November 27, 2012

“World Bank turns up the heat on global warming debate”

Bill Wilson, ALG:

A recent report by the World Bank has found that the world will warm by 4 degrees Celsius this century, and that the negative impacts of climate change will disproportionately hurt developing, poorer regions.

The report, “Turn Down the Heat,” warns of rising sea levels, less arable land, droughts, water contamination, more storms at greater strength and more, saying it was “likely that the poor will suffer most and the global community could become more fractured, and unequal than today.”

Don’t forget women and children and the elderly.  They’re always hardest hit.   I know this because the major newspapers have spent years telling me so.

“We will never end poverty if we don’t tackle climate change,” World Bank President Jim Yong Kim recently told reporters in a conference call highlighting the piece.

The report itself is light on details of how exactly the world’s temperature will be reduced, other than through amorphous “international and regional agreements” to substantially reduce carbon emissions, particularly in developed regions like the U.S. and Europe.

But even if the U.S. and other nations were to voluntarily restrict carbon emissions — a questionable proposition in itself — other nations like China and India would certainly fill in the gap to meet the needs of their own growing populations.

From that perspective, the World Bank’s report makes perfect sense. Perhaps the real agenda of those who cling to a belief in man-made climate change has little to do with alleviating global poverty or combating climate change.

The fact is, without enforcement of agreements restricting carbon emissions, which would require a near totalitarian control over the global economy and sovereignty by some internationalist body, agreements will simply fail to reduce carbon emissions. It is not a realistic policy objective.

[my emphasis]

I hate to nitpick, but since when did the fact that a policy objective isn’t “realistic” stop transnational progressives from pushing for it anyway?  Honestly.  Don’t sell them short, nor dismiss the depths of their desire for complete and ironfisted control of everyone and everything.

So, maybe that is not the goal of such agreements. Examining their likely effects, however, reveals they will simply redirect the flow of the world’s energy trade, redistributing energy resources and wealth toward developing economies and away from the West.

That makes a whole lot more sense than these tortured “scientific” analyses amounting to little more than “the gods are angry”-type explanations for the state of the climate.

[...]

Jim Yong Kim in the report’s foreword promises that “many opportunities exist to dramatically reduce the climate impact of development, without slowing down poverty alleviation and economic growth.” The report then subsequently fails to outline what those opportunities might be, of course.

Probably because they do not actually exist. Instead, it appears likely that a sudden, dramatic decline in energy output everywhere would wreck the global economy. Slower growth would lead to higher unemployment and less resources to go around. All of which would create more poverty, not less.

So let’s cut to the chase. This is about who controls the world’s energy supply. No more, no less. The questionable science of man-made climate change is merely the means to that redistributive end.

Of course. And any thinking person has known this all along, or at least, has already come to that conclusion, having finally worked through the “science.”  Hell, when the former head of Greenpeace is onto the redistributionist game, exposing these new climate scientists for the frauds they are — and is then castigated as an ecological traitor for having watched true environmental concern hijacked by those wishing to exploit it for power, control, and wealth, using its emotional appeals without caring a whit about what they’re ostensibly aimed at — it’s at that point that you either succumb to blind ideology being peddled by those getting rich off of it, or admit that you’ve been wrong, and that your legitimate conservationist concerns enabled unscrupulous and self-serving con artists to take advantage of you.

Because here’s the truth the left doesn’t want you to internalize:  if you aren’t on the side of reasoned skepticism, you aren’t really on the side of science, no matter how much the self-serving statists invert that equation and sneer at your failure to fall in line.

— When they aren’t looking to in fact criminalize that failure, which is what they’d like to do to all you climate deniers.   Who are essentially committing a hate crime against earth and as a result should, like unwanted black babies and children with birth defects, be removed from the gene pool.  For the greater global good.

 

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 1:41pm
279 comments | Trackback

Comments (279)

  1. “We will never end poverty if we don’t tackle climate change,” World Bank President Jim Yong Kim recently told reporters in a conference call highlighting the piece.

    Well, you can call him Kim. Or you can call him Jim. Or you can call him KimJim. But you doesn’t have to call him Johnson!

    (And he could just as well have stopped after “We will never end poverty.”)

  2. Jim Yong Kim seems a vaguely Korean sort of name. Wonder what he thinks of the poverty of the enslaved population of North Korea, if they ever cross his mind while he’s thinking of “ending poverty”?

  3. “We will never end poverty if we don’t tackle climate change,” World Bank President Jim Yong Kim recently told reporters in a conference call highlighting the piece.

    There, fixed that for him.

  4. Of course, I could read the other comments first, but that would be too easy.

  5. Great minds think alike. Evidently ours do, too!

  6. Why does the World Bank hate science? And poor people?

  7. “…in fact criminalize that failure, which is what they’d like to do to all you climate deniers. Who are essentially committing a hate crime against earth and as a result should, like unwanted black babies and children with birth defects, be removed from the gene pool. For the greater global good.”

    As illustrated by the unspeakably vile video they created, No Pressure.

  8. It’s just tough love, JD.

  9. “We will never end poverty if we don’t tackle climate change,” World Bank President Jim Yong Kim recently told reporters

    That’s a pretty big leap, from a dubious premiss.

    Tell ya what Mr. World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, if you’re really serious about ending poverty, sell all you own, and give it to the poor. Set an example for us to follow.

    Even then, I think I’ll go on believing the cure for poverty is individual initiative and hard work, ya fucking fascist.

  10. There are individual cures for poverty but no collective ones.

  11. Also, note that the definition of poverty is a relative measure so it can never, ever be eliminated.

  12. - Let me know when they are ever able to actually effect long term climate, or even short term for that matter, in the slightest.

    – Another truthiness that seems to evade the Lefturd reality closet. You can’t push a rope.

  13. “We will never end poverty if we don’t tackle climate change,” World Bank President Jim Yong Kim recently told reporters..”

    Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t this a pretty clear statement about the purpose of “tackling climate change”. Isn’t it a flat out admission that it is (and always has been) about redistribution of wealth.

    Isn’t it a clear admission that it has nothing to do with the “environment”, the “climate”, or CO2 emissions; and that the World Bank’s objective is the global redistribution of wealth?

    Just checking to see if I had had some sort of psychotic break and was hallucinating — Something I feel I need to worry about more & more these days.

  14. Also, note that the definition of poverty is a relative measure so it can never, ever be eliminated.

    Well, except when every living man, woman and child is utterly destitute. Then we’d be “equal”… for maybe a day, until we dirty filthy peasants started climbing over each other to get that last scrap. Then “inequality” starts all over again. Why do these globalist fucknuckles think they can change human nature?

    By the way, in every previous significant global climate warming event, human civilization flourished. Global cooling has always led to famine and war.

  15. Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t this a pretty clear statement about the purpose of “tackling climate change”. Isn’t it a flat out admission that it is (and always has been) about redistribution of wealth.

    Of course! In the 1970s, these same idiots (and their ideological forebears) insisted, with just as much desperate earnestness, that the only way to prevent the looming and imminent man-made ice age was a massive tax on “wealthy” nations. Different panic, same “solution”… as always.

  16. Yup. The coming Ice Age was going to kill us all if we were didn’t starve to death because the population boom was going to outstrip the food supply.

    So here we are. Second verse, same as the first.

  17. If the world gets warmer, we’ll likely be much better off than if it gets colder. That’s a fairly reasonable conclusion I think.

    The notion that the current temperature is somehow perfect is quite ridiculous.

  18. If we could possibly change the Average Global Temperature (*) — which seems quite impossible for the forseeable future — we should get right on with warming that puppy up. Sure, we’ll presumably lose some low-lying areas to rising sea levels, but the vast swaths of currently-useless land (Siberia, Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, etc.) that become capable of growing food and supporting human life more than make up for the loss.

