couldn't see the logic…
Which is why he's on block. He's too far gone to reason with.
expand
You're right, I know he's unlikely to budge.

But he provides an education for everyone in how a crackpot lefty acts when he tries to defend his illogical and unsupportable views when they are confronted with logic and reason.

He hasn't been able to come up with a valid response to –
Citations and consensus are not "verified, uncontroversial objective reality" no matter how many times you claim they are.

You cannot predict the future and climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Magnetic Moronpole is a numpty and full of hollow and inane rhetoric that like most on the moronic left, operate from emotion and delusion, than facts and logic.

He isn't capable of assimilating the truth you have spoken. At least you tired, but he will just rebuff and go into denial on everything you tell him.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

πŸ¦” πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Monotreme is an idiot on so many levels that I still think he's a conservative trying to make lefties look loony.

[center] [hr] [poll multiple] [s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u]  

πŸ¦” πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

As I've said before, to have an absolute crackpot and utter lunatic like you against me is a badge of honor and a sure sign that I'm on the side objective reality.

Thanks once again for the reassurance.

πŸ¦” πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

As I've said before, to have an absolute crackpot and utter lunatic like you against me is a badge of honor and a sure sign that I'm on the side objective reality.

Thanks once again for the reassurance.
No, it's not a badge of honor. Maybe in your mind, but that's pathetic. Is that your version of giving yourself a participation trophy?

Trying to gaslight someone you're discussing an issue with while name calling is shameful and disgusting. It indicates desperation as well.

Find something you're good at and do that. You aren't doing yourself any favors here.

πŸ¦” πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

To avoid name calling, Monotreme is not one of those ugly Australian πŸ¦” animals who lays her eggs through her asshole. It's just a portmanteau of MONOpole + exTREME.

[center] [hr] [poll multiple] [s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u]  

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

"The stupidity of cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline and drilling for oil on federal lands is Biden getting on his knees for the progressive left and it has assured that we are now dependent on oil from outside the U.S. and are seeing crude go for $100+ per gallon. Prices on everything are rising because gas and diesel are necessary for moving commerce. Products we use everyday are made from petroleum."

If you are blaming Biden for the rising gas prices then show articles that back that up.
If you cannot then you are just spewing the same old blame bullshit.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

If you are blaming Biden for the rising gas prices then show articles that back that up.
He's the president and he gets credit for everything bad that has happened because of that stack of executive orders he signed on day one.

Do you not agree that:

1. we are now dependent on oil from outside the U.S. and are seeing crude go for $100+ per gallon

2. Prices on everything are rising because gas and diesel are necessary for moving commerce

3. Products we use everyday are made from petroleum

You can scream "prove it or Biden didn't cause it" 24/7, but most thinking people know it has all happened because of Biden's ill-considered policy decisions.

Or more accurately, the progressive left's policies they put in front of him to sign.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Those who are not on the Biden Bandwagon will be quick to blame him for when things go wrong, in this case we are discussing the rise of the price of gas.
But how factual is that really, is what I am asking?

It looks like you are basing your ideas on logic and common sense but not really on any fact checking, which is what I will believe since those who write articles about it did their homework.
From what I found and read, it looks like oil economics is not as simple as it seems.
It is a complicated system with a lot of steps that effect prices and it really does take away the Biden blame.
You can read about the various factors here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/why-gas-prices-high-when-will-back-down-rcna28314

To simplify, it all comes down to supply and demand of which the Covid Pandemic has an impact.

Is Biden really to blame?

Not yet. American presidents have little control over fuel markets. Petroleum products are global commodities and their prices are dictated by supply and demand. A president’s policies can and do eventually influence market trends, but the actions Biden has taken since he took office last year β€” such as blocking permits for the Keystone XL Pipeline and canceling an offshore oil lease sale β€” aren’t yet part of the calculus.

So why, then, are prices so high?

Prices are high because supplies are tight and demand is high. Fuel demand has rebounded to pre-pandemic levels at a time when the Ukraine war is tightening the screws, pushing oil and refined products from Russia β€” a major world exporter β€” from the market. The interplay between the loss of Russian supply and recovering post-pandemic economies is putting pressure on producers and refiners everywhere to step up to the plate and increase their output.

But COVID-19 changed the way they do business, making the increase difficult.

What does COVID have to do with it?

