I KNOW we've still got a few on this forum. Here's a chance to make some $$$. OR, more likely, further embarrass yourself :) But hey, you can't win if you don't play.
Come on deniers. Win $10000. This is your big chance . . . (Crickets).
Bunch of panty-waist low forehead imbeciles fronting for carbon fuels trying to confuse other low information idiots.
Your days are numbered.
Why is heterodoxy of opinion so offensive to you? Why the dogmatism with labels like 'deniers?' Why do you care?
Bluntly, not all opinions are created equal. I don't trust Jenny McCarthy to tell me about the relative safety of vaccination, and I don't really put a lot of stock in economists insisting that climate change doesn't exist or has no anthropogenic aspect. The longer we cater to the demand for insincere or misinformed debate on something that's essentially settled science, the lengthier, costlier and more complex any remediation is likely to be.
It's telling to me that there's a lot of overlap between the group of scientists who are climate change deniers and the group that insisted that cigarettes were perfectly safe. Not philosophical overlap; the same people. Being paid by entities that have a vested interest in denial of the issue, again.
C Greg, nobody came up with special pejorative names for evolution deniers, tobacco deniers, vaccination deniers etc.
I am just curious why this issue provokes such an emotional response.
My thoughts.... evolution, carcinogens, vaccination etc are all subject to validation by designed experiment. Climate predictions on the other hand rely on very dirty data (eg temperature measures in locations where surrounding development environment has changed from rural to built up) and global scale simulations. Many very drastic proposals to reverse the pollutants have been forwarded. Climate predictions take so long to come home, and the effectiveness of countermeasures is so difficult to assess, that many people feel that the potential to reduce long term harm, when factored by uncertainty, doesn't justify the immediate pain.
This is the same calculation someone makes when they resist going on a diet, in a way.
But the vitriol expended to suppress this kind of cost benefit analysis feels to a lot of people like dogma... suppression....which makes many folks feel like the science must be weak. Which it is, in that there is no way to do experimental validation.
Those of us who own Teslas are proud to be leading the world towards sustainable energy that does not hold the potential of disrupting the earth's climate.
That said, there's been plenty of bad science used in the climate change debate. The debate has become politicized, which is too bad because it hinders careful scientific inquiry.
I salute those on both sides of this topic who offer rational arguments and listen to rational arguments from the other side. While the extent of man's involvement in climate change is debated, I'm pleased to be part of the solution, just in case the link between CO2 and global warming actually exists to a substantial degree.
DTSea: "there is no way to do experimental validation."
So. Do we keep polluting the planet knowing pollution is harmful, or do we DO SOMETHING to reduce pollution?
Those skeptical of climate change and the scientists who have researched it nine ways from Sunday, do not have science to say "no, nothing is happening at all." They only question data, say results are bad, question the validity of the person delivering the message, or dismiss any data out of hand.
There may be ways to make the world productive AND cleaner, but the health implications (and costs) for humans if the climate science turns out to be correct is difficult to calculate.
The question does not stay "is it happening or not?" The question becomes "What should we do about it?" ("we" being humans globally, not just a single country.)
Too many people just come up with "DO NOTHING" as the answer.
That is the wrong answer.
I sincerely do not share that perception. To me "denier" is bland and neutral. It carries no implication of rationale or intelligence. It only says that the person rejects the hypothesis that an event occurs. Better than calling someone an idiot or a shill when you don't know their motivation, no?
As DTSea points out, the challenge is meaningless since climate change cannot be verified experimentally.
Thus, the only tools available are models describing the climate, and predictions made from those models. As the Wikipedia entry on the scientific method helpfully notes, the scientific method is based on:
...supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.
Given the vast number of false predictions made by the climate alarmists-- and I would parenthetically note here that I consider the term "alarmist" to be bland and neutral; an accurate description of what they're doing-- everything from snow-free winters in England by 2010 to rising ocean levels and temperatures that stubbornly refuse to rise to the predicted levels, I'd say that the current consensus on AGW at the very least based on a lot of very poor models.