    It’s a huge net win, at least if you’re in favor of “human life”. Not that they are.

    * The whole thing’s based on a flawed concept, to me. As an engineer, if you asked me “what is the current temperature, on average, of the freakin’ Earth”, I’d say it’s utterly unknowable. Surface area of the Earth: 510 million square km. We could maybe make a reasonable guess if we had a network of, oh, say 5.1 million temperature sensors equally spaced across the globe, including the oceans. This is impossible. Each sensor would be reporting the ‘average temperature’ for a 10×10 square km area, which seems debatable at best. (100 sq. km = 36-ish sq. miles. By comparision, Manhattan is 22 sq. miles. It’s not at all clear that a thermometer at the World Trade Center tells you squat about the temperature in Harlem.). So even that is probably to large a granularity.

  19. It’s not at all clear that a thermometer at the World Trade Center tells you squat about the temperature in Harlem.). So even that is probably to large a granularity.

    I live within two miles of two official weather stations and seldom are their temperatures within 5 degrees of that on my front porch.

    It’s a real pain in the ass during the winter. If the temperature is below zero, the kids aren’t outside on the playground before school. So, naturally, the school uses the downtown weather station to determine weather to keep them outside or bring them in instead of using the airport one –less wind, more residual heat.

  20. “We will never end poverty if we don’t tackle climate change,”

    We’ll never end poverty period, Mr. World Bank President. You’ll just keep redefining it rather than put your sorry ass out of business.

  21. There are individual cures for poverty but no collective ones.

    I believe there may be one Charles; the collective acceptance of private property, free enterprise and personal responsibility as socioeconomic organizing principles.

  22. No one has ever explained to me why Russia would want to stop global warming and would honestly support efforts to do so.

  23. Leftoids want to have a policy on everything that can be policy-itized (if you will), except where it might cost them voters.

    Which I think neatly explains why there’s a set of law already on the books regarding immigration, and why Democrats want to look the other way. What are the odds they’ll look the other way on healthcare? I may have to invest in some more zeros.

  24. Just got some spam today from these guys.

    Damnedest thing – Evangelical (in the traditional sense) Environmentalist Idiots.

    You took action with us to reduce carbon pollution back in June. If you did not take action with us or if you’d prefer not to hear from us again, please let us know and we’ll be sure to remove you from our e-mail lists.

    We’d like to take a moment to introduce you to why we believe creaiton [sic] care is a matter of life.

    Here’s an excerpt from our founding document, The Evangelical Declaration on the Care of God’s Creation:

    “As followers of Jesus Christ, committed to the full authority of the Scriptures, and aware of the ways we have degraded creation, we believe that biblical faith is essential to the solution of our ecological problems.”

    Which, while not my cup of tea, is possibly a reasonable stance… if we actually had ecological problems worth talking about.

    And if you go to their website, you’ll learn that not only is Climate Change bad for children and other living things, but also that “Approximately one in every six babies in the U.S. are born with harmful mercury levels in their blood.”

    Empirically, I’d say those levels aren’t all that harmful after all, since I think we’d hear some news stories if 18.3% of the children being born were, you know, dead, or had flippers instead of hands, or some such.

  25. You guys are so funny.

    You deny the science of evolution and want ID taught in schools, and yet are offended that educated people, especially people educated in science, vote predominately for the Democrats.

    If someone says, “Should it be illegal to discriminate on the basis of race”, not one of you, not a single one, agrees, and yet your offended that minorities vote overwhelmingly for the other party.

    The best part is, you really don’t get it, which is wonderful. It means you’re in no danger of changing your tack and attracting votes any time soon.

  26. I thought you’d been banned.

  27. I’ve lived to fight another day. Every day’s a blessing at this point.

  28. Shorter sophist – racist science deniers because STFU losers

  29. John Bradley,

    Ah! Someone who gets the whole problem with AGW. That is, that there is no credible evidence of GW.

    Your 10×10 km square would have its own problems, as you identify. But what if the “squares” used weren’t 10km X 10km (100 sq km); but rather 3,500 square miles? That’s what IPCC uses — in the best case. In other words, assuming that the “average” temperature (taken when? how often? by whom? with what?) in Portland, ME is equal to the temperature in Philadelphia, PA if you only have either Philly or Portland temps to work with.

    And by the “best case”, I mean since about 1940. Before that, it’s much much worse. Global coverage in the 1860s to the 1880s (the period they compare today’s temps to, to “prove” warming) was less than 15% of the globe …. even with a single temp being considered the average temp for the surrounding 5 deg lat. X 5 deg long. “grid”. So, out of 1296 5 deg X 5 deg grid-squares, for the period before 1900, IPCC had data (crappy data) for only about 200 of those 1296 grid-squares.

    From this, they claim to derive a “Global Average Temperature”. This is a thing which is impossible. You cannot find the average of a 100 square sheet of graph paper when only 15 of those 100 squares have data, and the other 85 squares are filled with, not zero, but “n/a”.

    So how’d they do it? They made up temperatures for the 85% of the earth that they had no temps for, by using the 15% that they did have temps for. Yes, they MADE THEM UP.

    If they had a single temp measurement in, for instance, Mozambique, taken on January 18, 1886; they compared that to the temp in, say, London England on January 18, 1886. Then, they used the rest of the year’s (and years’) of temps from London to “fill-in” the remaining UN-measured daily, monthly, yearly temps in Mozambique — assuming that Mozambique had the same variations in temps that occurred in London for the same time period.

    AGW fails, in short, because there isn’t any credible evidence that the earth has warmed over the period claimed. They blame CO2 for a “warming” that simply does not exist.

    (and, before anyone brings it up, proxy data are garbage. The temps assumed to be indicated by proxy data, can only be determined based on actual, measured temps — which, as is my point here, do not exist).

  30. You can’t really be anti-evolution pro-science.

    It’s kind of like being a holocaust denier and calling yourself pro-history.

  31. Oops! Sorry, screwed up my “bold” “un-bold”. Most of that shouldn’t be bolded.

  32. Yuri – facts have no place in an AGW discussion. Nor data. Nor science. Proxy data and proxy science are acceptable.

  33. Yuri, the evidence for AGW includes temperature measurements, measures of arctic ice coverage, measures of glaciers, measures of sea level, measures of CO2 in the atmosphere, measures of CO2 in the ocean, species migration patterns, permafrost measures, and on, and on, and on.

    They all, every one of them, point in the same direction.

  34. Global warming causes poverty

  35. They all, every one of them, point in the same direction.

    Naturally! With no help from any kind of faulty modeling, or errors in the methodology, or leaps in the conclusions drawn from the data!

    SCIENCE!

  36. Yuri —

    You’re stating facts; slipperydouche asserted assured consensus “truth.” And we know it to be true because, well, consensus. How can you possibly buck consensus and think yourself intelligent or informed? Why, there’s a reason Galileo got tossed into prison, the daft witch.

  37. With no help from any kind of faulty modeling, or errors in the methodology, or leaps in the conclusions drawn from the data!

    YOU CAN”T PROVE THAT!! Because they won’t show what they did with the data.

    SCIENCE!, indeed.

  38. Slipperyslope,
    Why would I argue with you?

    Esp. considering that you didn’t actually read my comment.

  39. I’ve lived to fight another day change the subject, as if I had argued a point vigorously yesterday that had no support whatever.

    Fixed. We expect more of the same today, because we’re all about extrapolation, here.

    They all, every one of them, point in the same direction.

    Agreed: they all point approximately sideways.

    Your comments about evolution are off-topic and don’t address any local consensus on the topic that you’re aware of.

    Not that that will stop you.

