Proved: There is no climate crisis

[stephenhawkings]

I can. And they show much of the northern hemisphere covered in ice. Way more than it currently is. So if anything we should be enjoying this warm spell we have been having for the last couple thousand (or million) years.

 

Peace and Blessings

actual temp readings, speculation wasn't what i was talking about

[NickF1011]

actual temp readings, speculation wasn't what i was talking about

 

So now it's just speculation that there was an ice age?

[Savetheplanet]

While you guys are here on BON trying to debunk ACC, (the debate was over a long time ago, you lost) the rest of the developed world is moving forward.The signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is, as far as I can recall, by far the biggest victoryby an American President in his first month in office. Environmentally, the bill is the most important piece of legislative support for clean energy ever adopted. Its provisions include $80 billion for a wide variety of environmental programs. The President, before he signed it in Denver, visited a solar-energy manufacturing facility.

 

In addition to directly funded investments, the bill also contains important, if little commented on, incentives to industry, states, and local government to go even further. Some of the second-year funding for energy efficiency, for example, is contingent on states following California's lead in giving their public utilities as much incentive to save energy as to increase electricity generation.

 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, in a letter to the Sierra Club, made it clear that the administration will move forward to comply with the Supreme Court ruling that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that EPA must regulate under the Clean Air Act. And only days earlier, the administration also set in motion the process to grant California its clean-car waiver, which will enable at least fifteen other states to join California in reducing CO2 emissions from motor vehicles by almost twice what Congress mandated in the fall of 2007. Combined with the federal role in restructuring the auto industry, the U.S. is now on a pathway to decarbonize personal transportation -- a goal the Sierra Club has pursued for thirty long, lonely years since Congress first mandated fuel-efficiency standards for Detroit.

 

The decisions to grant the California waiver and to begin the process of regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act represent quick victories for half of the Sierra Club's suggested "Clean Slate" agenda for the Obama administration. Two other Clean Slate goals -- protection of streams and communities from mountain removal mining and ambitious short-term goals for an economy-wide climate bill -- remain to be accomplished as the administration and Congress move forward.

 

, the Sierra Club rolled up major state and local victories in its campaign to stop new coal-fired power plants. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm announced a statewide moratorium on new coal-fired plants, an enormous step forward since Michigan was the proposed site of more new coal plants than any other state -- eight plants.

 

By the end of this month, the Sierra Club's three-year-old campaign against new coal plants will have stopped 93 plants -- almost two-thirds of the way to our goal.

[Trimdingman]

So your saying the rich should just keep getting richer. How does everyone paying the same percentage without a cap turn into communism. I didn't say anything about giving money away to people who did not earn it. I said the tax cap is not fair.

 

Tax is not fair. Tax is supposed to pay for things that we own jointly, like the armed forces and roads. If I buy a loaf of bread, I pay the same for it as the rich person. Why should it be any different for tax? I would rather see someone keep his own money than have the government take it away from him. I certainly don't want someone else's money. If you are capable of taking care of yourself, why do you need to rob someone because he happens to be rich. Where is all that tax money going if most everybody doesn't need it? It is going to pay people to do useless "jobs" so that they can drag down the economy enough to create a "need" for government assistance. Now people believe that the government is their master. We are supposed to control the government, but now it has gotten way too big for its britches. We don't need this much government. If the wasted tax money was given back to the people, everybody would be either rich or very well paid for working. Nobody would be poor.

Edited February 21, 2009 by Trimdingman

[rn4]

Tax is not fair. Tax is supposed to pay for things that we own jointly, like the armed forces and roads. If I buy a loaf of bread, I pay the same for it as the rich person. Why should it be any different for tax? I would rather see someone keep his own money than have the government take it away from him. I certainly don't want someone else's money. If you are capable of taking care of yourself, why do you need to rob someone because he happens to be rich. Where is all that tax money going if most everybody doesn't need it? It is going to pay people to do useless "jobs" so that they can drag down the economy enough to create a "need" for government assistance. Now people believe that the government is their master. We are supposed to control the government, but now it has gotten way too big for its britches. We don't need this much government. If the wasted tax money was given back to the people, everybody would be either rich or very well paid for working. Nobody would be poor.

