Its about FUD. From the Rockefeller foundation, the UN, the governments of the west, who all want in on this new bandwagon.
Your appeal to authority only impresses those that have already bought into your ideology.
The sky is blue. The brown you are talking about is invisible and has no demonstrated any harm so far. But you and your "specialists" assure us we are doomed. I know another body of people who assure us we are doomed, and they have a big report out called The Bible, its true, because all the Bible experts say its true.
The UN and associated governments have been outspending 10 to 1 any moneys put forth by those "big oil" companies, in propaganda in the last few decades.
Not to mention the big oil companies have been funding both sides.
I know we are leading up to COP 21 in Paris and they feel there is a need to spread the propaganda thick, but this is getting ridiculous.
Contrary to what the media is spreading, Exxon and other oil companies have been funding both sides fro decades. i.e. http://news.stanford.edu/news/...
Rockefeller has been behind this push and drive on climate alarmism from the get go. Funding research and organisations like 350.org.
Those that believe the fallacy that big oil is all alone and behind only the "denier war machine" are keeping their heads in the sand.
Besides, the governements of the west outspend the supposed denial money by 10 to 1.
Where is the study putting a price on technological advancement and breakthroughs. Quality of life? Life expectancy? Modern medicine and health care? Communications? Knowledge? Education? Productivity?
You cant calculate the negatives and call it a day.
This study is shit. Its premise is flawed. Its part and parcel with the whole carbon debate.
They don't actually believe its a problem. Not many people do. They just follow the bandwagon, because its the IN thing to do now, and say "Oh that climate change thing, baaaaad! We should do something about it."
No one likes being the odd one out at the table, so they lie.
That line is pretty close to linear, especialy if you consider the error bars for the first 50-75 years.
A sea level rise of 3 inches for 23 years is not abnormal.
3mm/yr sea level rise is pretty much what we've been seeing since the end of the little ice age.
At this rate we will see about 1foot rise per century, which is absolutely NOTHING to worry about and just natural variation considering we are comming out of an ice age.
If it hasnt been a catastrophic problem in the past, why would it be for the next 100 years?
The EXPERTS are showing non catastrophic data and trying to convince you that it is catastrophic.
Finaly, the first 15 years of this century has seen about 45mm of sea level rise. To reach 3 feet it would require 3 times that rise per year and NOTHING indicates this will happen.
Its sad to see than you can read, but fail to understand.
If I call you an idiot because I believe you to be an idiot, that is still name calling. "Rightly" doesn't factor into this.
You are acting religious, as you believe in something without foundation, only because others have told you to believe it.
Strawman argument is exactly what you did, you made an argument, projected it onto me and than used it to try and take me down. The fact that you don't realize how weak your arguments are, shows you have no good arguments and/or your arguments come from a place of emotion.
Kid:) Cute, you are trying to make yourself seem mature, older and wiser. When you just keep demonstrating you are none of those.
What's ridiculous is you, reduced to name calling to make your point because you have run out of arguments.
Building straw arguments about God , when you have no idea about my beliefs.
You presume to be an intelligent person, but you follow and parrot what others say like a sheep. Because it fits your ideology, because you believe you are righteous. Which makes you the religious believer not I.
P.s. I don't believe in God, gods or any religion, least of all the religion of green eco terrorist evangelists and fear mongering alarmists.
Slashdot Mirror
What crime?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sit...
You can find the others on your own.
You mean except for skyrocketing costs of energy for EVERYONE.
So you are saying this IS about redistribution of wealth?
And you think 30 million dollars is a significant sum?
The USA alone has been spending billions every year for the past 2-3 decades on AGW.
The western governments and the UN have been outspending 10 to 1 all the skeptics for the last few decades.
Its about FUD. From the Rockefeller foundation, the UN, the governments of the west, who all want in on this new bandwagon.
Your appeal to authority only impresses those that have already bought into your ideology.
The sky is blue. The brown you are talking about is invisible and has no demonstrated any harm so far. But you and your "specialists" assure us we are doomed.
I know another body of people who assure us we are doomed, and they have a big report out called The Bible, its true, because all the Bible experts say its true.
The UN and associated governments have been outspending 10 to 1 any moneys put forth by those "big oil" companies, in propaganda in the last few decades.
Not to mention the big oil companies have been funding both sides.
How many times will they make articles about this as if it was something new?
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
I know we are leading up to COP 21 in Paris and they feel there is a need to spread the propaganda thick, but this is getting ridiculous.
Contrary to what the media is spreading, Exxon and other oil companies have been funding both sides fro decades.
i.e. http://news.stanford.edu/news/...