  40. It’s fair to say that slippery has feelings about us, and our views. Which are of course even better than data!

  41. Yuri, the evidence for AGW includes temperature measurements, measures of arctic ice coverage, measures of glaciers, measures of sea level, measures of CO2 in the atmosphere, measures of CO2 in the ocean, species migration patterns, permafrost measures, and on, and on, and on.

    In other words, statistics.

    And we all know what Mark Twain said about statistics.

    Nice proxies for change. Where are your proxies for anthropogenesis?

  42. Again, you’re like a bunch of holocaust deniers who claim to be pro-history but just have reasonable skepticism.

    Again, which is great. The fact that you can’t even see the similarity hurts your ability to get votes.

  43. In other words, statistics.
    And we all know what Mark Twain said about statistics.

    So now math is bunk too. Keep digging.

  44. Mastadon flatulence caused the Holocene interglacial, donchya know.

  45. Not bunk, just correlation, which isn’t the same as causation.

    How’s that search for anthropogenetical proxies goin’?

  46. you’re like a bunch of holocaust deniers

    Also, we’re just like Hitler!

  47. I love it when trolls go Godwin

  48. Haven’t we already trod this ground with the slippery one? You know, the one wherein nearly all of us on this here board are anti-science in spite of the fact (that’s a FACT, son) that many of us are scientists?

    That we all want Darwin’s theories disavowed in spite of vigorous discussion of same?

    That we are all intellectually dishonest when we are seekers of fact?

    Now we’re Holocaust deniers? That’s pretty rich, right there. Does Jeff know this?

  49. Again, which is great. The fact that you can’t even see the similarity hurts your ability to get votes.

    Fantastic. Your ability to keep people stupid and intellectually incurious, while proclaiming yourselves on the side of science, has led to you getting more votes from the ever increasing number of stupid people you indoctrinate with stupidity.

    Congrats. You win! You control power. Until one day you don’t. But you’ll still all be stupid.

  50. Fantastic. Your ability to keep people stupid and intellectually incurious, while proclaiming yourselves on the side of science, has led to you getting more votes from the ever increasing number of stupid people you indoctrinate with stupidity.
    Congrats. You win! You control power. Until one day you don’t. But you’ll still all be stupid.

    That we all want Darwin’s theories disavowed in spite of vigorous discussion of same?

    leigh, I don’t remember a single person here agreeing with the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution.

    Jeff, if you doubt the veracity of the core tenets of evolution (esp as an adult) then you’re intellectually curious? Nah, at this point, you’re just a denier. And the fact that you want to be a pro-science evolution denier (or skeptic, or whatever) make you hilarious.

  51. What’s slippy doing back here when he should be looking for anthropogenetic proxies?

  52. I don’t remember a single person here agreeing with the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution.

    Which you of course spelled out honestly and in full, right?

    Give me a minute to put bells on the other one, and then you can pull it too.

  53. I don’t remember a single person here agreeing with the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution

    You should try asking sometime, rather than making something up inside of your head and then believing it.

    I’m guessing based on your history of doing just that that you’re not trained in science or any sort of logic. Nor have you the slightest notion of what a logical fallacy is, or how to avoid using them in argument.

    How far off track am I?

  54. core tenets of evolution”?

    I thought science was method.

    Core tenets are belief.

    Food for thought.

  55. Yuri, the evidence for AGW includes temperature measurements, measures of arctic ice coverage, measures of glaciers, measures of sea level, measures of CO2 in the atmosphere, measures of CO2 in the ocean, species migration patterns, permafrost measures, and on, and on, and on.

    None of which have squat to do with the Average Global Temperature, other than the actual temperature measurments — which are merely woefully, laughably insufficient.

    The rest of your list involves measuring very local phenomena (glaciers and ice coverage in the Arctic merely mean that it’s cold in the Arctic), ditto species migration, permafrost, and on and on. The the measures of CO2 in the atmosphere or the ocean are not only measuring a local feature, but it’s a feature that may be a leading indicator, a trailing indicator, or not an indicator whatsoever with regards to Global Climate.

    We’re not even close to having a grasp of what the ‘number’ truly is, you know, directly measured for realsies, without involving geese, giant ice cubes, morning breath, and insane wild-ass assumptions to fill in the ‘gaps’ in the data. You know, that gaps the completely dwarf the pathetic amount of actual ‘data’ (itself of dubious merit, having been ‘fixed’).

    The science is shit.

    And even if the science was dead-on perfect, based on impeccable data, with models that accurately predict the past as well as the present, and there’s irrefutable proof that “we’re doing it” — it’s not at all clear to me why we should do anything to stop it. Who’s to say ‘now’ is the ‘right’ temperature, and 1C higher a hundred years from now is a calamity. Or even noticable.

  56. Jeff, if you doubt the veracity of the core tenets of evolution (esp as an adult) then you’re intellectually curious?

    Who here doubts the core tenets of evolution? Adaptation, mutation, natural selection? I don’t recall any doubts about any of those things. And in fact, i’ve written at length against the ID theorists who try to posit ID as science, because I believe the framing of their arguments leads them to certain conclusions. That is, if you look at the impossibility of the eye having evolved through Darwinian evolution to its current state, you will perhaps naturally conclude that there was some intelligent, rather than random, design behind it. The problem being that you’re assuming the eye as it now exists is where it was “designed” to be, rather than just where it is, having developed over a period of time that we as humans can’t even fathom, and involving an enormous numbers of subtle mutations and subsequent adaptive behaviors that we can’t possibly trace. And that where we are now is a function of the trajectory of mutation, not some function of moving toward a pre-destined singularity. Almost like the invisible hand applied to evolution.

    So once again, it’s like you can’t seem to retreat from the straw man you need to argue against in order to deal with what we’re actually arguing.

    A scientific theory carries a different denotation than “theory” as it is otherwise used. Evolution is but a theory, per actual science. And I advocated teaching ID alongside it to show the differences between the two, and how, when it comes to first causes, which is where the metaphysical/religious/philosophical debate takes place, there is no inherent tension, evolution not being concerned with such and ID being entirely concerned with it.

    After days here, you’ve succeeded in proving my point: you can only argue with caricatures, and even then, you do so in bad faith. You’ve even managed to accuse people you don’t know of being racists without being able to offer a bit of evidence or even a rationale. And yet you expect to be taken seriously by people who have shown a willingness to dig into controversial topics and not merely shield themselves with appeals to consensus and the sneers of those who’ve embraced the safety of the status quo.

    That’s what’s hilarious.

    You aren’t a thinker. You’re a parrot. And a drone.

  57. Ok, so who here agrees with the core tenets (or principals) of the theory of Evolution?

  58. Who’s to say. . . ”

    Why, that’s an easy one: politicians, sophists and simple lying apers (ach, such redundancy) like the unwanted visitor from bullshitlandia, who is content to characterize everyone here about opinions he cannot possibly know. Lying is the purpose and power is the aim.

    But who would want to spend time with the likes of those? They’re worse than useless, they take us backward.

  59. leigh, I don’t remember a single person here agreeing with the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution.

    Your memory is a poor one, slippery. I urge you to read the archives.

  60. “Ernst Schreiber says November 28, 2012 at 12:10 pm
    “core tenets of evolution”?
    I thought science was method.
    Core tenets are belief.
    Food for thought.”

    The thought is that a great many of the self righteous people proselytizing evolution don’t really even know what it is or what it means but back it purely as a useful mercenary to deploy in a culture war on Christians. Said evolution zealots will cheerfully abandon it the moment they feel the slightest of pressure changes from the shadow of a disapproving muslim glare falling across the back of their neck. Because that’s how they roll.

  61. so who here agrees with the core tenets (or principals) of the theory of Evolution?

    Describe what exactly you are talking about when you say “core tenets (or principals) of the theory of Evolution”, and I’ll tell you if I agree.

