satguru 
|
Steve, mankind is on trial. It's not about what side you're on, but the opportunities we've had to make those decisions. A trial requires the case for the defence as well as the prosecution. Besides a few regulars in the newspapers there has been no defence case presented officially. A few studies I post now and then crop up which question the status quo, but the authorities led by the IPCC shake them off like water off a duck's back. They've made up their minds and it's way beyond the point of question.
But I've read the case for the prosecution, and it isn't beyond reasonable doubt (for a crime) and in my opinion not even a balance of probablities for a civil case, yet it's running the world's economy.
I'll break it down a little further. The theory about CO2 is one thing, stopping its production is another. There is the well known list of actions, from eye-watering price rises, to spending billions on wind and solar which don't work (I can guarantee that, the figures are maybe 1/10 the equivalent, as partly they only work when the weather allows it, or the sunlight), carbon capture doubles the cost of power, electric cars are fine if you only use it for short journeys and can get home in time before the power runs out, and don't need it again till it's charged. The batteries only last some years and then the replacement cost is around the value of the car itself. Carbon trading adds the element of gambling to an existing price rise which is simply buying and selling nothing, just moving the same money round and round in a Ponzi scheme. If you genuinely support both adding to the cost of energy although people have no choice to have heat, light and fuel so pay whatever it costs anyway, and believe you can run a hospital on wind and solar then that's fine. The CO2 emissions since these measures have been in place only reduced once during the crash as the economy shrank and production reduced, and when it recovered a year later returned to the same graph as before.
So far despite the existing measure which you have pretty well endorsed the only thing that has changed is the economy, the CO2 rises regardless so even if it was a problem the drastic measures currently in place and only just beginning have not actually changed the sole problem they were created to avoid. Something's a little out of synch here.
Reply #461. Aug 11 11, 1:41 PM
|
REDVIKING57
|
So..............Global Warming has nothing to do with me smoking 40-a-day? That's a relief! I was starting to feel quite guilty! :))
Reply #463. Aug 13 11, 5:27 AM
|
| trojan11
|
Enormous star, slap bang in the middle of our little solar sytem....never been checked before.
Keep banging on with the forty a day, Paul, whilst I tear of my catalytic converter and suck on an old engine's exhaust fumes. :)
Reply #464. Aug 13 11, 7:23 PM
|
daver852
|
Interesting article, Daymare. Maybe global warming's the real cause of all the illegal immigrants moving north from Mexico.
Dave
Reply #467. Aug 20 11, 5:44 AM
|
satguru
|
There is a well known phenomenon of mass hysteria, based on the widely publicised perception something is happening. If you then see everything in those terms, the same way as paranoid schizophrenics (I know, I work with some), then whatever happens 'It's our fault!' (in this particular case). Logic comes a very poor second once minds are fixated on looking for the evidence, and the fact it both now includes very hot AND very cold weather should at least tell people something is not being computed. Animal populations vary, they always do, and if you follow them that intimately for the first time you'll learn a lot more about how much they do actually move around. But they did it before!
Meanwhile if you look for the more innocent 'cloud-seeding', around since 1946, you will see trademarc's theory world governments spent millions developing a technique they do and will never use (yes, governments always do that sort of thing?) you will see the beginnings of geoengineering, complete with a nice photo of a plane spraying goodness knows what, here claimed to be usually salt and water, but with added silver oxide to stop hail formation. Not nice when it falls on your bag of chips or sandwiches.
 http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/Cloud-seeding.htm
Or silver iodide http://www.answers.com/topic/cloud-seeding
Whatever they spray besides water should not be there and falling on us and everything we eat that happens to be in the open. Barium and manganese salts are now flavour of the year, and believe me you don't want them on your cornflakes.
Reply #468. Aug 20 11, 8:30 AM
|
daymare
|
daver - who put a burr under your saddle?
No, global warming is not the reason people from Mexico come to America.
Why bother....
Reply #470. Aug 24 11, 11:55 AM
|
daver852
|
Well, your article was about things migrating north due to "global warming."
Reply #471. Aug 25 11, 9:51 AM
|
daymare
|
The article is not about people (who are not things, by the way).
Reply #472. Aug 25 11, 9:58 AM
|
satguru
|
As far as my 'looking for trouble' theory goes, where if you tell people something is happening (rather than them being able to tell directly), these are perfect examples. Had CO2 been stable I am really curious to know what scientists would have said about the temperature and associated events, would they have simply accepted it as normal as there was no connected outside possible cause, and not have bothered checking every single animal movement, ice change etc, or have been just as concerned regardless?
If the answer is not the second, then why are they doing it now?
Reply #473. Aug 25 11, 12:51 PM
|
| s-m-w
|
Anyone know a really, really, hard brick wall ?
Reply #474. Aug 25 11, 1:15 PM
|
REDVIKING57
|
Yes,but can you wait a little while,Steve? I'm still using it.
:))
Reply #475. Aug 25 11, 1:35 PM
|
daymare
|
Yes, I know several really hard brick walls....lol
Reply #476. Aug 25 11, 1:50 PM
|
daver852
|
Dave, in logic what you are saying is called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," i.e., the idea that just because one event follows another event, the first must have caused the second. It's one of the classic logical fallacies, one that warmists seem to love. For a scientific theory to be based on this argument, one must first demonstrate casuality between the events (global warming can't), consistency between events (global warming can't), and the theory must be able to accurately forecast future events (global warming can't). This theory is dead to anyone who has even the slightest idea of how science is supposed to work. It is sad in a way. No matter how many times this crackpot idea is debunked, its followers still insist that it is real. I think it has become more like a religion to them than science.
Reply #477. Aug 26 11, 1:19 PM
|
boxjaw
|
Another daver take on mentioning cold winters and disregarding the discussion of hot hot summers. :^)
Reply #480. Aug 29 11, 7:20 AM
|
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
Play Now! 
: 