Rockefeller has been behind this push and drive on climate alarmism from the get go. Funding research and organisations like 350.org.
Those that believe the fallacy that big oil is all alone and behind only the "denier war machine" are keeping their heads in the sand.
Besides, the governements of the west outspend the supposed denial money by 10 to 1.
That is easily solved, by allowing you to vote multiple times, but only the last vote counts.
So you can submit your vote 15 times. But the last time you do it, thats what sticks.
Cadderly Bonaduce (Cleric Quintet)
Has a lovable Hero.
Zombies and vampires for the teens.
Whats not to like?
Where is the study putting a price on technological advancement and breakthroughs.
Quality of life?
Life expectancy?
Modern medicine and health care?
Communications?
Knowledge?
Education?
Productivity?
You cant calculate the negatives and call it a day.
This study is shit. Its premise is flawed. Its part and parcel with the whole carbon debate.
He is just pointing out the facts.
So environuts wont go around putting Bhutan up on a pedestal and asking large countries to follow their lead, because its just not possible.
Its simple.
They don't actually believe its a problem.
Not many people do.
They just follow the bandwagon, because its the IN thing to do now, and say "Oh that climate change thing, baaaaad! We should do something about it."
No one likes being the odd one out at the table, so they lie.
When a study commissioned by a bank is leaked to the press, its to influence the markets.
If you don't see that, I feel sorry for you and your ideology.
Approximately 5 years.
The hand waving about a closed box and net imbalance is conjecture.
You must mean the invented costs based on magical predictions of the future based on conjecture.
Option 1: Assured money for the banks
Option 2: Maybe money for the banks, if things turn catastrophic
Which option would you prefer if you where a bank?
Again. Fear the banks in everything... except on climate change. Right??
Finally, someone who can reason.
For some reason, when it comes to climate change, people have blinders.
I cant believe you got moded up for this.
Citibank has a stake in this. They will make loads of money of carbon trading and loans on all the "ACTION" projects.
Doing nothing does not "stimulate" the economy, thus no money for the banks.
I am baffled by the usual "Dont trust the media and the banks" except when they talk about "Climate change". Than you can trust them without question.
I think you'll find you aren't even in the right ball park of when CO2 can become a problem.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.ph...
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.ph...
Its hiding under the surface right? Thats your reasoning?
It is pretty complex and chaotic, but why do you have to believe in the most catastrophic scenario?
Its scaremongering of the highest order.
That line is pretty close to linear, especialy if you consider the error bars for the first 50-75 years.
A sea level rise of 3 inches for 23 years is not abnormal.
3mm/yr sea level rise is pretty much what we've been seeing since the end of the little ice age.
At this rate we will see about 1foot rise per century, which is absolutely NOTHING to worry about and just natural variation considering we are comming out of an ice age.
If it hasnt been a catastrophic problem in the past, why would it be for the next 100 years?
The EXPERTS are showing non catastrophic data and trying to convince you that it is catastrophic.
Finaly, the first 15 years of this century has seen about 45mm of sea level rise. To reach 3 feet it would require 3 times that rise per year and NOTHING indicates this will happen.
False premise is the the base of your post.
CO2 is life. C is life.
Calling it pollution is a political stance, ushered in by those that created this system, a system designed to be gamed from its inception.
The fact that y our ideology lets you gobble up these lies, is irrelevant to the truth, that it has nothing to do with the environement.
Apparently you don't have anything better to do.
And you keep digging yourself deeper into that angry hole.
Have a nice weekend.
Its sad to see than you can read, but fail to understand.
If I call you an idiot because I believe you to be an idiot, that is still name calling. "Rightly" doesn't factor into this.
You are acting religious, as you believe in something without foundation, only because others have told you to believe it.
Strawman argument is exactly what you did, you made an argument, projected it onto me and than used it to try and take me down. The fact that you don't realize how weak your arguments are, shows you have no good arguments and/or your arguments come from a place of emotion.
Kid :) Cute, you are trying to make yourself seem mature, older and wiser. When you just keep demonstrating you are none of those.
What's ridiculous is you, reduced to name calling to make your point because you have run out of arguments.
Building straw arguments about God , when you have no idea about my beliefs.
You presume to be an intelligent person, but you follow and parrot what others say like a sheep. Because it fits your ideology, because you believe you are righteous.
Which makes you the religious believer not I.
P.s. I don't believe in God, gods or any religion, least of all the religion of green eco terrorist evangelists and fear mongering alarmists.
They dont like thinking. It hurts.
Repeating what they read in MSM is easier.