Not that I'm impugning the abilities of the people who came up with the models; it's just that climate is, you know, really, really, complex. Heck, I can't even accurately measure the average temperature of my office to 0.1 degrees Celcius (it's rather warm behind the computer but quite cool by the A/C vent), but these people claim to be able to measure the average temperature of the entire globe to that level of precision. How cool is that? But apparently it's not enough.
We already know the climatistas-- I hasten to note that this is another completely innocuous term-- have lied about things like declining polar bear populations and glacier retreats. Really, do they have any credibility left?
Heck, they've even worked for years to switch the name of the thing from "global warming" to "climate change" because the globe wasn't warming fast enough.
I'd also point out to CT-Greg that climate alarmists are being paid too, but generally by governments rather than private entities. Whether this makes them intrinsically more moral or reliable is a question I'd leave to you.
Climate Change can ABSOLUTELY be falsified. You could;
- Prove CO2 DOES NOT absorb IR light (sorry, it does)
- Prove humans don't add 30GT of CO2 (sorry, we do)
- Show that 30GT is a pittance compared the mass of earths atmosphere (sorry, it's 5ppm)
- Prove that CO2 blocks as much visible light as IR (sorry it doesn't)
The fact that Climate Change hasn't been falsified doesn't mean it's not falsifiable... like evolution... that just means that it's probably true. In science, a tested hypothesis becomes a theory and theories are FACTS.
Very well said Dramsey.
The climate change deniers of today are engaged in a campaign that is very similar to the one waged by tobacco advocates to deny a link between smoking and lung cancer in an attempt to deceive the public into thinking man made global warming isnt real, according to a professor of physics. Dr. Christopher Keating, author of Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming, said, Global warming deniers are using the same tactics as the tobacco advocates. In fact, some of the people involved today were involved in the tobacco campaign. They are very good at deceiving people and they learned from their mistakes. Of course, we know how the tobacco campaign turned out and they are working very hard to make sure this one doesnt end the same way.
Keating has been involved, at some level, with climate change for 30 years. He has been a professor of physics for over 20 years and has taught at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
Keating points to the claims of deniers as supporting evidence. Compare the claims of deniers of today to the people that denied a link between tobacco and lung disease and see how similar they are. The tobacco people funded certain scientists to undermine valid research. At the same time, they called into question the ability of scientist receiving government funding to remain unbiased. They claimed lung disease was just a natural event. Climate change deniers today are making the same arguments about global warming.
Keating also points to the funding source for much of the deniers. A recent study done at Drexel University showed that denier organizations have received nearly $560 million over an eight-year period. They traced this money to about 140 different organizations, including many with ties to the fossil fuel industry. These are the people that stand to lose money if we do something about climate change. It simply shatters any credibility the deniers might have ever had.
The ironic thing about people not believing in climate change is that they have to pay for it, says Keating. Its always the consumers that have to pay the costs and this is no exception. As the costs go up, those added expenses will be passed down as higher prices. We are already seeing increases in the cost of utilities, insurance, food and many more things due to climate change. The businesses dont pay those expenses. We do. So, every time you say climate change isnt real, you need to take your checkbook out and write a check to the people running the fossil fuel industry.
Keating says the results of climate change science are so overwhelming that the only way you can deny global warming is to deny science. Greenhouse gases are on the rise and the effects are evident: The earth is getting warmer, weather everywhere is changing, the oceans are warming at an alarming rate and ice caps are melting. Every where you look you see evidence of global warming. This isnt something that is only going to occur in the future, it is happening right now.
Keating demonstrated this point in his new book, Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming. Written in the style of Galileos Dialogues on Two New Sciences, Keatings book consists of three friends debating the issues surrounding global warming. Just as in Galileos works, one friend acts as an advocate of global warming, one acts as a denier and one sits on the fence and goes back and forth. This is a nice style because it presents both sides of the argument in a debate format. The premise of the book is that there is now so much science that anyone, not just scientists, can prove man made global warming is real. There is simply no science to support the claims of the deniers, but massive amounts of science proving man made global warming is real. All that anyone needs to do is a little homework. Everything is available to the public, said Keating.
