OpinionThere is zero evidence that human carbon dioxide emissions have any effect on climate.
      – DigitalBoss, 2009-08-28 at 15:30:04   (133 comments)

On 2009-08-28 at 15:30:19, DigitalBoss wrote...
I agree.
On 2009-08-28 at 21:45:33, Thelevellers wrote...
There is a book my dad tried to get me to read this summer saying that, by a old hippy who has advised various governments etc on the subject, and has recently discovered it's all wrong apparently. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea to develop renewable energies etc if it is though, as people usually seem to say...
On 2009-08-28 at 21:46:07, Thelevellers wrote...
Hm. having seen the tags you gave it I'm not sure I can be arsed to partake in the debate...
On 2009-08-29 at 04:27:37, BorgClown wrote...
Green house effect is a proven fact, let's not discuss the science. Humanity is pumping thousands of tons of carbon that wasn't in the atmosphere, but in the lithosphere. So let's not discuss this fact. The only pretext humanity can use is that the atmosphere can withstand much more abuse, so we are safe for now. No serious study has been able to prove that. So I ask you, dear sir: would you play Russian roulette with a two-chamber revolver?
On 2009-08-29 at 04:34:55, BorgClown wrote...
Let's play! Vote before reading the oldest comment http://discussionator.com/topic.php?id=637
On 2009-08-29 at 08:41:44, Lee J Haywood wrote...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Changes_in_the_atmosphere
On 2009-08-30 at 15:04:30, DigitalBoss wrote...
After all your comments, it appears that I will have to say it all over again. There is NO evidence that human carbon dioxide emissions have any effect on climate. The statement still holds true.
On 2009-08-30 at 16:42:27, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Discussionator is intended for debating opinions. Climate change is not a debatable topic, as the evidence for anthropogenic warming is overwhelming and established science - regardless of public ignorance and scepticism. Anyone who says that there is 'no evidence' has a perverted notion of what constitutes evidence and will presumably believe just about any conspiracy theory going.
On 2009-08-30 at 18:54:01, DigitalBoss wrote...
It is not established fact. Consensus is what you have in the absence of fact. Get your story straight. I don't submit to your leftist bullshit.
On 2009-08-30 at 18:54:51, DigitalBoss wrote...
As far as I am concerned, EVERYTHING is a debatable topic.
On 2009-08-30 at 20:11:40, Thelevellers wrote...
Gravity? That heat burns? Debatable? "I'd like to know if knowledge is so loose weave of a morning when deciding to leave your apartment by the door, or the window of your second floor apartment." - Tim Minchin I am really gonna have to read Chill, or find a reliable review, as from what my dad says there is possibly reason to doubt, but seeing as my dad believes that water has a memory, I ain't taking his wor for it!
On 2009-08-30 at 20:13:36, Thelevellers wrote...
If anyone is feeling like a monster read, (I am feeling lazy about it) then try http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chill-Reassessment-Global-Warming-Theory/dp/1905570198 and let me know. I can;t find anyone respectable reviewing it yet, which could tell me all I need to know, but I'd like a bit better reason than that to discount it! :)
On 2009-08-30 at 20:58:59, DigitalBoss wrote...
It is all a communist/anti-capitalist plot to quench Capitalism. The Earth's climate goes through cycles of warming and cycles of cooling. I remember back in the 1970s all the hippies were claiming that there was going to be another ice age just because we had a few cool years.
On 2009-08-30 at 22:28:32, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I didn't say it was an established fact. I said that the evidence was overwhelming. I can say with absolute certainty, however, that nothing anyone says will result in you actually looking at the actual evidence. Watching CNN and reading newspapers doesn't count.
On 2009-08-30 at 22:32:33, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It's certainly true that incorrect assessments were made in the 1970s - they were based on poor science and weak measurements. That has absolutely no relevance today, however.
On 2009-08-30 at 22:45:44, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: A bunch of hippies claiming an ice age really doesn't count against a bunch of scientists. There are climate cycles indeed, I seem to recall at least two: A short one related to the sun 11-year activity cycle, and one (maybe more) related to unknown long-term causes. Recently I read an hypothesis about how Earth's magnetosphere could be caused by electric currents not in it's iron core, but in the salt water oceanic currents. Salt water is a good electrical conductor, so it is a plausible idea. Global warming could lead to another mass extinction if the ocean currents change, as they are driven by temperature differences. A blink of the magnetosphere would decimate the microorganisms that form the bottom of the food chain, and you can imagine the several ways that would trickle all the way up to us. So yes, even if the evidence of us accelerating the current warming cycle was slim, I wouldn't want to risk the consequences just to please a few egoists or paranoids.
