Alfa Romeo Forums banner

1621 - 1640 of 2933 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Said it before--its been a fraud!

Anthropogenic warming is not a conspiracy, but a huge promotion designed to compell more regulations and impose more taxation.

As in other threads about the subject, I have pointed out that parts of the promotion, Mann's "Hockey Stick, rendition of temperature history has even been accepted by IPCC as incorrect--I've called it fraudulent.

Then there is the chart of temp and amount of carbon, which has been composed that some 300,000 years is compressed into only about four inces of abscissa. This makes the big ups and downs through the regularly recurring ice ages and interglacials seem as if temp and carbon are closely related.

If you review the chart at smaller intervals --in the order of a few thousand years-- there is little correlation. If anything, rising temps lead the increase in carbon by some 400 to 800 years--as in over the past 1000 years.

The other point I use, but haven't seen published has to do with logic.

Industrialization arrived and temperatures have been going up since is the big pitch by the control freaks. Warming has been on for some 15,000 years on what could a reasonably normal interglacial. Within this was the remarkable cooling of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warming. Promoters had difficulty with the fact that the climate was warmer than recent in the 1200s, with a much lower population and no industralization. This inconvenient record was eliminated by Michael Mann. Even random numbers fed into his program would generate a "Hockey Stick".

On the logic, there has been a major blunder. In formal logic this is described as a primitive syllogism, which is the error of concluding that because two things occur at the same time, they are causally related.

Alex--does a crowing rooster cause the sun to rise in the countryside near you? That is the classic example of a primitive syllogism.

I am greatly relieved that those directly involved in one of the greatest frauds in history are not using their methodology to design airplanes or elevators.

On those who have been sucked in by the promotion, there are a couple of existing observations.

"Nonsense so blatent that only an intellectual could fall for it."

"Brainwashing in a culture of such gullibility that only a light rinse is required."

That pretty well covers the spectrum.
.......................................
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,622
Once again, YOU ALL MISS THE POINT!

The debate over global warming is a very cleverly designed propaganda war to polarize people between the believers and the deniers. Go on, admit it: each and every one of you falls into one of the those two categories. Game, set, and match!

Huh? What do I mean by that? What am I a, a believer or a denier. I am neither. I don't care one way or the other. What I care about is the survival of industrial civilization. The only way industrial civilization will survive is if we stop arguing and start replacing fossil based energy sources with non-fossil based energy sources. Not because of the threat of global warming, but because only non-fossil based energy sources are sustainable.

I say "sustainable" like that's some foregone conclusion, but it's not. As far from it as is possible to imagine. Making this transition is the greatest technological challenge humanity has ever faced, and the more we argue about global warming, the longer we delay taking up the challenge, and the more painful the transition will end up being.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Change of Thread

I get so fricken pissed when I read this crap. Global warming is the biggest pack of lies and bullsh*t ever promulgated to the public, beating even Bush's WMD.

CO2 IS NOT POLLUTION!!! CO2 IS WHAT PLANTS BREATHE TO TURN CARBON INTO FOOD. FOOD THAT WE EAT, ONLY SOME OF US DON'T GET ENOUGH TO EAT, LIKE SEVERAL THOUSAND EACH AND EVERY DAY WHO DIE OF STARVATION.

People are so stupid they will believe any nonsense if "authorities" say it. Cripes!
Randy

You have changed from your initial post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,625
Randy

You have changed from your initial post.
**** right! Well, I still don't think any rational person can call CO2 "pollution". That is inflammatory b.s. But, again, I don't care. Arguing is doom. Let's just get on with "it". Only it is a lot **** harder then 99.999% of the public thinks. And it will never happen until most of civilization has been destroyed, unless smart people use their brains to understand that reliance on the free market to solve all problems is just as stupid as reliance on the rapture or any other religion. Unless smart people are capable of learning and revising their opinions, thereby proving that they are smart, we are doomed. Ahem!

The "funny" part is the believers. Even if everyone agreed that we need to get off the fossil tit before it goes rancid, they would still want to argue. They won't be "happy" until we all are believers - never mind that the arguing just delays the result that they supposedly want.

Then there's the deniers. They are not funny. They are religious nuts. Religion makes me sad, not amused.

Bottom line: eff all of you humans! ;) :D [smiley giving the finger with a huge grin!]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,626
I bet that the estimates on what is going to happen before this is over are part of the things "they" tell the new President on what Merle Haggard calls "no sh*t day". They sit him down, tell him the stuff they don't tell us, and he is just all, "No sh*t?!" "Really?" "No sh*t?" "Aw, com'on..." "No sh*t, huh." "****."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Merle Haggard calls "no sh*t day". They sit him down, tell him the stuff they don't tell us, and he is just all, "No sh*t?!" "Really?" "No sh*t?" "Aw, com'on..." "No sh*t, huh." "****."
**** right! Well, I still don't think any rational person can call CO2 "pollution". That is inflammatory b.s. But, again, I don't care. Arguing is doom. Let's just get on with "it". Only it is a lot **** harder then 99.999% of the public thinks. And it will never happen until most of civilization has been destroyed, unless smart people use their brains to understand that reliance on the free market to solve all problems is just as stupid as reliance on the rapture or any other religion. Unless smart people are capable of learning and revising their opinions, thereby proving that they are smart, we are doomed. Ahem!