Keating is so sure of his claim that he has issued two challenges to the deniers, one that will pay $10,000 to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method that man made climate change is not real; and one that will pay $1000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that it isnt real. The challenge is open to anyone over 18 and there is no entry fee. I will judge all entries and show why they fail or succeed in the challenge. Entries dont even have to be original. They just have to be first.
Keating says he is more than willing to pay the money but doesnt believe it will happen, Im a scientist and I have to go where the science leads me. I have been studying climate change for a long time and I am certain my money is safe. They are in the business of denial and deception, not science. But, if someone could give me a scientific proof global warming isnt real, it would be worth the money.
Go claim your $10,000. Oh wait you don't have ANY science on your side. Oops.
"I'd also point out to CT-Greg that climate alarmists are being paid too, but generally by governments rather than private entities. Whether this makes them intrinsically more moral or reliable is a question I'd leave to you."
You might note, though, that the alarmists actually do research - the deniers for the most part just say, 'nun-uh,' - and for the most part have actually been understating the predictions of their models specifically because they don't want to be dismissed as kooks. Meanwhile, so far the models themselves have generally turned out to be conservative.
"Not that I'm impugning the abilities of the people who came up with the models; it's just that climate is, you know, really, really, complex."
This is true. And that being the case, should I grant more credence to the climatologists and those in related fields who overwhelmingly lean one way, or people rejecting those claims who overwhelmingly come from unrelated fields?
Spot on CT-Greg... funny how nearly ALL of the actual researchers say AGW is real and AGW is a threat. Always amused by the "science is for sale" argument because mercenaries usually go to the highest bidder and last time I checked the Oil lobby has a lot more money than the renewable lobby.
Carbon lobby (Coal, Oil, Natural gas) or CON, represents 80% of all energy usage in the U.S. They have started wars, curbed legislation and funded fake science.
But just like with tobacco, they are going to pay the piper.
SamO: Right on target. I concur. I've been against tobacco products even longer than I've been for electric cars. Excellent comparison of the techniques used by the denial regime.
Reminds me also of the tried and true techniques that were used against Tucker and DeLorean, that have been attempted once again to attack Tesla. The difference is that the world has greater access to actual truth, instead of the 'alternate version of the approximate truth', thanks to this wonderful thing called the internet.
Why do we need science to figure this one out? What ever happened to peoples ability to think for themself? What ever happened to common sense? The earth is a closed system. Your garage or house can be a closed system. Close windows and doors, plug vents, start your ICE car or gas heater and see what happens. You have just figured out what 86 million barrels a day, plus gas and coal, will due to the earth. If ice is melting it is warming, If it is increasing it is cooling.
The same people believe the smoke that wealth trickles down. Common sense would tell you that if the working class can't buy the oil and products from the large corporations then they are not going to do well. Thats why we have high welfare for the rich.
If I don't do this some denier is going to come along and call you out on it... sorry, but the earth is not a closed system. We receive energy from the sun and radiate back into space. The thermal impact of our activities is negligible compared to the amount of heat trapped by the extra CO2 we've added ~1.5w/m^2. For perspective we're trapping ~765TW continuously or 6701400TWh annually vs 120000 TWh of fossil fuels burned. The reason AGW is a problem is actually that Earth IS NOT a closed system and we're keeping more energy in the atmosphere with higher concentrations of CO2.
@nwdiver93 If it is not a closed system open the window and let the CO2 out!
Mass - Yes it's closed (Mostly)
Energy - No, it's an open system.
We can all agree that burning 88 million barrels of crude oil per day is polluting.
Pollution affects our health.
We can all agree that crude oil supplies are finite.
The shift away is inevitable.
Two great reasons to move away from a hydrocarbon based economy.
If co2 levels impact the the earths temperature adversely, with devastating
Consequences, why take the risk.