On 2009-08-31 at 00:46:00, DigitalBoss wrote...
Read the opinion, it says that there is zero evidence that man's actions has caused any climate change. I know that man has added a small amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, that is not proof that it has made a difference in the climate. I am sorry, before I accept a tax on carbon emissions, and my power bill going up, you are going to have to prove it to me.
On 2009-08-31 at 01:57:49, BorgClown wrote...
OK, I reckon that you don't want a carbon tax, and also reckon that such tax will be ridiculous if it starts to be traded like bonds. But the costs of pollution, cleanup and health hazards need to be compounded into products, and a carbon tax is the simplest way.
On 2009-08-31 at 02:24:03, DigitalBoss wrote...
It is all a play for more government power. Fuckem.
On 2009-08-31 at 04:29:49, BorgClown wrote...
If the tax ends up being traded as a commodity, you might find that it's truly a play from the financial barons, not the government.
On 2009-08-31 at 18:18:27, Baslisks wrote...
The mere presence and action on earth is an effect... Why it may not be massive one, it is an effect in a system we do not comprehend.
On 2009-10-15 at 20:48:08, Bensci wrote...
i disagree only because of the word zero. There is some evidence, it just sucks.
On 2009-10-15 at 20:59:00, DigitalBoss wrote...
I just farted. Does it have an effect on the climate? @Borg: That is what Al Gore is counting on. He owns a company that sells carbon credits.
On 2009-10-16 at 02:49:05, BorgClown wrote...
Carbon credits are an abomination. If they really take off, it would be an artificial need creating an artificial market who will not solve the root of the problem.
On 2009-10-16 at 02:49:47, BorgClown wrote...
What's the name of Al's company?
On 2009-10-16 at 13:27:36, DigitalBoss wrote...
I don't know. Did you just call him an abomination?
On 2009-10-17 at 00:52:04, BorgClown wrote...
Uh, I'm not sure... Whatever makes you happy, I intended the opposite =P
On 2009-10-17 at 01:21:22, DigitalBoss wrote...
Al Gore's carbon credit company: Generation Investment Management.
On 2009-10-17 at 08:09:53, BorgClown wrote...
Um, read a little about it. Sounds good, but it can trade carbon credits. I'm uneasy with the word "trade".
On 2009-10-17 at 18:34:17, DigitalBoss wrote...
Al Gore is a jackass, he did win the jackass award, after all. He is promoting awareness of the mythical global warming, aka climate change, only to work his carbon credit company into the mainstream.
On 2009-10-17 at 22:50:13, BorgClown wrote...
That's where I disagree with you: Global warming is not a myth, and sustainable growth is a must if we don't want to mindlessly deplete non-renewable resources. Mindless growth is like your family eating all the week's groceries in a couple of days, then buying more in advance. You can't do that forever.
On 2009-10-17 at 22:51:22, BorgClown wrote...
If you're a lumberjack, you have to cut as much trees in a given time as they can grow back, otherwise you'll sell a lot for a limited time.
On 2009-10-18 at 10:16:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: You've almost got a definition of greed there - American overconsumption. Americans think they only consume what they deserve, yet their footprint extends heavily into other countries. How much rock has to be destroyed to make a single spoon? How much water has to be irrigated to make a jar of coffee? These things aren't produced locally.
On 2009-10-18 at 15:08:09, DigitalBoss wrote...
Why don't we just go back in time and live as in the 6th century? Who is going to decide if I am overconsuming? You? Your government? Just like a bunch of liberals to try and create more government to push their ideas on other free people.
On 2009-10-18 at 15:19:01, DigitalBoss wrote...
Sustainability is a myth. The Sun will burn-out in a few million years.
On 2009-10-19 at 00:20:32, BorgClown wrote...
The end is nigh, repent!
On 2009-10-19 at 00:21:45, BorgClown wrote...