  62. ‘Cuz I don’t think you have any better grasp on evolution than you do on climate, being stupid as you are…

  63. My apologies, Jeff. I did truly mistake your position on the subject.

    We then only have a mild disagreement on where ID should be mentioned. I wouldn’t mention ID in a science class at all, simply because ID claims to be a competing theory of how different species come to be, a theory with no evidence. Science can cover the issue of “first causes” and infinite regress fine without it. Any good course on evolution is clear in stating that it covers how all life came from a single ancestor, and does not explain that origin of that single ancestor.

  64. Single ancestor

    So much for science.

  65. “Your memory is a poor one, slippery. I urge you to read the archives.”

    It’s more that he’s a fucking disingenuous liar out to spread cheap slanders about us. Lying with a big dumb broad brush is the one ‘pious evangelistic act’ entrusted to the otherwise useless lumpenprole in the cruel diktats of the canned “progressive” religion that he hubristically mistakes for a novel and innovative intellectual movement that he is at the forefront of.

  66. LSBascom – This one works pretty good:

    The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

    Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

  67. “Single ancestor”
    So much for science.

    You have a problem with that, sdferr?

  68. Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

    And also you. Always with the downside.

  69. Is it okay if I don’t invite the ebola virus to the family reunion?

  70. I love how slipperydouchebag makes unsubstantiated claims, based on nothing but it’s feelings and beliefs, and then projects that caricature onto everyone else. It did it with it’s specious charge of racism yesterday, and it’s claims on AGW and evolution in this thread. It is all it has in it’s arsenal. Argument in uber bad faith.

  71. OK, slippery, I’ll agree…that’s a good theory.

    Doesn’t trouble my belief that God created life and the conditions for evolution (as one tool) to do it’s thing for further creation.

    Could be evolution isn’t the only mechanism that created all the diversity though. It would be a shame to not discover those other mechanisms in a over zealous belief in one theory though…

  72. And invincible ignorance JD.

    He’s a walking Monty Python sketch he is.

  73. I can’t get past the fact that a person who keeps going on about the core tenets of evolution won’t even tell us which branch of evolutionary theory he’s invested in: Darwinian? Punctuated equilibrium? Quantum evolution?

    What we’re seeing happen to poor slippy is what happens whenever you go to war with caricatures only to find out they aren’t who you though they were, and that you’ve been lied to about what they know, what they think, or even how they think.

  74. From the NatGeo article:

    No Special Treatment for Evolutionary Theory?

    David Penny, an evolutionary biologist at Massey University in New Zealand, called the grand scope of Theobald’s study “bold.”

    Penny had been part of a similar, but more narrowly focused, study in the 1980s. His team had looked at shared proteins in mammals and concluded that different mammalian species are likely descended from a common ancestor.

    Testing the theory of universal common ancestry is important, because biologists should question their major tenets just as scientists in other fields do, said Penny, who wasn’t part of the new study.

    “Evolution,” he said, “should not be given any special status.”

  75. Darwin’s theory didn’t address, and still doesn’t address, how that first cell came to be.

    Nor does it address non-cellular life, such as viruses.

  76. “You have a problem with that?”

    Can’t imagine, can you? So much for science.

  77. Settled science Jeff. Nature must yield to democracy because nature is only known through knowledge and knowledge is produced by those enlightened ones chosen to serve the spirit of the age. The will of the spirit of the age was already revealed back just prior to the 1850’s. The new order is not bound by consistency or rules like the old one. Reason is the slave of the theocratic feudal lord and it
    ‘s bastard son empiricism is the slave of the capitalist and its corruption must not be encouraged or tolerated since it is atavism. Post industrial secularism and new formulae blends of materialism and old pagan superstitions have taken their place. The classes must be kept apart and unable to speak to one another effectively lest the people in their brainwashed confusion find the temerity to interfere with those who chosen who do the people’s work. Those old hobgoblins of mediocre minds have been slain and all thinking will be done in the new box but the dots need not be connected. Lysenkoism 2.0 is all the science we need. And so it’s all we’ll be permitted if history has anything to say about it.

  78. may as well put in my 2 cents on evolution, since the discussion has turned that way.

    I believe in evolution. I have never read Darwin’s “Origin of Species”. Not sure if I need to.

    Evolutionary theory, as I believe it, is best described here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

    as either: ” a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.” or,
    “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”

    In other words, the sum (across a species) of inherited genetic traits from one generation to another.

    Is it fact? No.

    Is it provable? Well, “theoretically”, with a perfect and totally complete fossil record; that’s a definite maybe.

    Is it dis-provable? Well, with that same “perfect and totally complete fossil record”; sure it’s dis-provable.

    Can we get a “perfect and totally complete fossil record”? No. Absolutely not. It just doesn’t exist.

    It seems to me that it simply comes down to what you think is the best explanation for available evidence.

    It makes logical sense to me, and I haven’t heard a better explanation.

    As for SlipperySlope’s “kumbaya, the Oak tree is my brother, and all living things are one” definition — it sounds less like science and more like standard leftist wishful thinking.

  79. Slippy isn’t invited to my family reunion either. It can go fishing with Cousin Ebola.

  80. Yuri, you should give Darwin a read. I bought his books in a boxed set for my boys for Christmas a few years ago. They are very interesting, although the language is a tad stilted given the times.

    There are a number of Evolutionary theories that were developed around the same time as Darwin’s. Naturally, they caused a great deal of pearl-clutching and fire and brimstone preaching. A bit like today, in some circles.

    Some things never change.

  81. Nice, slart. I wonder how much of his work is really his. Even the “jeff’s a racist” bit has been used before.

    Which reminds me: has slip answered my questions from today? Has he provided proof or even the rationale for calling me racist yet — me, the guy who deplores racial categorization as the bad science and / or bad social science it is, the guy who took on the social constructionists and race studies adepts like the late Aaron Hawkins AND the biological race theorists like Steve Sailer, in public, right here on this site?

  82. What?! Slippery didn’t cite his work? For shame.

  83. In other words, the sum (across a species) of inherited genetic traits from one generation to another.

    It actually explains differences within a species, and the existence of different species.

    Is it fact? No.

    It’s as much a fact as the fact that the holocaust happened, or the fact that we really landed on the moon.

    Is it provable? Well, “theoretically”, with a perfect and totally complete fossil record; that’s a definite maybe.

    Proofs are in math, not science. Did you even go to school? And evolution is supported by volumes of evidence *even if not a single fossil existed*.

    Is it dis-provable? Well, with that same “perfect and totally complete fossil record”; sure it’s dis-provable.

    It could be disproven by rabbit fossils in the precambian. If it were false, it would be trivial to disprove it. That’s the measure of a good theory, one that could easily be disproven, if it were false, and yet hasn’t been.

    Can we get a “perfect and totally complete fossil record”? No. Absolutely not. It just doesn’t exist.

    Why the fixation on fossils? That’s not even the best evidence of evolution?

    As for SlipperySlope’s “kumbaya, the Oak tree is my brother, and all living things are one” definition — it sounds less like science and more like standard leftist wishful thinking.

    That’s because you’ve proven yourself to be a ideological nuckle-dragging science illiterate. Go educate yourself.

  84. “nuckle”?

  85. Which reminds me: has slip answered my questions from today? Has he provided proof or even the rationale for calling me racist yet — me, the guy who deplores racial categorization as the bad science and / or bad social science it is, the guy who took on the social constructionists and race studies adepts like the late Aaron Hawkins AND the biological race theorists like Steve Sailer, in public, right here on this site?

    Why do you point out that we’ve already had a black SOS, and (at almost the exact same time) point to an essay of yours saying that there’s no such thing as black people?

  86. It occurs to me that I am no longer subject to learning anything new about “science”.

    Why? Because of the AGW sham. I no longer trust anything from the “scientific community”, and I am unable to indipendently verify any of it.