I don't believe all the global warming crap, but that doesn't change my position that if there is an alternative, why take a chance? If you can drive a better car that you know doesn't impact the environment, why not drive it? I may be unsure about ICE cars being the problem, but, I'd rather err on the side of caution.
And don't bother trying to convince me about global warming. I'm not going to be swayed either way. Just like you will never convince me that vaccines aren't horrible for humans. I won't really even read the argument. But, take comfort in knowing that I support reasonable efforts to reduce co2 emissions. I'm not going to support any laws or regulations that put us all in the poor house and starving, but hey, when you can drive a Tesla and potentially make the world a better place, why wouldn't you. That's a win-win situation!
"We can all agree that crude oil supplies are finite."
The funny thing is that there are people who will, with utter sincerity, not agree with that.
"I don't believe all the global warming crap, .... And don't bother trying to convince me about global warming. ... I won't really even read the argument."
DTsea: You wanted to know why there are strong feelings on this? The quote above is your answer. That's not skepticism, and if you know a better word than denial I'd be happy to hear it.
True CO Greg but the tone was set by the OP by 'calling out' 'deniers.'
Where I grew up calling out either referred to baseball, or inviting someone to step outside for a physical resolution of a disagreement. I think OP meant the latter.
@Samo, +1, great post, another great book worth reading documenting the issue "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreski & Erik Conway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt)
When someone offers you $10k to prove your position, you're being "called out"....
The Heartland Institute's CEO Joseph Bast to cast doubt on findings from the "Intragovernmental [sic] Panel on Climate Change."
Bast, who claimed in the 1990s that smoking "in moderation has few, if any, adverse health effects."
HEARTLAND INSTITUTE AND TOBACCO
Led by president and CEO Joseph Bast, the Heartland Institute has a long and disgraceful track record of misleading the public about the overwhelming scientific evidence that cigarette smoking poses significant health risks. The organization has also consistently argued against health-based regulation of tobacco products. Heartland’s scientifically and morally indefensible advocacy on smoking is no surprise given that a significant portion of its funding has come from tobacco companies. In the past two years, Altria and Reynolds American contributed $90,000 and $110,000 respectively.
“Joe Camel Is Innocent!” — Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast, August 21, 1996
“The public health community’s campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science.” — Joseph Bast, April 20, 2007
“People being paid to demonize tobacco products and their users may not be the best judges of whether the scientific debate is settled. Forgive me for believing that what General Carmona says is an accurate expression of the politics and passions of the moment, but not necessarily of the real science of the health effects of secondhand smoke.” Joseph Bast, July 6, 2006
“So whether or not you smoke, you have good reasons to oppose the lawsuits against tobacco companies as well as any proposed settlement.” — Joseph Bast, September 1997
“Debate over the ethics of smoking may never end, but the legal challenges could be, and properly should be, stopped.” — Joseph Bast, January 2, 2002
“Heartland does many things that benefit Philip Morris’ bottom line, things that no other organization does” — Joseph Bast, July 27, 1999
“Smoking in moderation has few, if any, adverse health effects” — Joseph Bast, July 1998
“Anti-smoking groups with a collectivist political agenda, allied with ‘cancer industry’ organizations that rely on fear to enhance their considerable cash flow, have filled the media with claims about secondhand tobacco smoke that are questionable at best, and fraudulent at worst.” — Dennis Constant, October 22, 2005
“No matter what the environmental issue—ozone depletion, acid rain, pesticides, etc.—any and all scientific opposition based on objective facts is blamed on an imagined involvement with tobacco companies. None of this is true, of course. Oreskes and Conway claim to be academic historians, yet they have consistently ignored factual information, have not bothered to consult primary sources, have never interviewed any of the scientists they try to smear, and generally have operated in a completely unprofessional way. The ultimate aim of these attacks has been to discredit skeptics of similarly unsupported global warming fears.” — S. Fred Singer, January 3, 2011
“Millions of dollars have been spent promoting SHS [second-hand smoke] as a killer and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in non-smokers.” — Jerome Arnett, August 2, 2008
