Climate Change , A Final Warning

Which means what? That you'd rather cite the liturgy than engage in the debate of the actual? That doesn't seem competitive on your part. So, reliance on the IPCC or the "30000 lines of evidence" tells us what again? If we don't allow for transitive association to happen, per your new cool standard, what value then do you 30000 lines of evidence indicate? If all the lines described different facets of a grain of sand, you still haven't described the grain, have you? Just the 30000 observations about it. And that's where you've left yourself.

Would you rather be right? or dutifully consistent being wrong?

 

True enough, which is why I advocate that the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech be ended. The rate of change is directly related to the level of vital communication conducted between the people for their interests.

 

You mean you want a totalitarian society where only thoughts you approve can be expressed

But thats not news to me

 

So the "fix" is just a theory for which there is no evidence of being effective. Carbon credits are a license to pollute. And who sells these carbon credits? Al Gore.


Al Gore Purchases Carbon Credits From A Company He Himself Owns
LISTEN | PRINT
By Pamela Jean Mar 4, 2008 in Environment
Al Gore, self appointed expert on global warming has been purchasing carbon credits in an effort to offset his palatial lifestyle. What he didn't tell us, however, is that the company he is buying the credits from is actually owned by him. Ching, ching...


Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251232#ixzz5XW82T1VU

 

Don't know...the science community has communicated thoroughly with the public, in the US and across the world...it's not an issue of communication now...it is an issue of whether or not mankind is smart enough to pay attention to the warning signs...

 

Pay attention and do what?

 

YES!

 

You are burying your head in the sand. There is a mountain of evidence that says rising CO2 concentrations produce a positive radiative forcing and falling CO2 concentrations produce a negative radiative forcing. This has been known for 150+ years and we've even had quantified results backed up by laboratory experiments, paleoclimate records, and theorectical calculations made from quantum mechanics and thermodynamics for more than 120 years. Arrhenius even correctly deduced that the polar regions are more sensitive to equatorial regions in their response to CO2 way back in 1896! In fact, the Arrhenius equation for the warming produced by CO2, although simple by today's standards, is still in use because of it's simplicity and effectiveness in explaining and predicting the warming/cooling that will result from changes in CO2 concentration. And that was more 120 years ago. In the falling years we've piled on orders of magnitude more evidence onto this making for a huge and likely insurmountable mountain of evidence today. That's where we are. So saying "there is no evidence of being effective" couldn't be further from the truth. We know...and I mean we KNOW without a shadow of doubt that falling CO2 concentrations necessarily puts a downward pressure on global temperatures.

 

We can only hope.

 

Yes but those polar bears have mutated and according to Al, we now refer to them as ManBearPig.

 

Yeah...yeah...I remember when Al Gore said the Arctic would be ice free. Then I remembered that Al Gore isn't a scientist, isn't an expert, and takes liberty to make stuff up and profit from it so I ignored him and instead got my information from people who actually know what they're talking about. Apparently this is a completely a foreign concept to most people. They're heads explode when you explain to them that they can, in fact, ignore him.

 

Lol! I approve of the ideals of the constitution, and approve of expressing those first, and creating a majority in support of them.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.


2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling the peoples unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Does this strategy seem totalitarian?

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html

 

Those 3 deg C are net beneficial.

 

The litmus test is China. They will not do anything to reduce their economic growth except develop green energy technology to sell to the west which will reduce the economic growth of the west. And they do not feel guilty about damaging western economies at all.

 

“Goofy” is the word I was thinking of

You are telling us a little totaltarainism in the defense of freedom is ok

But I disagree

 

MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING (CLIMATE CHANGE) IS A LIE !!!!!!




https://youhttps://youtu.be/EvO7bBuTRnohttps://youtu.be/EvO7bBuTRnotu.be/EvO7bBuTRno

 

Tax revenue is all they're interested in.

 

And taking people's money away from them reduces their capability to adapt.

 

No it's not. You're getting swindled by con artists. Easterbrook and Tim Ball are well known climate misinformers. They both make claims that aren't true.

And like every other skeptic/denier they can't explain the smoking gun signal for greenhouse gas warming...a warming troposphere/hydrosphere simultaneous with a cooling stratosphere.

 

No one will ever do anything about global warming. Paris is burning today because the government started an "anti-global warming" program that raised gas taxes.

My recommendation: buy real estate at least 300 feet above sea level and lots of guns.

 

That's a pretty alarmist position don't you think? The IPCC is only expecting a 0.5m - 1.0m sea level rise by 2100. That's only 3 feet at most.

 

Umm, the labeling you are using is not accurate. There is a misrepresentation in that term.

It is an absolute that we have the right to alter or abolish, not some "ism". Then, logically something must serve to enable the unity amongst the people.

 

I dont care for every expression of free speech

But your attempted suppression of ideas is wrong

 

There is no necessity that there be unity amongst any particular people or nation. It's a nicety and a worthy goal, but it is not necessary.

 

Specifically, which
Idea? How do I attempt to suppress?