You don't get it, why should I pay a higher percentage of my income than a person who makes much more than I do. If you want a cap lets make it 200,000 thats 20% of 1,000,000.

[mikem12]

I don't agree with Trim's idea, but he is not saying the rich should just keep getting richer.

 

BUT, I will say the rich WILL keep getting richer, so long as they keep doing the things that made them rich.

 

Just as a poor person, who keeps doing things that keep them poor, will likely remain poor.

 

You don't get rich buying houses you can't afford, fake fingernails, the latest/greatest I-phone you don't need, lottery tickets, new cars every couple of years, carrying high levels of credit card debt, etc.

 

You get rich by being frugal with your money, and spending when you have truly "disposable" income.

 

 

let's see

 

100,000x 20% = 20,000

 

1,000,000 x20% = 200,000

 

how is it the rich are making out.

 

what a bunch of greedy people. Make it fair and equal and you still want more. Since when is it wrong to make money or to have money. And why should they be punished for it. This sounds just like the communist proganda machine of old when they spoke of the US.

 

the flat tax in the best way to go.

Edited February 21, 2009 by mikem12

[napfirst]

We have a MMGW update.....it seems that the Artic Sea ice has been UNDER-ESTIMATED!

LINK

[RangerM]

{deleted text of an Obama-supporting, non-white boy, Jetta TDI-driving, hunter, fisherman, who is anti-coal, pro-gun, listens to Rush Limbaugh, lives in the mountains, expects me to open my wallet and suck the pipe.} explanation here

 

Enjoy it while it lasts, STP.

 

The rest of you can try to conjure up a mental image of the above description.

Edited February 22, 2009 by RangerM

[RangerM]

We have a MMGW update.....it seems that the Artic Sea ice has been UNDER-ESTIMATED!

LINK

 

I think it's important to say WHY the predictions were wrong. Specifically that the equipment used to take the measurements, and base the prediction on was malfunctional.

 

There are too many gremlins and limitations in the technology to make the types of MMGW predictions with the level of certainty required to justify the cost of the policies advocated.

 

It doesn't undo the damage to say "oops" AFTER you've blown your wad.

[RangerM]

let's see

100,000x 20% = 20,000

1,000,000 x20% = 200,000

how is it the rich are making out.

what a bunch of greedy people. Make it fair and equal and you still want more. Since when is it wrong to make money or to have money. And why should they be punished for it. This sounds just like the communist proganda machine of old when they spoke of the US.

 

the flat tax in the best way to go.

 

Trim said, he'd set a flat tax of 20% up to maximum obligation of $5000, which means......

100,000x 20% = 5,000

1,000,000 x20% = 5,000

 

I said I don't agree with that concept.

 

I said I favored the FairTax. Is your argument with the FairTax? If so, what is it? The Flat Tax is still progressive (the more you make, the more you pay), AND it's unavoidable. The FairTax is progressive, but only by virtue of increasing consumption equals increasing taxation.

 

FairTax gives you a choice how much tax you want to pay. Flat tax doesn't.

 

What is your argument with me?

[TomServo92]

Enjoy it while it lasts, STP.

 

The rest of you can try to conjure up a mental image of the above description.

 

Careful....you misquote them and they'll start hurling juvenile insults at you.

[RangerM]

Careful....you misquote them and they'll start hurling juvenile insults at you.

If you're like me, you begin thinking of him as that little stain that just keeps showing up on the Charmin, no matter how many times you've wiped.

 

Oops, too juvenile?

Edited February 22, 2009 by RangerM

[TomServo92]

If you're like me, you begin thinking of him as that little stain that just keeps showing up on the Charmin, no matter how many times you've wiped.

 

Oops, too juvenile?

 

No comment. :shades:

[stephenhawkings]

is this about taxes? or the lacking, or proven climate crisis?

[fmccap]

is this about taxes? or the lacking, or proven climate crisis?

Both!!! You kinds admitted the second part.