“While there is agreement that smoking cigarettes, like most pleasures, is risky, the zealous people who wish to abolish smoking could not have mounted the current antismoking crusade without playing up the risks of so-called 'secondhand smoke' — or, what the scientific literature calls environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Under the flag that the end justifies the means, the purported risks posed by ETS have been used to justify draconian regulations that criminalize and marginalize lawful citizens, pitting children against parents, spouses against spouses, and people against people to the point of raising homicidal animosities against smokers.” Gio Batta Gori, April 1, 2007
“The big bucks go to those who "discover" that ETS causes everything from pimples to piles.” Michael Fumento, September 11, 2001
“So it's time to talk turkey about this secondhand smoke craze to my once-upon-a-time second city, and let you know just how bonkers you are and just how you began the greatest brainwashing of the 20th century.” Sidney Zion, November 29, 2002
I wish I could be a liberal. Just so I could see what that arrogant, obnoxious, all-knowing life is like. I would love to be SO high on myself that I truly believed that everything I thought was automatically true - JUST BECAUSE I BELIEVED IT. I would love to see what it's like to never see the other side because I am SURE I am never wrong. And not even give that possibility a second thought.
Nah...I'd hate to be trapped in that mind.
There's a guy out there that will give anyone that can prove there's no God a million dollars. Guess what, he's never had to pay. I guess that proves that God exists.
I'm not even sure why the moderators let threads like this grow legs. We all have a common interest and that is the success of Tesla - regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not.
Yet, someone on here was just DYING to start an argument and prove they're right. And liberals say it is the religions that start war. Hmmmmm.
Nobody makes a comment on this thread buddy. Go somewhere else if you don't like it. It's better that you don't have to think for yourself and don't understand how science really works.
Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between a belief system and knowledge.
You can "believe" in god... that's not falsifiable.
You don't believe that the earth is an oblate spheroid, or in helio-centrism or in germ theory, or that vaccines work or that a Tesla is electric; those facts are falsifiable and they are either true or false.
Saying that Humans aren't causing global warming isn't a belief any more than saying the earth is flat is a belief... you're simply wrong about a falsifiable fact.
I'm tired of politicians that have to courage to tackle the problem getting booted out of office by their ignorant constituents (Bob Inglis). Ignorance of AGW is not OK; Ignoring the problem is not OK.
Get the FACTS; Accept reality; Be part of the SOLUTIONhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEPVyrSWfQE&list=PL38EB9C0BC54A9EE2
scale of the problem...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/
@nwdiver93, friend, Wasn't this challenge done but from the other perspective "The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge! “$500,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming.”" http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
There was no takers, perhaps no one wanted to embarrass themselves :)
buddyroe | JUNE 24, 2014 "I don't believe all the global warming crap.
And don't bother trying to convince me about global warming.
I wish I could be a liberal. Just so I could see what that arrogant, obnoxious, all-knowing life is like.
I would love to be SO high on myself that I truly believed that everything I thought was automatically true - JUST BECAUSE I BELIEVED IT."
buddy, I was wondering why you don't even bother to get educated regarding global warming, and you answer yourself in another post.
You see this as partisan (liberal vs. conservative, I'm guessing.)
Your last line actually describes yourself. "JUST BECAUSE I BELIEVED IT" - You aren't willing to listen to science supported evidence of global warming because you are SO high on yourself that you just won't BELIEVE any of it.
I'm glad you are doing your part for a cleaner world, but remaining in ignorance due to political reasons just makes you look bad.
The science behind global warming/climate change is not partisan. It is conclusions reached with the best data. Now, if there is ANY data that shows human pollution does not affect climate at all, then that should be presented. But your argument "see no climate change, hear no climate change, speak no climate change" is not going to convince anyone.
Must reject two hypotheses;
1- "Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling."
What's their definition of "significant and predictable"? I like how the omitted the oceans... which is where most of the warming is occurring...