Nigh? Like in uh, tomorrow? Not exactly, but just a handful of millions of years! Fuck everything, let's go out with a bang!
On 2009-10-19 at 00:28:18, BorgClown wrote...
Just FYI, the sun will die in about 5 billion years, it's a moderately sized star, so it burns slower. Homo Sapiens has been here for about a million years, and modern civilization just a bunch of millenniums. There's so much to look for humanity in the future, don't eat it all at the beginning.
On 2009-10-20 at 16:15:10, DigitalBoss wrote...
and then there is 2012.
On 2009-10-20 at 20:17:02, BorgClown wrote...
I think even a republican president would have to keep the environmental policies, even if it's just because oil will keep getting costlier as it slowly runs out.
On 2009-10-20 at 20:21:30, BorgClown wrote...
You don't necessarily need to change your lifestyle to reduce your carbon footprint, check this article out for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4396754.stm
On 2009-10-20 at 22:45:53, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: Changing your lifestyle is a short-term fix anyway, in the same way that reducing emissions is. If we took the incentive to invest in clean sources on a short enough timescale, we'd benefit by being able to use as much energy as we want - and even use more energy to power our lifestyles.
On 2009-10-21 at 02:15:42, BorgClown wrote...
Hell yeah, humanity needs cheap, clean and renewable energy, lots of it. We'd stagnate technologically otherwise.
On 2009-10-21 at 11:33:34, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: Of course clean energy isn't cheap. It costs money to service and replace wind turbines, and to keep solar panels clean. And solar panels don't gather as much energy as coal releases, even in well-chosen locations - but it's a question of scale. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8317998.stm
On 2009-10-21 at 16:23:28, DigitalBoss wrote...
If clean and renewable energy becomes cheap any time soon, oil will be cheap... they will be giving it away; supply and demand.
On 2009-10-21 at 20:06:50, BorgClown wrote...
Would it balance with the increasing scarcity? Besides fuel, oil is needed for plastics and lubricants and some other stuff, maybe it would become even more valuable.
On 2009-10-22 at 13:20:40, DigitalBoss wrote...
I dare say that oil is not scarce. It is the regulation on exploration and discovery that has caused a current limited supply, but I believe there is much more out there to be discovered. It is good that the price go up on occasion, that gives incentive for oil companies to open new resources or go looking for more. The ones that are not as regulated that is.
On 2009-10-23 at 02:48:08, BorgClown wrote...
I'd love to see our independence of oil, it would be like when carbon became obsolete for transportation.
On 2009-10-23 at 11:31:13, Bensci wrote...
Oil independence is, in the near future at least, unachievable. The demand is too high and the supply is too low within the US for it ever to be achieved. The only exception would be, like boss said, if renewable energy became the mainstream. This is also not likely to happen, because of the inefficiency related to that Also, after this step is reached, we won't be looking for oil independence anyways.
On 2009-10-23 at 11:34:39, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Bensci: Even if oil lasts a long time, as you say it will take a lot of time and investment to get renewable replacements to a point where they can take over. The point, surely, is that we should be doing that as soon as possible.
On 2009-10-23 at 15:22:41, DigitalBoss wrote...
Why would you want to be oil independent when you can buy it so cheap somewhere else?
On 2009-10-23 at 23:23:41, BorgClown wrote...
The trend for oil is to become gradually more expensive: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=oil+price
On 2009-10-24 at 00:19:37, DigitalBoss wrote...
Mainly because of the value of the dollar falling. That is why are houses increase in value over time, the falling dollar. The house is not really increasing in value, the dollar is losing value.
On 2009-10-26 at 03:46:00, BorgClown wrote...
Oh no, it's not that simple. Mexico exports lots of oil, about 30-40% of our government budget comes from oil exports, so even if our currency is somewhat tied to yours, our oil bringing back more money as it rises its price world-wide. It's the foreseen scarcity, because there is more oil, but the extraction is getting more expensive because the places where extraction is cheap are being depleted.
On 2009-10-26 at 10:59:09, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Exactly - it's an massive security issue. Even if oil lasts a long time, western nations are heavily dependent on imports to keep their entire infrastructure alive. We've seen this in the UK during the petrol strikes, where supermarkets quickly have no food, ambulances rely on the army for fuel and no-one can get to work - the whole country shuts down in only a week. It's chaos, and strong investment in renewables is a sensible insurance policy.