    I have also found myself questioning long-believed “science” like evolution, or even plate-tectonics, or other “scientific” theories. Do I believe in evolution, or plate-tectonics, because I was convinced by the evidence, or because I was told to believe them. I think that I was convinced by the evidence that I was presented with.

    Did I get to hear all competing evidence and theories? No.
    Why? Because of the “scientific consensus”. A think that I once trusted, but no longer do.

    Of course, no one is proposing to quadruple my electric bill so that some jerk in Bangladesh can have his electric bill halved, based on evolution or plate-tectonics or whether the clovis point originated in Europe or America.

    Point is, for the most part I’m going to go with what I learned (& believed) in highschool, and not much else — especially not much else “new” to “science”. At least, not until I’m satisfied that the majority of “scientists” understand what science is, and until the leftists are purged entirely from academia, the professoriate, AND the media.

    p.s. I graduated highschool in the late 1980s before most of the brainwashing was instituted K-12.

  87. A think THING that I once trusted.

    or “think”; … whichever.

  88. Why do you point out that we’ve already had a black SOS, and (at almost the exact same time) point to an essay of yours saying that there’s no such thing as black people?

    Apparent contradictions mean you’re racist. What else makes you racist? When you don’t answer questions that slipperyslope asks.

  89. Because of the AGW sham.

    Yuri, what convinces you that AGW is a sham? Leave aside any implications of what, if anything, we should do about it. What makes you fundamentally doubt that:

    1. The Earth is warming, and
    2. The primary cause of the warming is human activity

  90. Actually, SlipperySlope, my comment was intended to make my position clear, just for the record, to other commenters than you.

    I still see no point in arguing with you. In fact, I see much evidence here that I shouldn’t bother.

    Leave me be.

  91. Again, NUMBCUNT!, I am NOT engaging in discussion directly with you.

    I say again: FUCK OFF!

  92. If you do not believe the same as slipperytwatwaffle, and to the same degree of certainty, you are a racist denier. It is as though it dies not understand the topic, nor dies it possess or desire the ability to discuss things honestly.

    Why do you hate honesty, slippery?

  93. Yuri, you obviously don’t have to. I’m actually not interested in arguing. You brought up a point that’s extremely provocative and I wonder how common it is. You indicated that when you came to believe that AWG was a sham, it undermined everything you formerly believed about science. Which is logical. If scientists can say with certainty that the earth is warming, and humans are the primary cause, and they’re wrong, well then how could any individual trust them on anything?

    I’m not arguing the logic of that at all. I really am interested to know what lead you down the path of concluding that AWG is a sham. I swear I’m not in attack mode on this. You gave a real and honest answer, and I’d love to know more if you’ll indulge me.

  94. Slippery is a whinny plagiarizing uneducated nuckle-drager

  95. . I’m actually not interested in arguing.

    Yup. You prefer to baselessly assert.

  96. Show us the original raw data. That would be a good scientific start, slippery. Then, what computations Or formulas were used to adjust the raw data. Another good start.

  97. JD – do you ever add anything to any conversation other than name calling?

  98. “I’d love to know more if you’ll indulge me.”

    I will not.

  99. JD, slippery will now announce that he has to go pick up a few things at the grocery store and will BBL.

  100. Didn’t I already answer that? Today? In two comments? Did you read the essay I’m referring to? The entire thing is about how we continue to embrace faulty categorizations out of familiarity and convenience. It says nothing about there being no such thing as those who believe in or use racial categorizations for whatever their purposes. Nor does it say there’s no such thing as black people. It just notes that as a category “black” doesn’t hold up scientifically, eg. — then asks why we continue to use it, even in public policy.

    In fact, the piece itself begins with two quotes from scholarly sources that, taken together, set the stage for what I argue subsequently.

    Here: I’m going to provide you yet again with the direct link. Read it. Read the update which features my exchange with a populations geneticist. Read the comments, in which (mostly) serious people try to grapple with the issue of the fact of bad racial categorizations having made their way into law.

    Show me that you can engage with my actual argument and I will happily speak to you on any issue of race — or my supposed racism — that you wish.

  101. I just enjoy pointing out how fundamentally dishonest you are. It must require effort.

  102. Dishonesty is racist. Because I say so.

  103. It’s not only racist, it’s a scientific fact.

  104. what convinces you that AGW is a sham?

    The people demanding that we treat it as a crisis aren’t acting like it’s a crisis.

  105. The people demanding that we treat it as a crisis aren’t acting like it’s a crisis.

    That’s completely wrong, McGehee. Why, it wasn’t all that long ago that a great drama was played out on the topic of CAGW.

  106. may as well put in my 2 cents on evolution, since the discussion has turned that way.

    Only because the AGW “denialists” around here failed to welcome SCIENCE like the liberator slippyslop had been promised it would be.

    Now he’s mired in an evolutionary quagmire with no exit strategy.

  107. I like how global cooling and global warming have the same solutions.

  108. what convinces you that AGW is a sham?

    The global warming part isn’t a sham, of course the earth is warming. When it isn’t cooling. The sham is 1) believing humans have anything to do with it, when the world has had global warming (and cooling) since before there were even humans around., and 2) that the world is in peril from elevated levels of CO2 when there have been times when the CO2 levels where much higher, and life thrived greater than now.

    You tell me, why would it be bad to be able to grow grapes in Greenland like people used to?

  109. What makes you fundamentally doubt that:

    1. The Earth is warming, and

    Science.

    2. The primary cause of the warming is human activity

    Lack of probative evidence and the ulterior motives of those making the claim. The models offered to prove this don’t work, thus the conclusions drawn from them are useless.

  110. Climate is evolving. Slippery wants to stop evolution.

  111. Perhaps someone else could read it and explain it in a nutshell to Mr slippy. Help him out a bit. So that he has a handle on what’s being argued from which to assert my racism anew.

  112. 2. The primary cause of the warming is human activity

    Oh, also my lack of hubris.

  113. [Y]ou should give Darwin a read. I bought his books in a boxed set for my boys for Christmas a few years ago. They are very interesting, although the language is a tad stilted given the times.

    Just don’t read The Decent of Man, the proglodytes (love that neologism, whichever one of you wags coined it) will tell you, lest you get the wrong idea about science.

    Which is why they foist that one off on Herbert Spencer.

  114. 2. The primary cause of the warming is human activity

    Oh, and that big fucking ball of fire in the sky.

  115. And they keep whining about polar bears drowning like it’s a bad thing. Anybody who’s ever lived on the North Slope of Alaska knows better.

  116. Perhaps someone else could read it and explain it in a nutshell to Mr slippy. Help him out a bit.

    You can’t fix stupid.

  117. Even if you do believe in AGW, who’s to say we need to do anything, much less what the government is pushing on us as the “solution”? I mean, what if only industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels isn’t what saved us from the mini ice age becoming a full blown 1000 year ice age? Maybe the damn government should be giving us free coal to burn, ‘cuz the earth started cooling again about 10 years ago. Is why they started calling it “climate change” instead of “global warming”.

  118. I think he finally went to read it and either didn’t understand it, so he decided to slink off; or else he understood it, so he decided to slink off.

  119. What is the optimal global average temp, slipperyliar? Are we moving towards it, or away from it?

  120. You’ve no doubt noticed JD that socialist concerns seem invariably to return to Godlike determinations of vast questions, like the correct temperature of the earth or the proper distribution of goods or wealth among all the peoples of the earth, matters of which no human being can ever be supposed to possess a knowledge worthy the name? And policy results which invariably worsen human prosperity. So the game of power acquisition (they’re a fundamentally greedy lot, the socialists) is played.

  121. You tell me, why would it be bad to be able to grow grapes in Greenland like people used to?

    I mean, Americans will still have fresh water, so who gives a fuck?

