"Well, enlighten me? How does someone in the UN get money or power out of that deal?"
Well, it's true I was speaking more of the U.S in that comment than the U.N., but here is some speculation:
UN is an organization that backs the whole one-world-government idea. And it is rather famous for thinking that if there were one, it would be that government.
Obviously one world government will not come about voluntarily. Proponents have historically supported the economic weakening of the U.S. (see Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Louis McFadden, speech before Congress re: the Great Depression) in order to remove freedom and choice in the matter. They have also supported obliteration of any right to private ownership of firearms. (That latter is official U.N. policy by the way.)
What better way to control a country's economy than to control its energy production, and the very air everyone breathes?
Understand: I'm not saying this is all one giant conspiracy to subjugate you. But each of those individual things is true, and joining them together is at least plausible. I'm not trying to tell you it's one particular cause or another, only that there are plausible motivations -- far more than one -- to think the U.N. is being self-serving with its politics surrounding AGW.
"Government handouts are massively productive if they help someone who has just been made redundant get back into work."
You mean "could be", not "are", because it isn't happening. At least in the U.S.
More handouts than ever before, yet economic recovery from the government-caused 2008 disaster has been weak and relatively "jobless".
I wasn't joking: income inequality has gone UP in direct proportion to government "intervention" supposedly intended to help poor people.
You can't pay attention to just the intentions, man. It's the results that matter. And even if we assume all that intervention was well-intended, the results speak for themselves.
Part of the difference here could be that you're (apparently) not from the U.S. But let me tell you: in this country it hasn't worked, doesn't work, and isn't going to work.
"In the UN a tyrant like Gaddafi has equal rights to the entire nation and continent and democratically elected government of Australia. That is SCARY!!!!"
Don't forget that according to the UN Charter, not all of its members are equal. Some of them are a hell of a lot more "equal" than others.
That should scare people, especially those from smaller countries who think the UN would somehow be their savior. They're living in fantasyland.
"I think this "you should listen to us and take us seriously, not reject us" is bullshit. I don't give anti-vaccination and homeopathy people that leeway, because science says you are wrong. You are arguing from a position supported by almost no science, but a lot of politics."
This is the claim that deserves no respect, because it is simply wrong.
Look at the link I provided elsewhere in this thread. Read some of the papers. Or -- heaven forbid you should have to lift a finger -- go out and find some of it yourself, because there is lots of that science and it is all around you. It just isn't being spoon-fed to you by the evening news, which seems to be the reason you seem to think it doesn't exist.
You are doing exactly the kind of denying that you accuse others of. Do your own homework. Then get back to me, and maybe I'll listen.
Is it too much to ask of your imagination that you think up a couple of reasons on your own? It's not that hard to think of plausible motivations, including political power and money.
(If you don't understand how any of this links to money, here's a hint: just remember Obama's famous quote that "... energy costs will necessarily skyrocket.")
Well said, sir, and more polite than I have been. For the simple reason that I have been spit in the face far too often to have retained any tolerance for it.
I still try to be polite, at least to those who have been polite to me. But after a few years of trying to argue the facts to so many face-spitters, the nonsense does get tiring.
And that is not even close to a comprehensive list. There are also physicists who worked for NASA, and other science professionals, currently challenging the very foundations of AGW theory.
And it isn't
"all scientists across the world... saying the same"
... in fact it is http://joannenova.com.au/2013/...">a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus". (Note: Monckton did not compile that information, he just wrote about it.)
Further, a recent survey of meteorologists found that 2 factors, "perceived consensus" and "political ideology" were the 2 primary factors in members' opinions about AGW. (The "consensus" there, by the way, is 52%.)
I could go on for ages. So... what was that about creationism again? Pardon me, but your ideology is showing. By denying the existence of the science that contradicts your point of view, it is YOU who ends up looking like the ideologue and denialist.
"I explicitly modified Christian with "right-wing" for that very reason. You've simply substituted my "right-wing Christians" with "Christians" which is some form of logical fallacy, straw-man seems like the best fit; but I'm not sure and don't really care that much since this really is a religious debate and nobody's mind will change."
Pardon me... my own mistake. I was confusing part of what you wrote about right-wing with part of what someone else wrote. Mea culpa.
" It helps that massive percentage of Americans that receive benefits from the government..."
... at the expense of a healthy productive economy.
There, fixed that for you.
Government handouts are not production. Government does not produce wealth, production does. Government handouts (according to some rather famous studies) cost about $2 in production for every $1 in handouts.