[stephenhawkings]

Both!!! You kinds admitted the second part.

i recocken' my kinds (i dont have multiple personality disorder i just ype like it as it is the norm)didnt mention taxes

but i speak the queens english, not my first cousins.

but trim on the other hand may have mentioned the communist femmietaxes

Edited February 22, 2009 by stephenhawkings

[stephenhawkings]

Paper Number 1 disputing the data upon which MMGW is based.

 

Here is a paper outlining the arguments against the CO2 = Warming.

 

Here is a link to several peer-reviewed papers, take your pick.

 

 

When you finish your fun in the lab at school, you can find out these things for yourself.

 

I work in the real world (AND for profit) in environmental consulting.

ok so i read the links you posted

 

the first one speak to measurements discrepancies, and the urban heat island effect and third world countries, and all the wonderful differences that can be attributed to those antics, when you consider than man makes mistakes yeah there is some variation in measurements, but for the most part NOAA is as about as consistent as you can get in its measurements. the urban heat islands are an effect that may taint measurements, but they are a reality as concrete is here to stay and it affects the env. as it doesn't absorb rain and it raises albedo, so as crafty as it is , and wordy too, it falls short of any conclusive evidence that there isn't any actual warming, saying it was only 0.6 degrees, instead of 1.2 degrees, is only minimizing, not eliminating, or reversing.

 

as for the second link i will agree that CO2 isn't the greatest/worst greenhouse gas as methane, CFC's are by far worse, and in the next thousand years or so sure the earth may cool, but some on there is not much meat let alone potatoes in 29 pages, i haven't published a 29page study since my twenty's. the charts and graphs don't have any date or sampling specs on them either, but a nice name to attach harvard.

 

the third link was to some senate web site, now in light of the genius that those on capital hill have exhibited in the recent and distant pass i feel no need to even address that, you can regard that as an article of respect, or condemnation, i'll leave that up to the masses and their own personal interests or bailouts.

when i look at the current state of the EPA, and all the industry interests that are well represented there i can only laugh of any said info presented, its that or i could cry about all the ravishes that our public and has gone through for private interests.

 

I admit your not going to find any quantitative info as we, or i have already determined that there is not another two planets like ours to experiment on in a controlled fashion that is widely accepted and preferred as to eliminate any doubt, but when you consider changes unmatched historically, run away factors, and positive/negative feedback loops, one, one with a mind practicing, and studying the real world and the hard data related to it, can only hope and wonder how soon, or hopefully how far away those hard changwes, and alterations to our global environment will be.

but i am more than certain those little links, and some FOX news tidbits will all but confirm the opinion you already hold firmly that mankind has had no effect on mother nature, nor will we ever, i mean come on hover dam is a good thing, to bad for those species of fish that can't keep up with the invaders.

Edited February 22, 2009 by stephenhawkings

[RangerM]

ok so i read the links you posted

 

the first one speak to measurements discrepancies..........it falls short of any conclusive evidence that there isn't any actual warming, saying it was only 0.6 degrees, instead of 1.2 degrees, is only minimizing, not eliminating, or reversing.

The issue at the heart of all the discussion isn't THAT the Earth is warming, it's a question of percentage change (delta T) and rate of change (delta-squared T). Part of the argument of MMGW is the rate of change being unprecedented. Given that we only have data (which could be labelled dubious), for a brief period of geologic time, it is quite a leap to suggest that the current rate of change is unprecedented. We simply can't prove it, even using the direct measurements we have.

as for the second link i will agree that CO2 isn't the greatest/worst greenhouse gas as methane, CFC's are by far worse....

Methane is appox 25 times worse than CO2, and is currently present in the atmosphere at a concentration of about 1700 parts-per-million (CO2=385). Given that CH4 is 25 times worse, AND it forms CO2 in the atmosphere upon chemical breakdown, why wouldn't we be looking there?

 

Answer: Because it may not be anthropogenic in origin, and would therefore be nothing we can do about it.

(Remember our previous discussion, about the MIT scientists being baffled by MMGW contradictory data?)

