Blade_Runner wrote:
Blade_Runner wrote:
Man, you must really think we are stupid.
straightUp wrote:
When it comes to politics... yes, I do.
That's a rather high opinion of yourself.
That's not a high opinion of myself, it's a low opinion of Republicans… specifically when it comes to politics. And just to clarify, I am referring to Republican voters. Their leaders are very smart about taking advantage of Republican voter stupidity.
So there ya go. ;)
Blade_Runner wrote:
Where did you acquire such superior political savvy?
Is that what you're calling it? Superior? Huh. Well, I got my "superior" savvy from about 40 years of interest in politics starting off with a major in journalism.
Blade_Runner wrote:
Do you know as much about conservative political philosophy as you think you do about progressive socialist political philosophy?
Yes, I would say so.
Blade_Runner wrote:
How about postmodern philosophy, know anything about that? You should, it is reflected in your pseudo-intellectual self-righteous responses to us Untermensch.
How very Nazi of you. But to be clear, I have never suggested any of you are "inferior people" I was very clear in saying Republicans are stupid when it comes to politics. I'm stupid when it comes to why women take so long to get ready to go out. See, how that works?
Don't be such a victim.
Blade_Runner wrote:
For decades, climate alarmists have been warning that, without a United Nations-run global “climate” regime to control human activity, alleged man-made “climate change” will bring the wrath of “Mother Earth” down upon humanity.
Looks like they were right.
Blade_Runner wrote:
They did it again from November 30 to December 11, 2015 at the Paris Summit on Climate Change, and warned, yet again, that it is the “last chance” to save humanity from itself.
Yep.
Blade_Runner wrote:
But climate alarmists have a long history of forecasting disaster — and of being wrong about everything.
So… that's it? No actual counter-argument to what the climate experts are saying? Just a reversion to a myth about science being wrong most of the time?
[quote=Blade_Runner]
In fact, stretching back decades, virtually every alarmist prediction that was testable has been proven embarrassingly wrong. What follows is just a tiny sampling of those discredited claims.
A new ice age and worldwide starvation:
Global warming — temperature predictions: [i]Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.
[/quote]
So I'm wondering how you are calling a prediction for rising temperatures a warning about a new ice age. You seem confused.
Blade_Runner wrote:
The problem is that every single model was wrong — by a lot. Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature datasets. Based just on the laws of probability, a monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future temperatures than the UN’s models. That suggests deliberate fraud is likely at work.[/i]
Oooh, five "official" but unnamed datasets! Ha, ha… For all I know that could be five of those weather station gadgets you can get on Amazon set up in the living rooms of five Republican idiots. LOL
Here's the data according to the NOAA which uses thousands of datasets from sources that range from old records (humans started recording temps in 1880) to thousands of modern instruments scattered all over the world.
As you can clearly see, you're wrong. And just so you know it's not just a matter of which source I trust. I know that's how you conservatives operate because yours is a culture of blind faith. But I actually understand how the greenhouse effect works, so not only is the NOAA data much more exhaustive that your mysterious five "official" datasets, the resulting conclusions actually makes sense.
Blade_Runner wrote:
Climate Alarmists Admit They Want to Dismantle Our Free-Enterprise SystemThe Heritage Foundation - LOL - you could not have found a more biased source, but I read the article anyway and I noticed it's completely void of any quote or reference to any climate expert actually saying they want to dismantle the free-enterprise system. But it's a great example of the typically over-dramatic response from conservative fear mongers.
Besides, all free-enterprise means is little or no regulation on business. Indeed regulation might dampen the profits in some industries but it won’t destroy our system. It certainly won't destroy capitalism which can operate just fine as a regulated system. In fact pro-capitalist economist Keynes once called regulation a method of sustaining capitalization and if we followed his advice instead of imagining him as a communist we wouldn't be constantly confronted with crashing markets like we are now.
The climate experts cite a different reason, for regulation… sustaining our environment. They have noted a parallel between emission levels and economic indicators. If you trend the consumption of oil for instance, you will find an almost perfect match with the GDP. But that makes total sense, it's takes energy to power an industry and thanks to Republicans we are still depending primarily on fossil fuel for almost all of that energy.
The governments that pay attention to the warnings are continuing to look for answers that can strike a balance between our existing economic system and the environment such as carbon-credits to provide incentives to curbing emissions. No perfect answers yet but they are working on it. So, stop being so freaked out. The IPCC isn't trying to turn us into a communist government, they are simply pointing out the fact that our economic system is creating a lot of pollution. In fact it's not even a matter of which economic system we use. China is communist AND a giant polluter. You see, at the end of the day it doesn't matter if you're a socialist, a capitalist or a Lilliputian… all that matters is how much carbon you spew.
So yes, we want to regulate the industry to curb our emissions. Just like Trump wants to regulate our trade to curb imports from China. You can call that a threat to free-enterprise if you want but it's not like our economy was ever free of regulation to start with.
It's just a fear tactic designed to get you all freaked out so you will vote against any support for regulation so the 1% can maximize their profits.
Climate Alarmists: Only ‘Ecological Leninism’ Can Stop Global WarmingProminent Swedish progressive Andreas Malm has urged using the full coercive power of the state to curb fossil fuel emissions, modeling the response on global coronavirus lockdowns. br url=
https://www.heritage.org/environment/comm... (
show quote)
Well, that's one way of doing it and with the stubborn refusal of industry to compromise, it seems more and more like that's the only remaining option if we actually want to curb emissions. But Bright Fart is demonstrating that typical overreaction to appeal to your fears. Just because someone says we should use the coercive power of the state to curb emissions doesn't mean they are suggesting a communist revolution. Trump is using the coercive power of the state to make Chinese imports more expensive. The Christian-Right is trying to use the coercive power of the state to make sure women don't get abortions and that gay people can't get married. Are we calling THEM Leninists?