If you want to ruin the economy, that's the way to go. Just ask Greece and Spain for example.
"The graph you've linked to is nice and all, but it would be better if it adopted a logarithmic scale when the inflationary period started. After all, the Fed's policy since the Great Depression has been to target a particular range of inflation per year, which will result in an exponential curve. Trying to do a linear fit to a process that was targeted to be exponential just ends up making the graph misleading and less useful to measure the effects of the Fed's policy."
Just no. The intended effect might be exponential, but the actual effect as shown is in linear dollars, because the actual effect on costs is not logarithmic, it's linear. Where did you study information presentation? You're suggesting I use a misleading measure of actual results, simply because of the intent of the policy? That's crazy.
As someone else in this thread has already pointed out: prices are relative to other prices in trade. That's how they're measured. This graph is an accurate representation of what cost of goods are today compared to past times, in term of trade values.
"The people whom inflation hurts are those on fixed income and people who prefer to hide their money somewhere rather than using it or investing it."
Nonsense. Inflation hurts everybody who saves. (When interest is lower than inflation, as it is now, money in the bank loses real value.) And it is the same with any other interest-bearing investment. When inflation is high, it directly affects what the real return is on your investment. 10% annual return with 5% annual inflation gives you an actual return of only 5%. It's that simple. And 2% interest from your savings account loses money when inflation is over 2% (as it consistently has been for years).
The fact that inflation harms savings is simple elementary-school-level math. And since the real health of an economy is measured largely by production capacity + savings, any harm to savings is relative harm to the economy.
"Meh. This is a typical lack of understanding about the origin of money and currency. "
Bullshit. It's called "history". Apparently I've studied the history of our economy, and you haven't.
The Hoover and FDR governments had spent more money (and in the case of FDR, planned to spend even more) than they had gold to back. The elimination of the internal gold standard was a direct result. The same with Johnson and Nixon. Other countries were calling for the U.S. to make good on its debt, and because of the Bretton-Woods system, that debt was still tied to gold. But the U.S. didn't have that gold because the government had already spent the money. Nixon axed Bretton-Woods as a direct result of that government debt. And, just for giggles, it should be noted that contrary to Obama's claims about default, in effect Nixon defaulted on U.S. debt in the process.
You can talk about your theory all you want, man, but it doesn't trump history. Reality prevails over ideology.
"Elasticity in the money supply is essential, and was recognized as such by the private sector. "
Bullshit. Look at that chart again. "Elasticity" was never essential until the government MADE IT essential by spending more money than it had gold to back it. You're claiming that the government's "solution" is necessary because of a problem the government created in the first place. That's like saying amputating your arm is good for you and "essential" to the health of your arm because the cut I made in it with a machete last week has become infected.
"The free market doesn't care about the General Welfare or the public interest. Government does."
Hahahaha! That's a nice idea. Too bad it's so easy to prove that it isn't so. Or rather... you may be right, it might actually "care", but its intervention has demonstrably done far more harm than good.
Thanks, but no matter how much it "cares", when the solution is worse than the problem, I'd rather do without. Government intervention in the economy has caused so many problems (the 2008 debacle for just the most recent big example), that I really don't give a damn how much it cares. Income inequality, by the way, has gone up in direct proportion to government intervention.
When are people going to realize that it isn't the good intention that matters, it's the actual result?
"I'll continue to use Dropbox because I never trusted them and made sure I didn't have to."
Good for you. But my point was not so much that I'm skeptical of trusting them, but rather that they've already clearly demonstrated -- it looks like twice now -- that they aren't trustworthy.
Still, as you point out: if you pre-encrypt everything, it doesn't matter so much.
"Actually the SPM has be accused of not being alarmist enough."
And it has also been accused of being purely political, and been accused of outright fraud. People make accusations. Abraham Lincoln was accused of being a racist. So what's your point?
Remember that the IPCC Charter says that actual report (not summary) conclusions must be re-worded if necessary to conform to the Summary for Policy Makers... not the other way around. Regardless of the science.
Sounds pretty much like the definition of "political" to me.
I didn't make that up, man, it's in the charter. Look it up.
"Worst thing is that it is a world wide scheme. All scientists and all the world's governments are in collusion on this. It is even worse than how they all try to brainwash our kids into thinking we are related to apes."
It's not a "worldwide" scheme, it's a UN scheme. Hardly the same things.
Rather than implying I am a "creationist", why don't you try refuting what I actually wrote? You know, facts and all that.
"Radical right-wing Christians believe in the Apocalypse"
Uh... way to conflate completely different things. You give your own biases away.