On 2009-10-26 at 16:35:46, DigitalBoss wrote...
you enviro-weenie nuts should like it when the price of oil based products go up, it makes the other technologies more attractive. until it goes up and stays up, oil is here to stay.
On 2009-10-26 at 21:25:44, BorgClown wrote...
We'll all be happier when oil-based fuels are phased out. Do oil companies have the right to sell cheap because the health expenses caused by pollution are being paid by the customers themselves? Urban pollution is something we live with everyday, but it costs you: http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=5117188 http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=YCUDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=lung+carbon+deposits&source=bl&ots=wOntUIKk0r&sig=Zvf2yI3yqpbCE_vJvHqzBEa_N7Y&hl=en&ei=XBHmSsi1I42wsgP70sSwBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=14&ved=0CDQQ6AEwDQ#v=onepage&q=lung%20carbon%20deposits&f=false
On 2009-10-26 at 21:30:18, BorgClown wrote...
The last link if from Popular Science of 1915, where greenies weren't as prevalent. It basically concludes, based on studies in Pittsburgh, that tuberculosis and pneumonia death rates correlate directly with the smoke content of the air, irrespective of the population's density or poverty.
On 2009-10-26 at 21:33:00, BorgClown wrote...
In all justice, at that time Pittsburgh "was the nation's eighth largest city, producing between a third and a half of the nation's steel", according to WP.
On 2009-10-26 at 21:36:07, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: I thought about mentioning how dirty fossil fuels are, but often people don't care about what they cannot easily see.
On 2009-10-27 at 00:53:57, DigitalBoss wrote...
I wonder which one you would prefer, the slim chance of disease caused by air pollution, or freezing to death in the winter cold.
On 2009-10-27 at 03:30:16, BorgClown wrote...
Aren't there more alternatives?
On 2009-10-27 at 11:38:09, Lee J Haywood wrote...
The aspect of oil that's difficult to replicate is its energy density. But oil has taken millions of years to form and even if it doesn't run out for another 100 years - long after our generation has expired - the world as a whole will still have to switch at some point. At the moment, renewables are typically a bit more expensive than fossil fuels, which limits investment in them - but implemented properly they ought to end up cheaper. I'd love clean energy because (a) electric cars can be cool and (b) I'd be able to use more of it - at least eventually.
On 2009-10-27 at 12:37:45, DigitalBoss wrote...
The free market will shift energy sources just fine; ain't no need for the government to twist it all up in a knot. As long as oil (fossil fuel) sources are cheaper BTU for BTU, there will be no switching.
On 2009-10-27 at 12:46:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
Lets all go back to burning wood in our wood burning fireplaces. I have a fireplace, and a big stack of wood. Oh, but I bet the natural gas furnace would be way less polluting than the wood burning fireplace. Just think if everyone went back to burning wood? It is sustainable after all. I am going to stay warm one way or another. If we went back to horses because cars are bad, we would be knee deep in horse shit.
On 2009-10-27 at 14:02:35, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I agree with you to some extent, although the market still needs investors. There's quite a bit of research and investment already, but it's on too small a scale at present to make much difference to whole countries.
On 2009-10-27 at 14:34:40, DigitalBoss wrote...
Just because I seem unyielding, don't believe it. I have been pricing solar systems for my house for all of the 21 years I have been in it. I would love to be "off the grid" or at least less dependant on it. I do not want the government getting involved in it. I will do it when I am ready. I have seen too many unintended consequences of government action, I want them to sit on their hands and let me do as a free citizen will do. Period.
On 2009-10-27 at 14:37:14, DigitalBoss wrote...
Some people seem to think that government action is the be all - end all. I say the free citizen, and the free market, is the way to go. I know what is best for me and my family, the government does not.
On 2009-10-27 at 14:40:42, DigitalBoss wrote...
"As long as oil (fossil fuel) sources are cheaper BTU for BTU, there will be no switching." As it should be. The government should not try and force the issue. Politicians are not that smart. They are not smarter than the free market. Many of them think they are, but I have news for them.
On 2009-10-27 at 14:52:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Presumably you'd agree that the government could help by promoting households to install solar technology on their homes by removing the barrier of planning requirements, and by subsidising installations with tax breaks or other incentives?
