Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

You are not supposed to notice that forest fires (massive releases of CO2!) are linked to COOLING.

No we are expected to ignore all of the natural co2 emissions and only notice the 3% that can be directly corrolated with human activities.

[SV THIRD DAY]

The only CO2 that matters here is the amount that can be taxed and used to push the left wing agenda of collective salvation.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I agree that Delfin's deft cut'n'paste skills and nonstop putdowns are indeed formidible, so I can understand your man-crush on him. Interesting that someone who's that dismissive, condescending and abusive can still be in your good books, as long as they sing the right tune. I guess I'm just jealous.

Delfin is not arguing with science, he's just being extra forceful lawyering with the same old denier crap that's all been defanged years ago. A good retelling doesn't make fables come true or add truth to lies. Your fawning aside, he's not scored any science-based hits. He has not holed the good ship IPCC or the finding of AGW.

There's no attraction to fighting the same crap over and over, especially when the audience is deaf to it.

The thread has mostly become just another anti-AGW echo chamber. Delfin's made denial fashionable again. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Ah, thank you for setting a civil standard we can all look towards as an example. Of something. But you seem to be taking this debate personally, which I guess is not unusual when one feels their religion is being denigrated.

But I'm not trashing your faith, just your lack of scientific support for policies that kill poor people. So relax, and enjoy the greening planet.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Delfin is persuasive for like all of the two minutes it takes to google up that he's just flung out some long-ago discussed and discredited factlet. Not something I expect that you're doing with his pontifications.

Preaching to the choir is not persuasion, sorry. You're applauding the performance, not the content.


Cite?

Care to cite where I have put out a discredited factlet? Do be specific.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Care to cite where I have put out a discredited factlet? Do be specific.

Ha ha. Go fish.

Anyone willing to blithely assert that people are being killed by anti-AGW actions, without regard to how offensive and incorrect a statement that really is, is not going to be persuaded by reasonable arguments. It's a hot-button, you get off on pushing it. Go you.

[newhaul]

More of the usual warmist duck and dodge/ redirect

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ha ha. Go fish.

Anyone willing to blithely assert that people are being killed by anti-AGW actions, without regard to how offensive and incorrect a statement that really is, is not going to be persuaded by reasonable arguments. It's a hot-button, you get off on pushing it. Go you.

So let's review.

It is perfectly acceptable to argue that CO2, the byprouct of biological respiration and the food sourse for the basis of the food chain (plants) is destroying the planet.

But it is unacceptable to bring up the measurable and probable deaths of humans from the Environmental Cultists?

Ahhh...I get it now.
Death by CO2 is bad.
Death by Regulations are good.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

But it is unacceptable to bring up the measurable and probable deaths of humans from the Environmental Cultists?

This is easy. Show me one coroner's report that states that person X died from Environmental Cultist, or mitigation of AGW, or from carbon credits, or death by IPCC, or Al Gore dun it, or similar, and I'll back down.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This is easy. Show me one coroner's report that states that person X died from Environmental Cultist, or mitigation of AGW, or from carbon credits, or death by IPCC, or Al Gore dun it, or similar, and I'll back down.

Lake, you should have followed your own advice and not commented, but as I said, we knew you couldn't help yourself and you walked right into a swinging door on this one.

So it is YOU that wants to make a change to the world energy system, so the burdon is on you to show us the Coroner report listing MMGW as a cause of death!

Opps....can't do it?
Then using your own "logic" you have lost the debate right?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

So it is YOU that wants to make a change to the world energy system, so the burdon is on you to show us the Coroner report listing MMGW as a cause of death!

Opps....can't do it?
Then using your own "logic" you have lost the debate right?

Did anyone else understand that?

You do know there's a difference between the past and the future, right?

[newhaul]

Actually you will never see mmgw listed on a coroners report as a accuse however we all know the mmgw agenda is definately a contributing factor to people starving and freezing to death.
A warmer climate means its cheaper to feed people and there is less need to pay for heating expenses. Also warmer and slightly co2 enriched environment has been proven to produce higher food crop yealds.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This is easy. Show me one coroner's report that states that person X died from Environmental Cultist, or mitigation of AGW, or from carbon credits, or death by IPCC, or Al Gore dun it, or similar, and I'll back down.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually you will never see mmgw listed on a coroners report as a accuse however we all know the mmgw agenda is definately a contributing factor to people starving and freezing to death.
A warmer climate means its cheaper to feed people and there is less need to pay for heating expenses. Also warmer and slightly co2 enriched environment has been proven to produce higher food crop yealds.

You beat me to it, Newhaul.

Stop making a fool out of yourself, L-E. Obviously people don't die directly from your silly list. You obviously missed the general point these guys were trying to make, namely that increased costs of energy hurt poor people disproportionately. Poor people have less margins when it comes to their basic needs. Inability to meet basic needs leads to poverty, poor nutrition, less health care, less education, reduced opportunities, poor lifestyle choices, i.e. unhealthier living, more disease, and yes, premature deaths.

Haven't you ever heard the quip about "all the Liberalism you can afford?" Whether you agree or not, do you even understand where that critique comes from, or do you need some spoon-feeding on this one too?

Do I necessarily buy in to some of these guys' assertions that environmental polices have contributed to the huge nos. of deaths they are citing? No, but I also don't know enough about it to simply reject it out of hand. Reading & listening more, and talking less, might further your education. It might also help you get a grip on this apparently radical notion of yours that lots of well-intended people outside the comforts of your clubhouse have different opinions.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

"Oh happy day."

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Hilarious!!!!!

Ha! That was great. Thanks Ken.

[sailorboy1]

is this really The Joke Thread 3?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Pretty informative video, SailOar, especially I imagine for us non-scientists in the bleacher seats. Helpful to have a bit of explanation accompanying the charts & graphs for a change. The "self-reinforcing CO2 feedback loop" from the oceans is interesting, and seems responsive to this chicken/egg debate about whether CO2 causes warming or vice-versa. What was also interesting was the question of what triggers the cycle, since presumably this might help answer what stops it and triggers a new cycle, i.e. cooling. The video alludes to the earth shifting on its polar axis, obviously a natural phenomenon that has nothing to do with human influences. So while explanatory to a point, it also seems to beg the question of whether human-derived CO2 emissions are the predominant force.

At least to this layman that is. Probably missed sumthin' . . . .