    Didn’t I already answer that? Today? In two comments? Did you read the essay I’m referring to? The entire thing is about how we continue to embrace faulty categorizations out of familiarity and convenience. It says nothing about there being no such thing as those who believe in or use racial categorizations for whatever their purposes. Nor does it say there’s no such thing as black people. It just notes that as a category “black” doesn’t hold up scientifically, eg. — then asks why we continue to use it, even in public policy.

    I went back and read the whole damn thing, again. You’re basically arguing that you couldn’t do a DNA test and categorize someone as black, or hispanic, or asian. However, that has no bearing on whether an apartment owner can decide not to rent to a specific individual because he doesn’t want black people living in his apartment, and whether that kind of discrimination should be legal.

  122. What is the optimal global average temp, slipperyliar? Are we moving towards it, or away from it?

    Ideally, one where the world’s population can continue to have drinkable water during the summer months, and one where millions of people don’t need to relocate away from coastal areas.

  123. You’ve no doubt noticed JD that socialist concerns seem invariably to return to Godlike determinations of vast questions, like the correct temperature of the earth or the proper distribution of goods or wealth among all the peoples of the earth, matters of which no human being can ever be supposed to possess a knowledge worthy the name? And policy results which invariably worsen human prosperity. So the game of power acquisition (they’re a fundamentally greedy lot, the socialists) is played.

    Because accepting scientific evidence makes you a socialist.

  124. No moron. Being a socialist makes you a socialist. It has nothing to do with the pitiful state of scientific knowledge, whatever the field of study.

  125. No moron. Being a socialist makes you a socialist. It has nothing to do with the pitiful state of scientific knowledge, whatever the field of study.

    What does it make you if you won’t accept any amount of evidence because the implications of that evidence might shimmer your bubble?

  126. Ideally, one where the world’s population can continue to have drinkable water during the summer months, and one where millions of people don’t need to relocate away from coastal areas.

    So, what’s that average temperature? (Hint: the answer is a number of degrees.)

  127. What evidence of the frightful history and results of the implementation of socialist policy across the world will cause socialists to reconsider their own political pursuits? So far as we can tell, there is none.

  128. If only the whole world were just like California. That it isn’t is a huge problem that must be remedied via legislation, stat!

    The Earth has got a fever, and the only cure is more cowbell.

  129. Slipperyliar – that was no answer. Optimal global average temp. Moving towards or away. Simple question.

  130. and one where millions of people don’t need to relocate away from coastal areas.

    Even without global warming, they should. Hurricanes will still happen even if an ice age is starting.

  131. Failure to answer clearly will brand slipperyslope as a racist, I say.

  132. As do I, Slarti.

    How do you reach a goal if you cannot define it?

  133. Oh, global warming equals less fresh water now? Haven’t heard that one.

    So tell me, is that a fact, a theory, or a belief? Cause I’ve had the weatherman climatologist say there’s no water in tomorrows forecast, but it rained anyway…

  134. …and if an ice age starts, McGehee, the coastal areas will be migrating away from them. Cape Canaveral will wind up a 30 mile drive from the beach. St. Pete could be 90 miles inland. I demand that we prevent Ice Ages, too, so that folks will not be inconvenienced.

  135. slippy. the so-called scientific data was folded, spindled, mutilated, and cherry-picked. We have the evidence. And that makes any list of grant-seekers you might bring up nothing more than accessories to fraud if they say otherwise.

  136. “. . . need to relocate away from coastal areas.”

    More than seventeen thousand Japanese of the Fukushima and Miyagi prefectures were unavailable for comment.

  137. Given that sea level rise is pretty much 9 inches per century, I doubt anyone will be caught by surprise.

    But there are always a few who manage to avoid the news.

  138. It is an accepted principle in science that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That evidence needs to include details about experimental observations, the conditions and apparatus used for those observations, and ideally would include a coherent theory to explain the reasons behind the observations. These details need to be thorough and comprehensive enough to allow other researchers and experimentalists to recreate the experiment and corroborate the observations.

    In the current looming Ice Age global warming climate change debates, the claims are that human activity is causing climate change sufficiently quickly and severely as to create an existential threat to the species, requiring the expenditure of trillions of dollars of scarce resources and the degradation of living conditions for hundreds of millions of people. This, I believe, constitutes an extraordinary claim, and thus should be backed up with extraordinary evidence.

    To date, the evidence presented is fundamentally flawed. Direct, observable data is not available, meaning that researchers must rely on proxies of variable quality. Leading researchers cannot or will not make their raw data available for others to critique. They are vague about the assumptions they use to set up the conditions for their experiments. They will not release the modeling software they use for their analysis, so that mathematicians, scientists, and software engineers can verify that the analysis tools themselves aren’t flawed. They have been documented as promoting consensus through social means, via peer pressure, institutional inertia and laziness, and marginalization of any scientist who questions their scientific rigor and methodology.

    All of these shortcomings mean that promoters of the looming Ice Age global warming climate change have yet to produce the extraordinary evidence required by their extraordinary claims. I am a trained physicist, who has done plenty of statistical analysis in my career; I will not accept any assertions that I am a science denier, or that I am too dim to understand the mathematics or the analysis behind the theories. Rather, I am a skeptic, as every scientist is by nature a skeptic. It’s not that I deny that the looming Ice Age global warming climate change is real; it’s that I have not yet been presented with evidence sufficient for me to support the theories.

    Perhaps humanity would be better served if the “climate science” community spent less time repeating their as-yet-unsupported assertions to newspapers and politicians, and more time strengthening their evidence and sharing it with peers outside their immediate social circles.

  139. I went back and read the whole damn thing, again. You’re basically arguing that you couldn’t do a DNA test and categorize someone as black, or hispanic, or asian.

    No, I’m not arguing that, science is. And yet we categorize the “races” as such anyway. Why? To what end? Is there a better answer? That’s what my essay asked, having first deconstructed the idea of race as a social construct, that formation gaining purchase from contemporary race theorists who use it to justify their very existences in the academy. What I showed was that social construction of race is a ruse, based on the same faulty science the KKK or the Nazis have always relied upon.

    How does that mark me as “racist”?

    However, that has no bearing on whether an apartment owner can decide not to rent to a specific individual because he doesn’t want black people living in his apartment, and whether that kind of discrimination should be legal.

    That’s because the essay wasn’t about that.

    How does that mark me as “racist”?

    With respect to private property, I think a person can make a determination on who can use his property based on any damn metric he or she wishes. That’s what private property means. I may disagree with what they choose to do with their property, and what they do may lead me to make certain judgments about them, and those judgments may then impact the chances of my ever interacting with them, or pissing on them if they were to catch fire. But no, I don’t believe the government should say, for instance, that a private wedding photography business somehow belongs to the public as a service, so that therefore the government is within its rights to demand a private citizen perform work against their will and against their beliefs (in the case in question, same sex marriage). That is what being a “subject” looks like.

    Similarly, I don’t believe private clubs should be forced to accept anyone their private membership doesn’t wish to accept. That’s freedom of association, and its a Constitutional and classically liberal principle.

    How does that mark me as “racist”?

    So far as I can tell, racism of the kind you seem to allude to comes from the government giving legitimacy to racial quotas.

    I reject that.

    How does that mark me as “racist”?

  140. Slippery seems to be getting angrier and angrier.

  141. I think a person can make a determination on who can use his property based on any damn metric he or she wishes.

    FINALLY. That’s why, right there. That doesn’t make you specifically a racist, just an accomplice. In other words, when posed with the question, “Should it be legal for an apartment owner to discriminate in renting solely on the basis of race.” Your answer is, “Yes it should be legal. Now, I might not like that person blah, blah, blah”.