On 2009-10-27 at 18:18:35, DigitalBoss wrote...
Anything they can do by reducing restrictions, regulations, tax credits... Incentives that do not force the citizen to do anything, and does not cost the taxpayer money. How simple could it be. BUT NO, our government wants control of everything, they want power. They want control over the citizens so they can leverage this control at the ballot box.
On 2009-10-31 at 23:23:11, DigitalBoss wrote...
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/10/longdisproven_h.html
On 2009-11-01 at 00:10:49, BorgClown wrote...
"Liberal" basher site, a more impartial article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy Basically, several scientists tried to extrapolate the medieval climate using different methods, and one of them causes the hockey stick graph. No alternative model is undeniably accurate, so the controversy goes on and on. A few of the involved will willingly choose the graph version most convenient for their agenda.
On 2009-11-01 at 20:02:16, DigitalBoss wrote...
... still zero evidence.
On 2009-11-01 at 20:12:57, DigitalBoss wrote...
I have charted the numbers in an Excel spreadsheet. The resulting graph has no dramatic "hockey stick" curve. Try it yourself, I did: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html
On 2009-11-01 at 20:16:58, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Borg: A really good "liberal basher site" (your words): http://moonbattery.com/
On 2009-11-01 at 22:37:49, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I'm not even quite sure what a liberal is, or if I'm one, but that site looks in line with your convictions, and you're always bashing greenie nanny-government liberals.
On 2009-11-02 at 01:21:47, DigitalBoss wrote...
“Conservatives and Liberals in America: Conservatives believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and more personal responsibility, Liberals believe in bigger government, more taxes, and less personal responsibility.” Liberals love government. They can use the government to help make you live the way they think you should live. They believe in groupthink, the collective, communism, and/or Marxism. Conservatives believe in individualism and freedom, less government, and lower taxes.
On 2009-11-03 at 12:01:42, Lee J Haywood wrote...
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/ • http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-evidence/ • http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-is-a-hoax/ • http://www.grist.org/article/the-hockey-stick-is-broken/ • http://www.grist.org/article/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle/ • http://www.grist.org/article/natural-emissions-dwarf-human-emissions/ • http://www.grist.org/article/whats-wrong-with-warmer-weather/ • http://www.grist.org/article/climate-change-mitigation-would-lead-to-disaster/
On 2009-11-03 at 18:43:02, DigitalBoss wrote...
I read your links: hogwash, all hogwash. Just one more excuse to take away liberty, gain more government control, raise taxes, and regulate business.
On 2009-11-03 at 20:57:43, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: Hey! How did you get the bullet list? We don't have that tag here.
On 2009-11-04 at 00:20:30, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: Yeah, I have a secret source for copying/pasting symbols. I keep thinking about adding a handy Unicode lookup/insert thingy to the site but I haven't actually done anything about it yet. ☺ ☺ ☺
On 2009-11-04 at 03:47:48, BorgClown wrote...
Ah, it was a fake bullet list. Son, I am disappoint.
On 2009-11-04 at 10:59:25, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: I suppose it would be easiest to use < LI > to specify a bullet point in the usual way, now that you mention it, although you'd have to put the newlines in yourself (because I'm too lazy to make the code count them towards the line number limit). <Li> Line 1. <lI> Line 2.
On 2009-11-19 at 21:57:42, DigitalBoss wrote...
What? No warming? http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
On 2009-11-19 at 22:01:39, Lee J Haywood wrote...
As the article says, "the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend". The headline is misleading - climate scientists aren't 'baffled' about anything. You can get cooling, no change or warming by selectively choosing which years to include in your 'statistics', but the warming trend is still there. There are a lot of climate models and they do disagree on the details, but they all predict significant warming and even the lowest estimates show dangerous increases in temperature.
On 2009-11-19 at 22:07:23, DigitalBoss wrote...
If, chance, and probably, always seem to be your keywords.
On 2009-11-19 at 22:09:14, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@DigitalBoss: And 'proof' is your keyword. It's not a flaw to acknowledge that uncertainty exists in the world, but it's wrong to always insist on absolute certainty.
On 2009-11-20 at 01:03:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
When raising my taxes and limiting my liberty, I insist on proof.