2- "The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered."
So they're not REALLY questioning AGW... the second one is kind of redundant since if #1 is false so is #2... that shows their conviction. Even after you prove AGW you have to prove the economic viability of potential solutions.
That's a bit of a straw man since the economic cost of fighting AGW probably WILL exceed the benefits 2014-2100... the most severe effects of AGW are projected AFTER 2100... do these monsters not care at all about their kids and grand-kids?
Here's a deal Bigd... if you pay my entry fee for junk science I'll pay yours for dialogs on AGW :)
I tried to post this last night, but it was identified as SPAM for some reason...
"I am not a smart man... but I figured out a lot of this by the time I turned eight." -- paraphrasing 'Forrest Gump'
buddyroe wrote, "I wish I could be a liberal."
I wish more Conservatives were not immune to being Conservationists.
bigd: There is a very slight difference between the terms 'causing' and 'contributing to' in American Standard Idiomatic Conversational English.
Sage "Conservatives were not immune to being Conservationists." All for it as long as all the consequents are taken into consideration. Of course I have always said I wish the more liberals were realist (sage, you know I am not pointing a finger at you, just a general statement. 'causing' and 'contributing to'" Agree, but NW said it is the cause "Saying that Humans aren't causing global warming". But to be clear, are you saying that even if there was no CO2 produced by humans there still would be climate change? I am just asking.
nwdiver93 "That's a bit of a straw man" Interesting that you used that saying as that was the same response one of the posters replied to the AGW blog you linked :-)
"Here's a deal Bigd... if you pay my entry fee for junk science" Just out of curiosity, if you are sure you have the answer, why would you not enter."When someone offers you $500000k to prove your position, you're being "called out"" I know you don't need the money but o the fame you could achieve from it :-) Besides, if I pay your fee then we are partners and I don't think you would want a "denier" (although I prefer skeptic) as your partner. Not to mention how fragile the relationship is already. Then the added stress as we would involve lawyers for our new partnership to work out the details. Nope, I don't think we could make it with that much stress. Id rather just stay friends than be partners.
I understand this Samo. At noon today, I looked at my weather forecast for the rest of the day. For 4pm, weather.com said that for my area, there was a 60% chance of rain. Badly needing rain on my tomatoes and not seeing any rain in sight, I checked weather.com again at 3pm. Low and behold, at 4pm, the chance of rain had changed to 20% - in THREE FREAKING HOURS!!
These are the same bozos that profess to knowing what the weather was a thousand/million years ago and want me to believe they actually know what's going to happen 10/50 years in the future.
So, go get your kids vaccinated, follow the other sheep, and enjoy yourselves. I, for one, know that throughout history, govt has lied to and abused its people. I have NO reason to trust any politician or scientist that works for the govt. As classified documents are released and we find out just how corrupt our own govt is, why in the H-E-L-L would I believe this crap? It's just another lie to manipulate the weak minded.
PS. Tell the truth. Do you liberals in this thread grow your own tomatoes? Okra? Corn? Anything? Do you take cold showers as to not burn coal uselessly? Did you have a well dug in your back yard so you would never buy water in a plastic container again? Do you NEVER spray ANY chemical in your yard and chose instead to pull weeds in order to protect the vanishing bees and other insects? Do you make any REAL efforts? Or do you just espouse your incredible knowledge on a forum? Is that all you contribute? I would be willing to bet you drank a bottled water from a plastic bottle today. And truth be told, every vegetable you eat comes from a store where it is grown on a farm where harmful chemicals are used. And tell the truth, when was the last time you were in the inner city feeding the homeless or tutoring children in the "hood". You think because you drive an electric car (which happens to be BETTER than any other ICE, thus good for YOU), you are doing something great for the world. I know liberals though. They are ALL words and NO action. Well, they do act, if that action is also good for them. The truth is this - liberals make themselves feel better with words while conservatives are DOING.