The "funny" part is the believers. Even if everyone agreed that we need to get off the fossil tit before it goes rancid, they would still want to argue. They won't be "happy" until we all are believers - never mind that the arguing just delays the result that they supposedly want.

Then there's the deniers. They are not funny. They are religious nuts. Religion makes me sad, not amused.

Bottom line: eff all of you humans! ;) :D [smiley giving the finger with a huge grin!]


Randy, I'm at a loss for words and not sure how to respond to such a strong argument for stool softeners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
Published last week.

Fix it or fold it | FP Comment | Financial Post

Politics posing as science.
Interesting. Thanx for that. A little research hints at a potential motive by the publisher, "The Global Warming Policy Foundation". Although a charitable foundation it has, according to 2010 records, about 80 funders who collectively make up 98% of its funding. The paper the article is printed in was launched to help "unite-the-right", wing that is (I'm quoting the papers founder here).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Interesting. Thanx for that. A little research hints at a potential motive by the publisher, "The Global Warming Policy Foundation". Although a charitable foundation it has, according to 2010 records, about 80 funders who collectively make up 98% of its funding. The paper the article is printed in was launched to help "unite-the-right", wing that is (I'm quoting the papers founder here).
Private funding from any source is small compared to the huge amounts of taxpayers' money that goes into the government side--so that the the public can continue to be excited about climate issues and endure confiscation while submitting to fraud.

The only "remedies" selected by the IPCC are those that require more taxation and more regulation. Any papers that do not contribute to the scam do not get into the final IPCC publications. This is what the FP summary is about.

What "promotion" do you respond to: Freedom of coercion?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
The term "right wing" is almost archaic.

It originally described in 1920s to 1930s Europe the difference between "international socialists" and "national socialists".

Both were ardent political movements for authoritative government.

An interest in smaller and less intrusive government fits neither label.

Climate Change and its predecessor Global Warming are all about authoritarian government. In its current iteration it would fall into the "international socialist" camp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
Private funding from any source is small compared to the huge amounts of taxpayers' money that goes into the government side--so that the the public can continue to be excited about climate issues and endure confiscation while submitting to fraud.

The only "remedies" selected by the IPCC are those that require more taxation and more regulation. Any papers that do not contribute to the scam do not get into the final IPCC publications. This is what the FP summary is about.

What "promotion" do you respond to: Freedom or coercion?
do yo, by chance, really think our air and water would be cleaner and healthier without, say, regulation? our food and drugs safer? the contractors who build our roads and highways any more attentive as to the integrity of said structures? as imperfect a system as taxes, gov and its regs are i think it's still all we got. what might you propose as an alternative?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,632
Randy, I'm at a loss for words and not sure how to respond to such a strong argument for stool softeners.
Strong argument for softeners... Hmmm. Why does that sound so wrong???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,633
do yo, by chance, really think our air and water would be cleaner and healthier without, say, regulation? our food and drugs safer? the contractors who build our roads and highways any more attentive as to the integrity of said structures? as imperfect a system as taxes, gov and its regs are i think it's still all we got. what might you propose as an alternative?
This is a valid point. I think the change the needs to be made is that periodically we need a total reset of the system. Over time business corrupt the regulators, use the system to protect their interests at the public's expense. If every 20 years or so, we had to start over from scratch, it would be a good thing. Maybe?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
do yo, by chance, really think our air and water would be cleaner and healthier without, say, regulation? our food and drugs safer? the contractors who build our roads and highways any more attentive as to the integrity of said structures? as imperfect a system as taxes, gov and its regs are i think it's still all we got. what might you propose as an alternative?
This thread and my points are about man-forced climate change.

This is distinct from pollution and roads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
good discussion. for me this here is a final thread sign-off:

a non-lefty, non-righty, non-science university economics professor did a study on the economic impacts of pollution control regs and devices on US manufacturers. he found that that those costs as part of their overall production costs rose from 0.3% in 1974 to 0.4% in 2005. (is that a job killing expense? nay). an aside: interesting that nixon was the pres who ushered in the clean air act, the clean water act, and -- please, correct me if i'm wrong -- created that nefarious EPA.

adios
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,638
Yes, but the point he makes speaks to the concept of doing something about our dependency on ever dwindling fossil fuels. For without unilateral government action, it is almost impossible that anything will ever get done. Not until, say 100 years from now, and we are completely out of them. And a lot of dead people every all over the place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,640
Well, yes, but it takes, what, half a million years to squeeze the good stuff out. Or is that squeeze it all into good stuff?
 
1621 - 1640 of 2933 Posts
Top