    If someone is hispanic, or asian, or black, or any other race, here’s what they see. They see that if you ask that question of Democrats, they will answer, without hesitation, with:
    Of course it should be illegal!
    Duh!
    Yes, it should be illegal.
    Is this even a serious question? Who in their right mind thinks it should be legal?

    And if you ask a Republican, you will generally get an answer like the one you gave:
    Yes, it should be legal, but…

    So if you’re a minority, why they hell would you ever vote for a Republican when you have that choice sitting right in front of you? One team thinks that if you go in to rent an apartment, and the guy says, “Sorry, I don’t rent to your kind.” So be it!

    Enjoy being the party for white people. And your recalcitrance on the issue ensures that you’ll stay on this path for quite some time.

    So far as I can tell, racism of the kind you seem to allude to comes from the government giving legitimacy to racial quotas.

    I already said I don’t support affirmative action / quotas. I’ve said it three times.

  142. Warm earth = more food, more diseases, more insects, and probably bigger predators that need to feed more often.

    Cool Earth = less food, more exposure to disease through population concentration, and fewer and smaller predators.

  143. “Slippery seems to be getting angrier and angrier.”

    He’s a stupid ill educated preachy fraud. What else does he have but fury and drama to make himself feel important?

  144. Oh, global warming equals less fresh water now? Haven’t heard that one.

    Lordy, you’s is so stupid LS.

    Did you have any idea that most of the planet gets is summer drinker water from glacier melt?

    In the current looming Ice Age global warming climate change debates, the claims are that human activity is causing climate change sufficiently quickly and severely as to create an existential threat to the species, requiring the expenditure of trillions of dollars of scarce resources and the degradation of living conditions for hundreds of millions of people. This, I believe, constitutes an extraordinary claim, and thus should be backed up with extraordinary evidence.

    There’s three claims:
    1. The planet is warming
    2. Humans are the primary cause
    3. This is an existential threat to the species, requiring the expenditure of trillions of dollars of scarce resources and the degradation of living conditions for hundreds of millions of people

    They’re not equally supported by the evidence. 1 and 2 are pretty certain. 3 – needs to know the feasibility of mitigation, the risk of unintended consequences, the cost/benefit. 3 is highly, highly uncertain. But that doesn’t effect the certainty of 1 and 2.

  145. That was the least surprising gotcha moment from slipperytwatwaffle in the history of trolls. It was dying to type that.

  146. Huh. Minorities don’t want freedom of association? Who knew!?

  147. The sun thinks slipperyracist is an idiot. So does every period following a cooling cycle in the history of the world prior to man.

  148. 1 and 2 are pretty certain

    Please produce the raw data that your conclusions are drawn from. Kthxby

  149. Did you have any idea that most of the planet gets is summer drinker water from glacier melt?

    You are a funny guy!

  150. You needn’t reach these conclusions on your own steam: government is there to reach them for you. After all, government owns you and all your works. Indeed, when you think on it, it’s very close to being a slave.

  151. Did you have any idea that most of the planet gets is summer drinker water from glacier melt?

    so in winter they’re pretty thirsty?

  152. Slippery hearts the bosom of big mother govt.

  153. so in winter they’re pretty thirsty?

    Rain, low level snow melt. The glaciers are usually building a new layer in the winter. I think kids are learning about the water cycle in 3rd grade now. Probably part of some big government socialist conspiracy to make them willing slaves to the state. Because why else learn about the water cycle.

  154. Rain, low level snow melt.

    where exactly is this done

  155. Now he’s a pretend hydrologist.

  156. “nuckle”?

    It dropped the vestigial “K”.

    Moar proof of evolution.

  157. “They’re not equally supported by the evidence. 1 and 2 are pretty certain. ”

    Nope. Not at all.

  158. “Jeff G. says November 28, 2012 at 2:39 pm
    I think he finally went to read it and either didn’t understand it, so he decided to slink off; or else he understood it, so he decided to slink off.”

    He’s off goggling more “snappy come backs to right wing dogma” from the people who do what passes for the real thinking on his side of politics.

  159. FINALLY. That’s why, right there. That doesn’t make you specifically a racist, just an accomplice.

    An accomplice? Why, am I responsible for how others choose to use their property? I noted I would bring other pressures to bear; I just don’t believe the government has the inherent right to tell others who they should have to associate with. It’s the libertarian in me. The classical liberal. The Constitutionalist. You know, those freedom-loving racists who would never turn around and say that if a black person didn’t want me to rent a room in his house, he’d be a douche, but he wouldn’t be a criminal. It being his house and all.

    An apartment owner isn’t the government.

    Democrats can say without hesitation “of course it should be illegal.” Because that’s what fascists do. And they pretend their morality is justified because they are righteous and good by the very nature of their progressivism.

    They are wrong.

    As to who in their right minds believes a person should be able to choose who lives in his house? I leave that up to people in their right minds to determine.

    If I were a minority — and I am, technically, but my kind has been successful, so fuck me — I’d vote for conservatism and classical liberalism because people like me promote a stable rule of law and all the natural rights granted us. I also do not consider government inherently more moral than the individual, and have no idea why anyone would trust a bunch of politicians to determine which of their freedoms they should be allowed to keep.

    And I never said it was okay not to rent to someone b/c of their kind. I said the decision about who you rent to when the property is yours should be yours. There’s a difference, and it’s one a government-humping tit like you wouldn’t understand were I to draw you a diagram in big bold Crayola colors.

  160. Living as a slave, thinking aping as a slave would think ape his entire life, he sees nothing untoward. He is the fish who knows nothing of water.

  161. I already said I don’t support affirmative action / quotas. I’ve said it three times.

    What makes you think merely saying it proves anything? Since you don’t accord us that privilege, we’re denying it to you in turn.

  162. I wonder what happens when a person who is”known” by local reputation for being chistian homophobe because he worked at Chick Fil A wants to rent an apartment and his ultra-progressive “boycotty blacklisty” landlord says no? I bet the answer is no and protections end up being extended only to protected classes AKA clients. So they aren’t even real protections. Just favors.

  163. Slipperyliar – that was no answer. Optimal global average temp. Moving towards or away. Simple question.

    Above your pay grade?

  164. Didja ever notice that HOAs sprung up across the land when your right to use your own property as you see fit became verboten?

    This is not to say that HOAs are not without their own set of problems.

  165. slipperyslope says November 28, 2012 at 8:57 am

    You guys are so funny.

    You deny the science of evolution and want ID taught in schools, and yet are offended that educated people, especially people educated in science, vote predominately for the Democrats.

    You are amusing. You setup a strawman, beat it up and pretend it’s a major victory.

  166. leigh, I don’t remember a single person here agreeing with the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution.

    Then you are either a liar or too consumed with your prejudices to notice.

    Or perhaps both.

  167. I’ll take both, Patrick.

  168. Optimal global average temp. Moving towards or away. Simple question.

    Is a tricky question JD. If the glaciers melt, that means the earth is warming, and people will run out of drinking water, so we need to stop the glaciers from melting, so…oh, wait.

    I guess the answer is to find that sweet spot temperature where glaciers are never growing or shrinking, and keeping it there forever. Every third grader watches Al Gor’s movie to learn how to do that.

    Thankfully it only involves stringent global government regulation, ‘cuz if it had anything to do with the sun, we’d be screwed. Screwed I tell ya!

  169. I can’t find slipperydouchenozzle’s manifesto list of what it believes we believe.

  170. what does glaciers melting have to do with renting property or jeff g. is a “racist”

  171. You don’t understand newrouter. Slippery is here to help us win elections. A regular Karl Rove. He’s a giver like that.

  172. I already said I don’t support affirmative action / quotas. I’ve said it three times.

    That doesn’t make it true. Actually, based on your posting habits one would be foolish to believe something is true simply because you claimed it.