Many Christians believe in the Apocalypse. It has nothing to do with being right wing. (Correlation does not imply causation, remember.) There are plenty of Leftist Christians.
By the way, in case you didn't know: the word "apocalypse" means "revelation", and while it is popularly used this way, it actually has nothing to do with disaster. You're probably thinking of Armageddon, which is a different thing entirely.
"we're all effed. even if we do an aggressive CO2 reduction in emissions, we won't get emissions down to sustainable levels by 2050. Then, it will take decades for the CO2 air concentration to reach sustainable levels. and this assumes we don't get an explosion in emissions from developing countries."
Sir, put down that Kool-Aid now, before you hurt anybody else. There's a good fellow.
"Warmer temperatures mean more desertification and changes in rain belts."
No, it doesn't. It means changes in desertification, but less overall. Higher temperatures means higher atmospheric water content, which means fewer overall dry regions. It isn't all going to dump preferentially on just a few areas.
I find it hilarious that just a few days after NOAA recently predicted prolonged drought in California, it experienced near-record torrential rainfall over wide areas.
"Higher temperatures in the historical record have been associated with a higher total biomass on the planet."
A recent study (sorry, I don't have it handy) did in fact show that total biomass went up in a way that was directly correlated with temperature, at least until the temperature peak in 1997-1998.
"I call it a report written by climatologists. You know, SCIENTISTS..."
But it isn't. That's a pretty blatant failure to get your facts straight.
It's a report written by politicians for other politicians. That's what the Summary for Policy Makers IS. If you knew anything at all about the IPCC reports, you would know this.
And why do you think they release the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM... it's in the very name of the linked file) before they release the actual report? Because their SPM is deliberately alarmist in nature, and people pay attention to that before looking at the actual science... if they ever do.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well, enlighten me? How does someone in the UN get money or power out of that deal?"
Well, it's true I was speaking more of the U.S in that comment than the U.N., but here is some speculation:
UN is an organization that backs the whole one-world-government idea. And it is rather famous for thinking that if there were one, it would be that government.
Obviously one world government will not come about voluntarily. Proponents have historically supported the economic weakening of the U.S. (see Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Louis McFadden, speech before Congress re: the Great Depression) in order to remove freedom and choice in the matter. They have also supported obliteration of any right to private ownership of firearms. (That latter is official U.N. policy by the way.)
What better way to control a country's economy than to control its energy production, and the very air everyone breathes?
Understand: I'm not saying this is all one giant conspiracy to subjugate you. But each of those individual things is true, and joining them together is at least plausible. I'm not trying to tell you it's one particular cause or another, only that there are plausible motivations -- far more than one -- to think the U.N. is being self-serving with its politics surrounding AGW.
"Government handouts are massively productive if they help someone who has just been made redundant get back into work."
You mean "could be", not "are", because it isn't happening. At least in the U.S.
More handouts than ever before, yet economic recovery from the government-caused 2008 disaster has been weak and relatively "jobless".
I wasn't joking: income inequality has gone UP in direct proportion to government "intervention" supposedly intended to help poor people.
You can't pay attention to just the intentions, man. It's the results that matter. And even if we assume all that intervention was well-intended, the results speak for themselves.
Part of the difference here could be that you're (apparently) not from the U.S. But let me tell you: in this country it hasn't worked, doesn't work, and isn't going to work.
Good to know. Thanks.
"In the UN a tyrant like Gaddafi has equal rights to the entire nation and continent and democratically elected government of Australia. That is SCARY!!!!"
Don't forget that according to the UN Charter, not all of its members are equal. Some of them are a hell of a lot more "equal" than others.
That should scare people, especially those from smaller countries who think the UN would somehow be their savior. They're living in fantasyland.
"I think this "you should listen to us and take us seriously, not reject us" is bullshit. I don't give anti-vaccination and homeopathy people that leeway, because science says you are wrong. You are arguing from a position supported by almost no science, but a lot of politics."
This is the claim that deserves no respect, because it is simply wrong.
Look at the link I provided elsewhere in this thread. Read some of the papers. Or -- heaven forbid you should have to lift a finger -- go out and find some of it yourself, because there is lots of that science and it is all around you. It just isn't being spoon-fed to you by the evening news, which seems to be the reason you seem to think it doesn't exist.
You are doing exactly the kind of denying that you accuse others of. Do your own homework. Then get back to me, and maybe I'll listen.
Is it too much to ask of your imagination that you think up a couple of reasons on your own? It's not that hard to think of plausible motivations, including political power and money.