On 2009-11-20 at 04:18:50, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Do you worry about your health? It's not like you're sick or ever will be, yet you prevent it, because it's probable. You eat better and exercise, yet there are people who are lazy, smoke, drink and generally don't give a shit and die of old age. There are things you do even if there is no certainty.
On 2009-11-20 at 12:38:30, Lee J Haywood wrote...
There is certainty that there will be warming - it doesn't matter what the cause is, but making it worse is clearly not the best course of action. It's silly to ask how much warming there will be - that depends entirely on whether we do anything about it or not - so climate models have to consider all scenarios.
On 2009-11-21 at 03:22:02, DigitalBoss wrote...
Go ahead, do things. I don't care what you do as long as you don't raise my taxes or threaten my liberty. Spend your own money for a change.
On 2009-11-21 at 10:43:16, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@DigitalBoss: It's not about doing things, it's more about not doing things - not releasing more CO₂, not wasting energy and not making things worse. I do agree that your actions as an individual make little difference though, as I've said before, and that we all need to be penalised equally for our use of fossil fuels or not at all.
On 2009-11-21 at 23:44:53, DigitalBoss wrote...
You still don't get it. It is all about taxes. That is what it is all about. It is all about finding more reasons to restrict liberty, raise taxes, and gain more power for the next election. That is what is all about.
On 2009-11-21 at 23:49:19, DigitalBoss wrote...
"that depends entirely on whether we do anything about it or not". Your words, not mine. I am saying, go ahead, do something. Just DO NOT raise my taxes and restrict my liberty. Oh no, I forgot, liberal big-government Marxists/communists can't do anything on their own, they always need someone else to pay, or to do. Get the government to FORCE people to do what I think is right.
On 2009-11-21 at 23:54:01, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Borg: Yes, I do worry about my health. But I do not force it on others, it is my responsibility. If you are worried about something that has not been proven, why don't you live your life as an example, for what you believe, and don't try and force it on me by using the power of the government?
On 2009-11-22 at 00:40:03, BorgClown wrote...
Alright, I get your point of view already, you don't want the people to be forced by the government to do something. Yet, you can't blame the government for making laws and herding people in one direction, it's what governments were made for. I believe a more efficient law system is needed, where laws are given a purpose and be challenged if they fail to better fulfill that purpose.
On 2009-12-02 at 14:42:19, DigitalBoss wrote...
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! LOL! http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573
On 2009-12-02 at 18:59:14, Lee J Haywood wrote...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&ec=su_7answers
On 2009-12-02 at 19:21:47, DigitalBoss wrote...
The debate is over, AGW, or ACC, whatever, is a crock. It is a lie surrounded by fraud. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
On 2009-12-02 at 19:55:31, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Of course it isn't, because there was never a debate - other than in the minds of the so-called 'sceptics'. Even if one climate organisation's reputation is slightly tarnished by misrepresentation of their work, it makes no difference to the conclusions reached by mainstream climate researchers at other organisations around the world.
On 2009-12-15 at 14:31:54, Lee J Haywood wrote...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
On 2009-12-15 at 20:43:43, BorgClown wrote...
Why are virtually all climate "skeptics" men? Interesting article, specially this semblance of the average skeptic. "More likely than average to be high income, well-educated, white men... much more likely to be very conservative Republicans... strongly endorse individualistic values, opposing any form of government intervention, anti-egalitarian, and almost universally prefer economic growth over environmental protection... have a specialized media diet, with a higher than average preference for media sources that reflect their own political point of view."
On 2009-12-16 at 00:41:26, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I've long been of the opinion that anyone who relies on mainstream media to get their scientific knowledge is badly misinformed. It doesn't require a "specialised media diet" or exclusion of any particular "media sources" - they're all equally bad. You have to actually read science magazines and the like, and immerse yourself in actual knowledge rather than mere opinion, speculation and debate.
On 2010-01-13 at 16:02:03, DigitalBoss wrote...
A lie told often enough becomes the truth. -Vladimir Lenin
On 2010-02-24 at 12:39:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
"We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark The unravelling continues.
On 2010-02-24 at 12:59:27, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: Women are also more apt to want a nanny-state. They want the warm and fuzzy feeling that someone is looking out for them, regardless of the privacy and freedoms lost. One must think that they just don't realize that these ACG people are communists that just want to increase the size and control of the government.