 

You said: well the contradiction seams to be where the greenhouse gases are coming from, methane in particular, not in regard to climate change, or that methane levels are rising.

 

Again, I am not saying there is "no climate change", I'm saying it is an unreasonable leap to state that we are the definitive cause.

 

Here's a prediction. With the sudden (and unanticipated) rise in the CH4 levels in the atmosphere, per the MIT scientists, you can expect a sudden rise in CO2 levels within the next year (or 2) when some of that excess CH4 is broken down by the ozone to form CO2.

 

the third link was to some senate web site, now in light of the genius that those on capital hill have exhibited in the recent and distant pass i feel no need to even address that..........

 

......confirm the opinion you already hold firmly that mankind has had no effect on mother nature, nor will we ever, i mean come on hover dam is a good thing, to bad for those species of fish that can't keep up with the invaders.

I don't care about some senator. The bottom of the page contained several links at the bottom to several peer-reviewed paper on the subject. That is what I wanted you to follow, because it's one link providing several others. Sorry for not being more specific.

 

Again, PLEASE PLEASE get your head around this. I'm not saying we have NO effect on the local environment. I'm saying that it isn't proven that we have a profound global effect, as many on the opposite side assert.

Edited February 22, 2009 by RangerM

[Trimdingman]

You don't get it, why should I pay a higher percentage of my income than a person who makes much more than I do. If you want a cap lets make it 200,000 thats 20% of 1,000,000.

 

You don't get it. I can remember a time when I never heard of income tax. Nobody I knew earned enough to pay it. When I learned of it, the notion was so foreign to me that I couldn't believe it.

 

If the poor pay no tax, but they have the same right to vote as the people who pay tax, all the government has to do to gain more and more power is to keep polarizing the population according to how they are taxed. If 50% of the population pay little or no tax, then it is easy to pass legislation for a tax increase. It is not fair to allow one half of the country to rob the other half. I think that tax should be about the same as union dues. That should be enough for the government. Under my plan, if you just submit the maximum amount, you don't have to disclose anything. Think of how much government you could eliminate. How much money is spent by the government investigating and prosecuting tax fraud? How much government could be eliminated by doing away with Social programs like EI and CPP? They wouldn't be necessary if the money that is spent on them was returned to the people. They don't do anything anyway. Once they put a regulation in place, they hire armies of people to do the useless job of enforcing it and procecuting violators. The regulation itself is probably unnecessary.

 

You believe that the system we have now is more fair, as the wealth is spread around more, right? How is that working out? Smart people will find a way to overcome any obstacle that you place in front of them. If they have to pay high taxes, they will pay low wages to compensate. This works for the government because it gives them this large pool of un-taxed voters that are totally dependent on government. Regulations breed huge corporations because huge corporations are the only ones who can afford to abide by them. Soon, they become partners with the government, as the system works for them both. They have the money, so they get their people elected. The lifes' blood of this power is tax money. Take it away, and we take back the country.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Trimdingman

[Trimdingman]

When there is an agenda, we are going to be lied to, and told over and over to believe the lie. We are programmed to believe things by being indoctrinated into religions from infancy. I know that everything that is being preached is a lie. That includes religion, global warming, and the benefits of big government. The truth is simple. It does not have to be preached. It is very difficult to break people from long held beliefs because they have to admit they are wrong. I am wrong often. I discover this early, make an adjustment, and move on. It is not good to have unshakable beliefs because soon you find yourself in a prison of your own making with someone else holding the key.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Trimdingman

[Trimdingman]

If you have a belief, and the belief often leads you to a dilemma, and you are unwilling to put your belief on the table to work out the dilemma, you are probably believing something that is false, and someone is controlling you.

[CurtisH]

You don't get it. I can remember a time when I never heard of income tax. Nobody I knew earned enough to pay it. When I learned of it, the notion was so foreign to me that I couldn't believe it.

Okay, you're in Canada, right? In the United States, the federal government has had the right to collect income tax since 1913. I cannot remember a time when I was not aware of income tax.

 

By the way, I support the Fair Tax with no cap. But, I prefer a lower rate. I think 15% sounds better.