A lot. Fuel demand tanked when the pandemic hit, hammering refineries and oil producers as prices fell to record lows. To weather the storm, they laid off workers, wound down rigs and shuttered refineries. Oil producers have increased drilling hesitantly in response to rebounding fuel demand as they are eager to prove to investors, who are still weary from many oil booms and busts, that they can be financially disciplined and return profits to shareholders. They also face pandemic-induced labor and supply chain constraints making it harder to ramp up production.


Still, production has increased and Biden is making historic withdrawals from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ease tight oil supplies. But diminished refining capacity is now the bottleneck, pushing up gasoline and diesel prices even as crude stocks rise.

We can’t really blame Biden for that, either. There hasn’t been a new refinery built in decades. The world has lost 3 million barrels per day of refining capacity since the start of the pandemic, including 1 million barrels per day in the United States β€” a reckoning forced by mounting costs and declining prospects for gasoline as automakers accelerate the transition to electric vehicles. Now, the remaining refineries are maxed out as fuel demand soars.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/What-does-Joe-Biden-have-to-do-with-high-fuel-17178609.php

You can disagree with this all you want to just so you can keep on blaming Biden but this shows you would be wrong in doing so.
And from what I have heard, gas prices are going up in other parts of the world too which also shows that Biden isn't to blame.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Leftist propaganda. ^
this shows you would be wrong in doing so
No, it doesn't show that at all.

I've seen all of that you posted. Lap it up and go about your life if you must, but it's nonsense. Biden's policies have at LEAST helped get fuel prices rising higher and faster than if he had not been elected.

He is indeed beholden to the far left progs and one of his rewards to that contingent was the death of the XL Pipeline. That put Canadian crude in tanker trucks and railroad tanker cars; slower, more expensive, and as an example shortsighted thinking, MORE POLLUTING.

Suck on that, Veganboy.

My password is password

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

You're not playing by the rules.

The rules are:

1. Anything bad that happened during Trump's presidency was directly attributable to him.

2. Anything good that happened under Trump's presidency was directly attributable to Obama

3. Anything bad that happens during Biden's presidency is directly attributable to Trump and his mishandling of COVID and international relations.

4. Anything good that happens under Biden's presidency is directly attributable to him and the Dems.

Obviously we're still waiting for the good shit. I guess we'll have to vote for him again in 2024 to ever see any of that.

Check my block list because you're probably on it.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

So good. Well done, sir.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

That's because he's a DUMB SHIT with dementia who's doing the bidding of the Radical Leftists!



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🀨 Let's go, Brandon! 🀨 Try that in a small town.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Quit having a Donald Tantrump!

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

For the sake of discussion suppose that 9,999 of those guns killed innocent neighbors and not Russian soldiers.
Would the left be outcrying against those guns or easily forgive them and just chalk it up to accidental shootings?

I dunno what is going to make those civilians any more trustworthy with a gun than old neighbor Billy Bob right here in the USA.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

I suppose you believe these people should defend themselves and their country from Russian soldiers with mop handles and shovels.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

I guess you never saw a Jackie Chan movie where he defended himself with those things?

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Thousands of Ukranians will very likely be slaughtered in the coming days and weeks and you're trying to be comical. Good job, dumbass.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

I am not being comical.
i am serious brah!

Check this out!
All we gotta do is get this to as many Ukes as possible and teach them the Jackie Chan Way of Fighting with Everyday Objects.
Take note of what he does with the table and ladder!
And see how it ends on a peaceful way?
That is what will happen!
The Russians will flee and it will be a peaceful end!



"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

You're trying to be funny, but as usual you're failing hard.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Yep! Really hard!



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🀨 Let's go, Brandon! 🀨 Try that in a small town.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

One of your DUMBEST posts you've ever made, bro! You should be embarrassed. I'm even embarrassed for you.



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🀨 Let's go, Brandon! 🀨 Try that in a small town.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🀨 Let's go, Brandon! 🀨 Try that in a small town.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

No. Actually he thinks they should surrender, because he's a cheese eating surrender monkey! He doesn't think anything is worth fighting or dying for.


ab_channel=stefant75




😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🀨 Let's go, Brandon! 🀨 Try that in a small town.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🀨 Let's go, Brandon! 🀨 Try that in a small town.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£



Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🀨 Let's go, Brandon! 🀨 Try that in a small town.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

Right now, I think that the people that really need Education are all of the people here in the U.S. that are supporting Vladimir Putin and Russia's Invasion of Ukraine.

Re: πŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£β˜‘οΈ Education for LEFTIES! β˜‘οΈπŸ—£πŸ—£πŸ—£

β–² Top