"I understand this Samo. At noon today, I looked at my weather forecast for the rest of the day. For 4pm, weather.com said that for my area, there was a 60% chance of rain. Badly needing rain on my tomatoes and not seeing any rain in sight, I checked weather.com again at 3pm. Low and behold, at 4pm, the chance of rain had changed to 20% - in THREE FREAKING HOURS!!
These are the same bozos that profess to knowing what the weather was a thousand/million years ago and want me to believe they actually know what's going to happen 10/50 years in the future."
Get 'em Neil!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k
@buddyroe I really try not to use the word hypocrite but you are correct in your assessment. Like I heard once, liberals love to spend others (govt) money to "save the world", their own, not so much lol
You really are a stunning piece of work. Where I come from, when people stop making sense, we just say "bless your heart" to avoid saying something cruel, but in this case, I'll take a stab at informing your ignorance.
1. Weather does not equal climate. Perhaps you are too stupid (as opposed to ignorant) but watch the video posted above.
2. Weather forecasters are calculating a short term balance of probabilities for certain conditions which can create rain. If a pressure system changes course, then rain may fall 20 miles away or not at all. Your observations and assignment of blame is typical of people who don't understand science.
3. My own personal habits are a non sequitur which you use to distract from your profound ignorance about the world. Stick to your garden and let the adults figure out how to stop the giant carbon industry from polluting and destroying human habitat.
(As an aside, I don't drink from plastic bottles, don't use herbicides or pesticides on my garden and have a subscription community supported agriculture CSA that provides organic food grown within 25 miles of my home. I live in a large city and do what I can to contribute to best practices for the environment we all live within and support local farmers since local food has the smallest environmental footprint.)
My job is working with disabled veterans that your conservative hero George Bush produced during his eight years in office at a prodigious rate. Get off your soapbox and pull your head from your rectum.
"I really try not to use the word hypocrite but you are correct in your assessment. Like I heard once, liberals love to spend others (govt) money to "save the world", their own, not so much"
How about a carbon tax whose proceeds are paid back out to every SSN? As Elon said, there needs to be a penalty to burning fossil fuels.
These are the same bozos that profess to knowing what the weather was a thousand/million years ago and want me to believe they actually know what's going to happen 10/50 years in the future.
You are wrong on two accounts:
1. You don't understand probability. If 99.5% climate scientists said there's a 99.5% chance that it will rain tomorrow and it didn't, you might have a point (not really). What are you arguing exactly? Because it didn't rain, water from the sky must be a myth? If you flip a coin and it lands on heads, does that mean that tails doesn't exist?
Just looking at the numbers...for all the forecasts that said "60% probability of rain" and it actually didn't rain, it's likely that the probability dropped until eventually dropping to 0%. If it did rain, the probability would have increased to 100%. Furthermore you need to understand conditional probability...the likelihood of the lowering of the 60% GIVEN that it did not rain...is very high. If it did not rain and the probability went up to 80%, your argument would be less nonsensical.
2. There's a vast difference between the chick who tells you whether you need an umbrella or not and climate scientists.
"I have NO reason to trust any politician or scientist that works for the govt."
Then you have no reason to rely on any facts, evidence or logic. There is no reason to get out of bed every morning. How do you think you're able to communicate your ridiculous opinions over the internet? You think the NRA is responsible for the decades of r&d that allows you to see what I'm typing right now? The answer is the scientific method, and the advancement of our scientific understanding of the universe has allowed us to do things never done before. The Babylonians didn't have a space program because they knew very little of the natural order...or do you think it's because they just hadn't thought of it yet? It's like you're grabbing a bullhorn and making a speech about how the freedom of speech should be abolished. Completely nonsensical.
You think because you drive an electric car (which happens to be BETTER than any other ICE, thus good for YOU), you are doing something great for the world. I know liberals though. They are ALL words and NO action. Well, they do act, if that action is also good for them.
That's called a win-win. Sure we could also devote our entire lives to charity, you can also make the argument "Why donate $25 to charity when you can donate $26, is that extra dollar really such an inconvenience?" This is a fallacy. You are making the best an enemy of the good.