(If you don't understand how any of this links to money, here's a hint: just remember Obama's famous quote that "... energy costs will necessarily skyrocket.")
Well said, sir, and more polite than I have been. For the simple reason that I have been spit in the face far too often to have retained any tolerance for it.
I still try to be polite, at least to those who have been polite to me. But after a few years of trying to argue the facts to so many face-spitters, the nonsense does get tiring.
That one link got messed up. Here's the correct one.
"Evolution has about the same level of scientific consensus supporting it as climate change."
This is such an crazy claim, it's you who should be compared to creationists.
I have news for you, man. Evolution does not have a strong body of contrary science saying it's wrong. But AGW (which is what almost everybody really means when they say "climate change") DOES have such a body of science challenging its validity, including many peer-reviewed papers.
And that is not even close to a comprehensive list. There are also physicists who worked for NASA, and other science professionals, currently challenging the very foundations of AGW theory.
And it isn't
"all scientists across the world ... saying the same"
... in fact it is http://joannenova.com.au/2013/...">a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus". (Note: Monckton did not compile that information, he just wrote about it.)
Further, a recent survey of meteorologists found that 2 factors, "perceived consensus" and "political ideology" were the 2 primary factors in members' opinions about AGW. (The "consensus" there, by the way, is 52%.)
I could go on for ages. So... what was that about creationism again? Pardon me, but your ideology is showing. By denying the existence of the science that contradicts your point of view, it is YOU who ends up looking like the ideologue and denialist.
"I explicitly modified Christian with "right-wing" for that very reason. You've simply substituted my "right-wing Christians" with "Christians" which is some form of logical fallacy, straw-man seems like the best fit; but I'm not sure and don't really care that much since this really is a religious debate and nobody's mind will change."
Pardon me... my own mistake. I was confusing part of what you wrote about right-wing with part of what someone else wrote. Mea culpa.
"the temperature were higher in 2005 and 2010 then they were in 97-98"
Which temperatures, and according to whom?
" It helps that massive percentage of Americans that receive benefits from the government..."
... at the expense of a healthy productive economy.
There, fixed that for you.
Government handouts are not production. Government does not produce wealth, production does. Government handouts (according to some rather famous studies) cost about $2 in production for every $1 in handouts.
If you want to ruin the economy, that's the way to go. Just ask Greece and Spain for example.
"The graph you've linked to is nice and all, but it would be better if it adopted a logarithmic scale when the inflationary period started. After all, the Fed's policy since the Great Depression has been to target a particular range of inflation per year, which will result in an exponential curve. Trying to do a linear fit to a process that was targeted to be exponential just ends up making the graph misleading and less useful to measure the effects of the Fed's policy."
Just no. The intended effect might be exponential, but the actual effect as shown is in linear dollars, because the actual effect on costs is not logarithmic, it's linear. Where did you study information presentation? You're suggesting I use a misleading measure of actual results, simply because of the intent of the policy? That's crazy.
As someone else in this thread has already pointed out: prices are relative to other prices in trade. That's how they're measured. This graph is an accurate representation of what cost of goods are today compared to past times, in term of trade values.
"The people whom inflation hurts are those on fixed income and people who prefer to hide their money somewhere rather than using it or investing it."
Nonsense. Inflation hurts everybody who saves. (When interest is lower than inflation, as it is now, money in the bank loses real value.) And it is the same with any other interest-bearing investment. When inflation is high, it directly affects what the real return is on your investment. 10% annual return with 5% annual inflation gives you an actual return of only 5%. It's that simple. And 2% interest from your savings account loses money when inflation is over 2% (as it consistently has been for years).
The fact that inflation harms savings is simple elementary-school-level math. And since the real health of an economy is measured largely by production capacity + savings, any harm to savings is relative harm to the economy.
"Meh. This is a typical lack of understanding about the origin of money and currency. "
Bullshit. It's called "history". Apparently I've studied the history of our economy, and you haven't.
The Hoover and FDR governments had spent more money (and in the case of FDR, planned to spend even more) than they had gold to back. The elimination of the internal gold standard was a direct result. The same with Johnson and Nixon. Other countries were calling for the U.S. to make good on its debt, and because of the Bretton-Woods system, that debt was still tied to gold. But the U.S. didn't have that gold because the government had already spent the money. Nixon axed Bretton-Woods as a direct result of that government debt. And, just for giggles, it should be noted that contrary to Obama's claims about default, in effect Nixon defaulted on U.S. debt in the process.