On 2010-02-24 at 13:16:04, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: How about if there was a non-nanny state solution to the threat of climate change? would you still disregard the evidence and claim it's not happening? I just read an interesting comment piece which points out that most (or all) of the current solutions to ACG represent a lot of what people such as yourself disagree with, and so people such as yourself are railing against the science to stop them from coming to be, instead of coming up with your own solutions. "Here's my suggestion: true sceptics on the right should convene a process, perhaps in collaboration with free-market thinktanks such as the Adam Smith Institute, to formulate carbon mitigation proposals of their own. A war against science can never succeed. Shooting the messenger is just dumb. If you don't like the solutions the greens have come up with, try proposing some of your own." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/23/true-climate-sceptics I doubt it will swing you, but thought I'd link it anyway...
On 2010-02-25 at 03:26:53, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: There are no solutions to a problem that does not exist. I am all for common sense clean energy. There is a non nanny-state alternative, it is called the free market. I think that it is up to the marketplace to move it though. There are people willing to pay money for cleaner energy, and there are capitalists that are trying hard to give it to them. The government will just waste a lot of taxpayer money making too many mistakes. Let the entrepreneurs in the market make those mistakes and pay for them with venture capitalist's money. The politicians are just going to use ACG as an excuse to grow the size of government and increase their power to be re-elected.
On 2010-02-25 at 03:32:40, DigitalBoss wrote...
I have been pricing solar-cell technology for my home. One day I will take it off the electrical grid or sell electricity back to it. But it will happen when I determine that the economics make sense, and when I decide I am ready, not when the government rams it down my throat. Fuck the goddamn government. All they do is look for ways to spend my fucking money to buy more votes. Money that I could use to look out for my family, and my future. We would be better off if they sat on their hands and did nothing.
On 2010-02-25 at 03:42:39, DigitalBoss wrote...
I drive a car that gets 33 miles to the gallon, and ride a motorcycle that gets 50. I do it for my own economic sake, to be smart with my money, not because of some stupid communist global warming crap. I try to save money for my future, and then my government confiscates my money and throws it away to non-productive slack-asses, and to study the breeding habits of some fucking frog, to create some shrine to some stupid ass politician, and pay some self-serving scientist that claims some stupid shit so he can get another government grant, and to nanny some crybaby shit like you. Fuckem. Rant over.
On 2010-02-25 at 05:21:16, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I'd suggest you to migrate, but there's no country who doesn't tax their citizens, as far as I'm aware.
On 2010-02-25 at 05:22:09, BorgClown wrote...
Hey, come to Mexico, we pay less taxes than USA! Just bring your own water for your pansy tummy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
On 2010-02-25 at 12:12:22, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: That is liable to change my friend. Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right. Vote for the FairTax! http://www.fairtax.org
On 2010-02-25 at 19:50:01, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: I have been looking at places to retire; looking at places with a lower cost of living. I still have about 10 or 15 more years left, unless the sales of my book take off;) But I am not going to count on that.
On 2010-02-26 at 03:06:38, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: If USA goes the FairTax way and it is awesome, undoubtedly many will follow. I think it has as many possibilities of doing better than it has of doing worse compared to the current system, but if it works, I'd sure support it here too.
On 2010-02-26 at 03:07:31, BorgClown wrote...
Can we have the name of that book? Or at least the subject, so we know if we're missing something worth reading.
On 2010-03-08 at 21:42:31, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It's actually a mistake to think that science is working to prove that humans are responsible for the observed change to the climate. That's a given, and it's actually more challenging to prove that we're not responsible - something that no-one has managed to do as yet. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527490.100-theres-no-war-to-fight-over-global-warming.html And if we're not to blame, what is? Certainly not the sun, whose effect is negligible and will remain so. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527494.700-a-quiet-sun-wont-save-us-from-global-warming.html
On 2010-03-09 at 11:19:53, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: No. It is certainly not possible that the Sun causes it. Hah!
On 2010-03-13 at 17:23:42, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Variation in the sun's activity may well be a component of the observed warming, but it's negligible compared to the effects of greenhouse gases. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
On 2010-05-20 at 15:19:16, DigitalBoss wrote...