Making the best way the most convenient way is a sound practice in the world of design and problem-solving.
That video is very important. Neil deGrasse Tyson is going to be incredibly influential because he's very sensitive to misunderstanding about science, without being condescending! Most scientists wouldn't even give this question the time of day because it's so self-evident, they move on to the next problem. And then when the politicians ignore that scientist due to a lack of understanding, all his work was for nothing. Facts and evidence are meaningless to people who don't believe in facts and evidence. Fortunately some of those people will react to the dog-walking bit, because that's what they understand. And for the remainder that still are unconvinced, become a minister and tell 'em that God said global warming is a sin.
"How about a carbon tax whose proceeds are paid back out to every SSN?" Who pays this tax, the consumer or the producer? Well, in actuality, the consumer is going to pay for it. Then we have the problem of ole Joe down the street from me (he cant afford to live in your neighborhood :-) He is barley making a living as it is, but at least he is out there working. Now who is this hurting the most when the gas price goes up to pay the tax, ole Joe. Here is a better solution, AGW person should insist that the govt set up a fund (there seems to be a great trust in our govt by AGW people). Now all AGW people donate all they have except, o, I don't know, $10K in their savings or IRA. They can then take the billions of dollars and purchase the electric cars (Leafs, sorry tesla) for the economic disadvantage. Think about all the CO2 you can prevent from been released into the atmosphere with this plan. Hey if there is any left over, use the remainder to place solar panels on the houses of those same people. You got to admit it is a good idea.
Economic analysis indicates that $32/ton would be sufficient to meet our carbon reduction goals. More jobs would be SHIFTED than lost. $32/ton would raise the cost of electricity ~$0.01/kWh and gasoline by ~$0.12/gallon. Statistically, ole Joe probably smokes, the cost to him of fighting AGW would be less than a pack a week habit.
Although I would agree with shifting any carbon tax proceeds to simply reducing the tax burden of people like "ole Joe" to ZERO. Maybe just distribute all the carbon tax proceeds to anyone with a SSN that makes <$30k/yr. The "ole Joe" is actually better off by Taxing the crap out of the Koch brothers... yeah I like that plan :)
@SamO "1. Weather does not equal climate. Perhaps you are too stupid (as opposed to ignorant) but watch the video posted above." I did watch the video and noticed that he mentioned that the earths axis can effect the climate, lo and behold I read this "Natural tilts in earth's axis cause ice ages, says Harvard scientist - and their cycles could help predict the next one--- Tilts cause glaciers to advance and retreat." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095571/Natural-tilts-ear...
But wait, how can this be as "all scientist said it is global warming" causing the glaciers to melt. Now I am not going to be a condescending elitist and call someone stupid because they have an opposing view. But it does appear like you need to study more :-)
"Furthermore you need to understand conditional probability...the likelihood of the lowering of the 60% GIVEN that it did not rain...is very high. If it did not rain and the probability went up to 80%, your argument would be less nonsensical." It would appear you need to understand basic metrology. The equation used to determine the probability of precipitation uses two variables: the confidence that precipitation will form and the areal coverage of precipitation if it does form. These two variables are multiplied together and the product is the percent chance of precipitation." http://weather.aol.com/2013/02/22/what-does-a-40-percent-chance-of-rain-... Has nothing to do with "GIVEN that it did not rain" unless that influences the variable(s). The bottom line is they can not predict mother nature only scientist oops wait, they are scientist.
"yeah I like that plan", See we can get along :-)
"Economic analysis indicates that $32/ton would be sufficient to meet our carbon reduction goals. More jobs would be SHIFTED than lost." Not going to dispute your claim cause I have no idea where you got it from. What are the jobs shifted from -- to ?
"Statistically, ole Joe probably smokes, the cost to him of fighting AGW would be less than a pack a week habit." Now lets not stereotype ole Joe does not smoke. LOL I do notice you keep avoiding the concept of you paying more, to make you feel better I will over see the fund you are giving your money to my friend :-)