You can talk about your theory all you want, man, but it doesn't trump history. Reality prevails over ideology.
"The only good thing Reagan did was prove that deficits don't matter."
He "proved" that, did he? And how, pray tell, is he supposed to have proved that?
"Elasticity in the money supply is essential, and was recognized as such by the private sector. "
Bullshit. Look at that chart again. "Elasticity" was never essential until the government MADE IT essential by spending more money than it had gold to back it. You're claiming that the government's "solution" is necessary because of a problem the government created in the first place. That's like saying amputating your arm is good for you and "essential" to the health of your arm because the cut I made in it with a machete last week has become infected.
"The free market doesn't care about the General Welfare or the public interest. Government does."
Hahahaha! That's a nice idea. Too bad it's so easy to prove that it isn't so. Or rather... you may be right, it might actually "care", but its intervention has demonstrably done far more harm than good.
Thanks, but no matter how much it "cares", when the solution is worse than the problem, I'd rather do without. Government intervention in the economy has caused so many problems (the 2008 debacle for just the most recent big example), that I really don't give a damn how much it cares. Income inequality, by the way, has gone up in direct proportion to government intervention.
When are people going to realize that it isn't the good intention that matters, it's the actual result?
"I'll continue to use Dropbox because I never trusted them and made sure I didn't have to."
Good for you. But my point was not so much that I'm skeptical of trusting them, but rather that they've already clearly demonstrated -- it looks like twice now -- that they aren't trustworthy.
Still, as you point out: if you pre-encrypt everything, it doesn't matter so much.
Wow. The Mod Squad has been all over this thread in force today.
No great surprise. If you don't have facts on your side, hush up those who do, eh?
Pardon the sarcasm but in this case it is well-deserved.
By the way: critics might find this data interesting.
"Actually the SPM has be accused of not being alarmist enough."
And it has also been accused of being purely political, and been accused of outright fraud. People make accusations. Abraham Lincoln was accused of being a racist. So what's your point?
Remember that the IPCC Charter says that actual report (not summary) conclusions must be re-worded if necessary to conform to the Summary for Policy Makers... not the other way around. Regardless of the science.
Sounds pretty much like the definition of "political" to me.
I didn't make that up, man, it's in the charter. Look it up.
"Worst thing is that it is a world wide scheme. All scientists and all the world's governments are in collusion on this. It is even worse than how they all try to brainwash our kids into thinking we are related to apes."
It's not a "worldwide" scheme, it's a UN scheme. Hardly the same things.
Rather than implying I am a "creationist", why don't you try refuting what I actually wrote? You know, facts and all that.
AAAaaaaaannnnndddd...
the modders have proved me right again. Thanks for that, I guess.
"Radical right-wing Christians believe in the Apocalypse"
Uh... way to conflate completely different things. You give your own biases away.
Many Christians believe in the Apocalypse. It has nothing to do with being right wing. (Correlation does not imply causation, remember.) There are plenty of Leftist Christians.
By the way, in case you didn't know: the word "apocalypse" means "revelation", and while it is popularly used this way, it actually has nothing to do with disaster. You're probably thinking of Armageddon, which is a different thing entirely.
"we're all effed. even if we do an aggressive CO2 reduction in emissions, we won't get emissions down to sustainable levels by 2050. Then, it will take decades for the CO2 air concentration to reach sustainable levels. and this assumes we don't get an explosion in emissions from developing countries."
Sir, put down that Kool-Aid now, before you hurt anybody else. There's a good fellow.
"Warmer temperatures mean more desertification and changes in rain belts."
No, it doesn't. It means changes in desertification, but less overall. Higher temperatures means higher atmospheric water content, which means fewer overall dry regions. It isn't all going to dump preferentially on just a few areas.
I find it hilarious that just a few days after NOAA recently predicted prolonged drought in California, it experienced near-record torrential rainfall over wide areas.
"Higher temperatures in the historical record have been associated with a higher total biomass on the planet."
A recent study (sorry, I don't have it handy) did in fact show that total biomass went up in a way that was directly correlated with temperature, at least until the temperature peak in 1997-1998.
"I call it a report written by climatologists. You know, SCIENTISTS..."
But it isn't. That's a pretty blatant failure to get your facts straight.
It's a report written by politicians for other politicians. That's what the Summary for Policy Makers IS. If you knew anything at all about the IPCC reports, you would know this.
And why do you think they release the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM... it's in the very name of the linked file) before they release the actual report? Because their SPM is deliberately alarmist in nature, and people pay attention to that before looking at the actual science... if they ever do.