Hey, I believe in science. I love it. I think that the Big Bang theory is cool, as with many other theories. The BIG difference is that the government can't seem to figure out how to use the Big Bang theory to their advantage in controlling and taxing my life and my wealth. Great! But they (the gubmint) have figured out how to use the AGW theories to their advantage. They latch on to anything that can give them more gubmint and more power. I detest that. I suspect that there may be some valid points made in these AGW theories, even though they have not been proven, and I live my life accordingly. That is all I expect from anyone else. I am not the one that wants control over other's lives as you do. I am a free citizen in what is supposed to be a free republic. If the gubmint gets involved, I smell a rat.
On 2010-05-20 at 15:22:27, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: How can you say that the Sun's effect is negligible? (#118) Duh! That is stupid on it's face.
On 2010-05-20 at 18:32:48, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I already clarified that point in #120. You're mixing your ideological beliefs with your scientific beliefs and considering them to be equivalent. Your government's policies are debatable because there's never a right answer. But your emotional rejection of such things shouldn't apply to climate science, which is either right or wrong, because it has nothing to do with ideology. As far as I'm concerned, you consider yourself to be a sceptic but are actually a 'denier' - the evidence is irrelevant to you - as described in this article. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.000 Of course calling you a denier is potentially a mistake on my part, as it is to some extent an ad hominem response as explained in this article. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.400 However, you've consistently shown yourself to be anti-science and anti-expert like so many Americans are today. When I've refuted each of your points one by one you've failed to specifically refute any of mine in kind.
On 2010-05-20 at 21:06:36, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: ...and climate science, true or not, should not be used by my government to take control over my life and my wealth. If they need to do something, they should be able to do it without fuckin wit me. I am not anti-science. Before they start taking money out of my check for this, they should have more proof. I am unconvinced, not a denier.
On 2010-05-21 at 08:20:12, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: "they should be able to do it without fuckin wit me." The problem with that is that the only ways to prevent climate change (if we can just pretend we all agree it's happening for the moment) is for everyone to use less energy, especially from carbon producing sources. Tell me how exactly the government can do ANYTHING about it with out 'fuckin wit you'?
On 2010-05-21 at 15:08:54, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: I am using less electricity. I am using less natural gas. I use very little gasoline. I don't need the fucking government to run my life. Do you? Do you need a nanny? I do not. Still unconvinced.
On 2010-05-22 at 05:46:53, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: You don't need a nanny, but lots of people do. Retards who don't pick up their own dogs poop, people who hog the fast lanes even if they are driving slowly, thieves, etc. My point is, most people will not do what they know has to be done unless forced by law. Even worse, they crave more laws to put the blame on someone else. You're fighting human nature.
On 2010-05-23 at 19:38:22, Thelevellers wrote...
More to the (my) point, a lot of pollution is caused by corporations, who are currently funding a LOT of the deniers, and usually take government legislation to stop them doing crappy stuff. (Examples, before you ask: Slave labour; Trafigura African dumping; lots of Nuclear waste is dumped offshore of some African nations; BP oil leak :P ; A Chinese shipping company was recently shouted at for taking abanned short cut through the Great Barrier Reef and crashing, damaging a huge area of rare coral, etc).
On 2010-05-24 at 17:39:51, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: A lot of pollution is created by you also. So?
On 2010-05-24 at 17:42:18, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: But they are free.
On 2010-05-26 at 08:01:04, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Yes, I wasn't even trying to deny that. I was saying that it is far easier for individuals to change their behaviours to save a few pennies, such as you are doing, than for a corporation to see the benefits. Or at least it is with the current 'insta-profit' view of a lot of people (looking for long term profit usually creates far more environment and people friendly corporations, oddly... ). So legislation helps to point them in the right direction, especially if there is a time limit on getting it right.
On 2010-05-28 at 05:51:07, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: They are not free. As long as they live in society, their freedom is bound by the rights of others. I certainly believe I have the right to use my own garage entrance without some bozo blocking it, for example. Yay for (sensible) traffic laws.
On 2010-06-17 at 20:55:10, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: There is no society. We live in a market. Our freedom should be limited only to not infringing on someone else's rights either by force or by fraud, but it is not. Stupid laws like the minimum wage take away my right to pay my employees a market wage. Price gouging laws prevent me from asking what I want for my products and services. Every time the politicians ignore my constitutional rights and pander to the dumb masses, I lose rights.