The religion of climate change.

See already you are doubling down without actually being able to post any data or evidence. You can only fool yourself. Now should you actually have evidence that might be better posted than just unsubstantiated babble.

 

I am not here to hold your hand. Do something yourself for a change. Your lack of knowledge and lack of curiosity isn’t my problem.

 

Just admit you made it up and move on. No way I can possibly do enough research to prove your falsehood. Now if you want to post the name of your favorite AGW denier I will be happy to research his funding.

 

Sorry you are uneducated on the issue. Not my problem.

 

one of the primary tactics of deniers is NEVER produce evidence of their claims. Insist on all kinds of increasing detailed dispositive evidence but NEVER produce anything of substance themselves.

 

CO2 does "damage" the environment via global warming though. Just because the damage occurs in a different guise that what you're used to doesn't mean it doesn't do damage. We remediate (or at least lessen the damage) by reducing the amount of it that we release into the atmosphere.

Again, if discouraging fossil fuel use is morally objectionable to you then there are alternatives. We could scrub it out of the atmosphere if you think that's more agreeable. You're still left with the problem of having an economic model that is dependent on a resource that is at risk of supply chain disruptions (think the oil embargo of the 70's) and which is unsustainable long term (ya know...because it'll run out).

I'm not seeing how granting one group of people the right to own property or engage in a behavior would be effective long term nevermind it being fair. Sure, you might be able to alter the behaviors of the group you are targeting in the short term, but that's likely going to come back and bite you in the long term. History tells us that the more a society divides itself into factions the more tyrannical and oppressive it becomes. Eventually the oppressed revolt. Nevermind, that this is a tragedy of the commons problem that requires participation from everyone; not just the ones a tyrannical government wants to oppress.

Why can't both the blue and the red retain the right to own either EV or ICE based transportation property of their choosing?

Just to be clear...I'm not proposing one set of rules for the blue team and another for the red team. That doesn't make any sense nor is it fair.

For example, in my state a person can own a vehicle and drive it on roads as long as they can demonstrate they are capable of doing so safely, pay their property taxes, pay their gas taxes, have valid insurance, etc. It doesn't matter if your from the blue team or the red team. Everybody plays by the same set of rules. The system is effective and works quite well.

 

Eleven Years Of Arctic Sea Ice Thickening

 

And just to steer this thread back on topic I want to remind people that...

Religion is the belief in something based on faith.

Science is the belief in something based on evidence.

The belief that anthroprogenic behaviors can influence the climate is based on observation, experiment, and an abundance evidence.

The belief that anthroprogenic behaviors do not influence the climate is based on hope and faith.

 

Not quite true.

The belief that anthropological behavior influences climate is based on correct and proven first principles applied possibly erroneously to a non linear chaotic system through unverifiable computer models.

The belief that anthropological behavior does not influence the climate (or not as much as the alarmists claim) is based on actual observable science compared to the model output and the alarmist claims.

 

So are you calling an end to Arctic sea ice volume declines?

Here's another view of the same data. This reminds me of the 1998 - 2012 lower troposphere warming hiatus.



In addition to volume we should also look at extents. Extents are more important anyway because that is what modulates albedo.

 

AGW is not based on computer models. It's actually based on molecular physics.

Which observation do you feel is the smoking gun that proves humans aren't the cause?

On the flip side, can you provide a narrative that explains away the real smoking gun which is the warming of the troposphere and hydrosphere simultaneous with the cooling stratosphere?

 

Doctrine comprised of ideas held in common which are no longer subject to testing.

 

Doncha know? Doncha even know? We are already supposed to be ice free by now? Our children will no longer know what snow is? LOL

 

AGW is based on proven first principles applied, and possibly applied erroneously, to a non-linear chaotic environment. The alarmist predictions are based on the least likely computer model, RCP8.5. So far there is no anthropological fingerprint in sea level rise which is the most influential to affect the human condition. There is no indication of the rise in any tide gauge predicted based on computer models.