[stephenhawkings]

The issue at the heart of all the discussion isn't THAT the Earth is warming, it's a question of percentage change (delta T) and rate of change (delta-squared T). Part of the argument of MMGW is the rate of change being unprecedented. Given that we only have data (which could be labelled dubious), for a brief period of geologic time, it is quite a leap to suggest that the current rate of change is unprecedented. We simply can't prove it, even using the direct measurements we have.

 

Methane is appox 25 times worse than CO2, and is currently present in the atmosphere at a concentration of about 1700 parts-per-million (CO2=385). Given that CH4 is 25 times worse, AND it forms CO2 in the atmosphere upon chemical breakdown, why wouldn't we be looking there?

 

Answer: Because it may not be anthropogenic in origin, and would therefore be nothing we can do about it.

(Remember our previous discussion, about the MIT scientists being baffled by MMGW contradictory data?)

 

You said: well the contradiction seams to be where the greenhouse gases are coming from, methane in particular, not in regard to climate change, or that methane levels are rising.

 

Again, I am not saying there is "no climate change", I'm saying it is an unreasonable leap to state that we are the definitive cause.

 

Here's a prediction. With the sudden (and unanticipated) rise in the CH4 levels in the atmosphere, per the MIT scientists, you can expect a sudden rise in CO2 levels within the next year (or 2) when some of that excess CH4 is broken down by the ozone to form CO2.

 

 

I don't care about some senator. The bottom of the page contained several links at the bottom to several peer-reviewed paper on the subject. That is what I wanted you to follow, because it's one link providing several others. Sorry for not being more specific.

 

Again, PLEASE PLEASE get your head around this. I'm not saying we have NO effect on the local environment. I'm saying that it isn't proven that we have a profound global effect, as many on the opposite side assert.

i concur, mostly, yes we can't or haven't measured enough to make certain that there may be unprecedented change coming, as this type of change that we are possibly, or possibly not coming upon cant be measured, until its probably way too late, but little things may be small signals (CO2 levels, methane, ocean salinity) may be indicators or a growing problem, or may not. what is dangerous is when delta squared becomes cubed, or more and we create a feed back loop that is irreversible. in geologic time it may happen, or not, and that time might be in our time, or might not, but to dismiss the possibility outright, and any science that illustrates this possibility when we offer little to now observations that contradict the former observations, only belittle them slightly, we are in effect wearing blinders.

 

i agree methane is way badder than CO2, but as for it not being anthropogenic i would have to disagree, land fills alone illustrate this point very well, MIT scientists paid by EXXON don't see what they are paid not to see, might have to go back 20 or 30 pages in this thread.

 

As for the glorious senate, and Inhofe web link, most of those links are oped pieces, and some of the studies cited about clouds could have been made up on my couch with a blunt and two able minded individuals, but i didn't click on all of them i got bored after a dozen or so.

 

so yes you can be right CO2 isnt the most concerning greenhouse gas, and there is no quantitative way to determine if we ARE or ARE NOT screwing up the planet, so much to trims dislike you can't prove the negative, or the positive, or disprove either. and yes the senate is full of a lot of hot air. if you find a scientifically peer reviewed piece in there let me know, until then i will agree to diagree about us both being right, or wrong.

[stephenhawkings]

If you have a belief, and the belief often leads you to a dilemma, and you are unwilling to put your belief on the table to work out the dilemma, you are probably believing something that is false, and someone is controlling you.

If ____________________(fill in the blank)

[stephenhawkings]

When there is an agenda, we are going to be lied to, and told over and over to believe the lie. We are programmed to believe things by being indoctrinated into religions from infancy. I know that everything that is being preached is a lie. That includes religion, global warming, and the benefits of big government. The truth is simple. It does not have to be preached. It is very difficult to break people from long held beliefs because they have to admit they are wrong. I am wrong often. I discover this early, make an adjustment, and move on. It is not good to have unshakable beliefs because soon you find yourself in a prison of your own making with someone else holding the key.

how about your belief that global warming isn't real? is it unshakable?