rejection of climate change theory closely linked to conspiracy ideation

Thanks I will ride the binary code over there again ~

rv

 

How much thermal radiation can hydrocarbons block? Like most warmmongers you are clueless on the actual science that AGW is based on. Read about Plass and spectral broadening and then come back and talk.

The truth is that it is far more compliaced than you think. Anyone who told you that it is as simple as CO2 blocks thermal radiation is lying to you becuase they think you are stupid enough to fall for it.

#1 CO2 has limited bands where it blocks IR.
#2 Those bands saturate at about 10 meters.
#3 AGW theory hinges on the theory that at higher altitudes CO2 undergoes substantial spectral broadening increasing the IR absorption of CO2. While spectral broadening is an observed and poorly understood phenomenon with some gasses the degree to which it does occur simply theory and unable to be proven in any laboratory experiment.

There are other planks of AGW theory that are equally unprovable such as the earth having a net positive feedback. Which is highly unlikely as such a system is unstable and wouldn't' last a billion years.

 

Shouldn't those papers be judged by their own internal merit and not off of who wrote or published them? Global warming proponents sound less like scientists each time I read anything from them.

 

Who said they were not judged on internal merit? Do you have a problem with the paper's methodology or who wrote them? Is there evidence of bias? Is there evidence of statistical manipulation?

Global warming denialists sound less like scientists than a second grade kid with a failing grade in reading comprehension - see I can make sweeping generalisations too!!

 

Why are we willing to waste the Peoples' time and money merely playing shell games with Statism, instead of actually providing recourse to better infrastructure that can improve our standard of living regardless of climate change?

 

Because statism has always been the goal. Global warming was always just a question to an answer not an answer to a question. The answer has always been statism. It was the question that the wackos have always been looking for. Had it not been global warming it would have been some other issue that could be spun to necessitate statism.

 

Who's goal is 'statism'?

 

Just about everyone on this forum and in the world who argues for more government. Its called confirmation bias.

Now stop trolling.

 

Only our federal Congress is delegated the Power to put words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our republic.

In my opinion, merely playing shell games with Statism does nothing to actually solve our current social dilemmas in our objective and market based reality.

Promoting the general welfare could involve utilizing natural public sector monopolies and harnessing them into public sector means of production.

 

So do you believe that those who oppose more government are not inflicted with 'confirmation bias'?

It depends on why people argue for more government...right?

Arguing to rid the rampant crime from their neighborhoods should be acceptable...right?

Arguing the government should create 10 million middle-class jobs is not acceptable...right?

Why do tens of millions of Americans believe the government can solve all their problems? Because the people voted into public office imply the government can do these things. I'll bet these same people applauded when they heard Obama say he would cut the deficit in half in his first four years, yet these same people would also cry foul if the government actually tried to cut the deficit in half.

Many of these same people want their government to pay attention to global climate change potential and to protect them from any evils. But again these same people will cry foul when asked to sacrifice or pay a dime towards this effort.

BTW; my response to your post is not 'trolling'...

 

Not everyone agrees that FDR's socialism ended the Great Depression; but no one questions that it was the relative communism of our wartime economy that finally ended it.

 

To quote the best

Whet ended the depression was men coming home with a desire to better themselves. To get a good job, start a business, start their family and put everything they had seen and lived through behind them. You cant see the human element because people to you are just statistics.

 

Rhyme without reason is not very conducive to a good argument.

 

Its absolutely reasonable. For everyone at home there was no prosperity. Everything was rationed and all production was going into non-consumer goods.



What people don't remember is that after the war the economy went into a brief recession. What kept the economy driving through the 50s wasn't communism but the drive of the American people. All those men came home with dreams and they strived to realize those dreams. That is how you get economic prosperity.

I want plans by the many not plans by the few.


The people's cries for freedom makes the statist panic
as the statisits says economy needs an mechanic.
Put down the wrench the economy is organic.

 

It could be called, relative prosperity, because the Great Depression ended and more people were working, even if only toward the war effort.