All of the political machinations are based on the hysterics of computer models as stated above. There is no observed science that backs up the hysteria because actual observed science falls either at the bottom of the computer predictions or below the lowest.

Listening to the media will be no help because they buy into the hysteria.

 

Yes we know.

 

There is no rise in sea level. Care to post your actual source for that bit of science. Perhaps right after you post your evidence that the climate scientist throughout the world are on the US gov't payroll.

 

There has been a continuous rise since the end of the Little Ice Age and since tide gauges have been used, it has not changed. The computer models predict a rise that is not evident based on the CO2 hypothesis.

Are you not aware of the science?

 

Why are you unable to actually post data. Let us guess?

https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise

 

I'm sorry, but that's not correct. The IPCC doesn't think the Arctic will be ice free until 2050 at the earliest. And that's down from 2100 which was their first prediction in the 1990's. In fact, the IPCC has an embarrassing history of underestimating the sea ice declines in the Arctic region. For example, in 2001 they predicted it would be at least 2040 before sea ice declines hit 15%. It actually occurred in 2007 which is 33 years and 6x faster than they expected.

 

The problem true believers have is the same problem believers have always had. It seems so obvious just like it seemed obvious that the Sun and Moon orbited the Earth as well as all the stars in the universe. No evidence to the contrary is ever good enough because it is so obvious.

Ice ages came and went long before anything alive crawled on the surface. Great floods and hurricanes swept the globe when there was not so much as a camp fire. Man developed technology and populations prospered but the technology is meager compared to the dynamic forces that hold sway on the planet as they have for billions of years.

The absurd proof presented to panic the masses is based on prejudiced information that gauges effects covering a split second in the Earth's total existence. It's the same old story, same old song and dance; the politics of religion.

Environmentalism is the new kid on the block but it's same block with a different church at the
end of the street. You better get in line because the Hell and damnation you threaten will not be tolerated.

 

my heart leaps.

 

No, the UN doesn't transfer trillions of dollars from developed to developing countries, thats simply not true. I never mentioned transferring trillions to developing countries and isn't part of my approach at all. Also the UN would need to actually get funded by these carbon taxes, rather than just transferring them to other countries, for it to have any real selfish motivation.

A carbon tax makes sense because we want to discourage and reduce CO2 emissions without exercising heavy-handed government rationing or bans that can greatly damage and over-regulate the economy. The carbon tax can be used for foreign aid to developing nation or for the UN, but these taxes have been used by European nations to fund existing government programs in the countries themselves.

And as for slave/child labor, the real solution is to stop the immoral labor because rare minerals are used for a lot more than green energy, and immoral labor is used for a lot more than just rare minerals. And you yourself have probably bought something that used some kind of immoral labor so maybe you should be directing your criticisms at yourself first.

 

Well, all I can say then is you aren't either paying attention, or just lying about being informed about the actual intents here.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/10...ge-fund-would-transfer-the-wealth-of-nations/
"Climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020. The goal of this fund: to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris agreement."

Umm... you are using the heavy hand of government to transfer the wealth of nations. Clearly, this won't reduce the CO2 footprint. In fact, because of the development dollars moving to those developing nations, the footprint expands. Exponentially. It must. And will.

I bet you say the same thing about the undocumented folks doing your lawn... Well, the other folks do it too...... Typical.

 

If you did any research into the green climate fund, its only going to get about 100 billion by 2020 not trillions. Also its completely voluntary and has only about 10 billion pledged with no sign that the US or anyone else is actually going to donate that amount. This is more of an unfunded charity than an evil global organization. And the fund is only to be used for developing countries to adapt to and mitigate climate change, not to benefit the UN itself. Developing countries have the most to lose from climate change and trying to move from oil, and their cooperation is needed to curb CO2 usage.

Again, I never said anything about the redistribution of wealth. I'd cut other taxes that impact the same income groups to make the carbon tax. Also, when it comes to child labor, you are benefiting from this labor like the rest of us, so I don't see why you are attacking everyone else from benefiting it. In addition child labor isn't all bad because in developing nations, child labor is voluntary and helps them support their families.