  173. thanks i’m stupid about these things

  174. I already said I don’t support affirmative action / quotas. I’ve said it three times.

    You ASSert a lot of things, multiple times. Doesn’t make it true. Given your track record, your assertions tend to be quite the opposite of true.

  175. Starving Civilization of energy in the hopes of achieving a supposedly natural Thermostasis that results in a supposedly natural Biostasis is just dangerous hubris and mismanagement that will probably result in mass starvation.

  176. Then you are either a liar or too consumed with your prejudices to notice.

    Or perhaps both.

    You forgot “or you’re stupid”, Patrick. “All Of The Above” gets my vote.

  177. @Pablo: Yes, you have a point. I should avoid succumbing to either/or choices since they exclude many other possibilities. ;-)

  178. Did you have any idea that most of the planet gets is summer drinker water from glacier melt?

    No, because that’s nonsense.

  179. For a guy who embraces a political party ostensibly opposed to legislating morality, slippyslop sure is eager to legislate the hell out anything he doesn’t like.

  180. Ernst: Well really, what’s the point of being a Fascist if you don’t rule (oops! I mean ‘legislate’) with an iron fist.

    Aside from the spiffy black boots, that is.

  181. Even an assertion monkey should know that displaying it’s ass is not a sign of dominance.

    Most of the water Americans use every day comes from rivers, lakes, reservoirs and other surface water. But the vast majority of the planet’s available fresh water is stored in the ground.

  182. Glaciers have been shrinking for the past 12,000 years, by the way.

  183. Our property sits atop an aquifer.

    We’re good. Everyone can come here, except slippery since he can’t be trusted.

  184. You just wait leigh, next he’ll be saying that fracking is going to lead to your aquifer’s poisoning and yousa gonna die!

  185. My ice cubes will catch fire!

  186. Meh. They used to mine lead a few towns over from us, too.

    We’re doomed!

  187. “Ernst Schreiber says November 28, 2012 at 6:39 pm
    Glaciers have been shrinking for the past 12,000 years, by the way.”

    Thet cain’t be Ernst. ‘Cause ever-boddah knows that thuh eart is only six thousand years old from the bible ? Right? OMG!

  188. Let’s call global warming what it really is: an attempt by a small criminal class to monetize the removal of default obstructions. Rent seeking. Turnpike. Shakedown. Official graft. But you are supposed to pretend that its a good thing because it has a badge and some drummed up public hysteria to hide behind.

  189. carbon dioxide is smothering the earth like a warm blanket

    it’s a silent killer

    unlike bears

  190. Did you have any idea that most of the planet gets is summer drinker water from glacier melt?

    No, because that’s nonsense.

    C’mon Pablo, there’s the Ithaca Glacier where NYC gets all its water. I live in PA, so there’s gotta be, like, four or five small glaciers within a ten minute drive from my house. These provide about half of Philly’s water, and all the water for Pittsburgh. And, man, you should see the glaciers in the Everglades — gators love ‘em.

  191. Polar bears are silent killers too, haps. They’re like ninjas in negative, white shadow on a white background, you don’t know it’s there until suddenly it’s all dark and humid ’cause he just ate you.

  192. “Nonsense” is the border region where one crosses from the nation of Ignorance into the wasteland of really, really low IQ.

  193. No, because that’s nonsense.

    I was going to say something to that effect but you beat me to it.

    It’s almost as if snowpack and rain didn’t exist.

  194. It’s almost as if snowpack and rain didn’t exist.

    Also, as if people don’t drill into Gaia and rape water out of her.

  195. polar bears should have theme music like michael myers

  196. Slipperystupid made a wise choice in fleeing.

  197. I heard something about how huge amounts of water get sucked right out of the ocean, swirl around like a freak’in toilet bowl, and then flush all over some unsuspecting landmass.

    I know, it’s probably just a wild tall tail, but that’s what I heard.

  198. “tale” even…

  199. are there any barbecue poly bears recipes on the intertubes?

  200. Bear tends to be greasy. Best just to turn’em into sausage.

  201. Gamey meat is best stewed.

  202. Bear meat is gross. I’m with Lee, sausage is the way to hide it.

    I could dig having a bearskin rug, though.

  203. Ah, so far from being intellectually rigorous and fact based, Gaiaism has its own silly myths and embarrassing articles of faith.

    Hippie sez: “Some Velvet mornin’ when I’m straight…”

  204. SlipSlop appears to have disappeared. I just wanted to let him know I must be a racist. I distrust everyone who is not me and my immediate family. And some of them I wonder about.
    And I am skeptical about all claims, scientific, religious, political or otherwise, until I have seen the data and the methodology. And then, it is still open to question, debate and further proof.
    I’m just like that. And it’s my property to do with as I see fit.

  205. Well, Red you’re just an empiricist. I can totally relate.

  206. Nah, just a man without a country. Evidently.

  207. That GaTech dude just got cockslapped and jumped over

  208. And slippy, if you’re still around, I noticed on two of your posts that you misused “your” and “you’re.” Care to fill us in on your academic credentials if you’re so inclined? Of course you’re welcome to hide your lack of credentials if you’re embarrassed thereby.

  209. How about some munchy crunchy data to chew on.

    Give me that old Medieval Warming,
    Give me that old Medieval Warming,
    Give me that old Medieval Warming,
    It’s good enough for me.

  210. As for the drilling, this is nice.

  211. Geoff: love that particular WattsUpWithThat link. Clearly shows the wildly false assumptions that can be created by carefully choosing the time period presented.

    Also shows that, if we were serious people, we might want to be figuring out how we can cause global warming, and get on with a whole lot of that before our current interglacial period comes to a close. We’re already living on borrowed time.

  212. An accomplice? Why, am I responsible for how others choose to use their property? I noted I would bring other pressures to bear; I just don’t believe the government has the inherent right to tell others who they should have to associate with. It’s the libertarian in me. The classical liberal. The Constitutionalist. You know, those freedom-loving racists who would never turn around and say that if a black person didn’t want me to rent a room in his house, he’d be a douche, but he wouldn’t be a criminal. It being his house and all.

    Think whatever you want. In fact, make it apparent to anyone who would wonder that you uphold a property owner’s “right” to not rent to black people, and an employer’s right to not hire a black person. When a candidate wants to run for office under the “R” banner, help them be clear on the issue. Tsk Tsk them if their spine should soften on property rights and employer rights.

    What’s the point of selling your soul to win an election (except you did just that in the waning light of the Romney campaign)?

    Besmirch the reputation of anyone who suggests that the planet might be warming, and that there’s a possibility that the 8 billion tons of carbon that we put in the atmosphere might have something to do with it. Make sure your candidates tow the line on this one too.

    I hope you hold these positions, and I hope you’re vocal about it, because it ensures your failure. Unfortunately (for me), your candidates seem to (if Romney’s any guide) be distancing themselves from The Hobbits. You must make that a more uncomfortable position for them to take. A reasonable Republican might win, after all.

  213. If i refuse to rent to a black person with a bad credit record am i racist?

    If i refuse to hire a black person with a history of employee theft am i racist?

    Which trumps what?

  214. You are a fucking clown, slopingforehead.

    Shorter sloppy- racist science denier.

  215. “the 8 billion tons of carbon that we put in the atmosphere ”

    Citation, please.

  216. In fact, make it apparent to anyone who would wonder that you uphold a property owner’s “right” to not rent to white black people, and an employer’s right to not hire a white black person. When a candidate wants to run for office under the “segregation demonrat ” (segration today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever – wallace demonrat) “R” “D” banner, help them be clear on the issue. Tsk Tsk them if their spine should soften on property rights and employer rights.

  217. A reasonable Republican might win

    reasonable republican reporting- fuck you

  218. Holding a faux moral preening high-ground, self proclaimed nonetheless, is what sloppy has been angling for.

  219. High-ground? Ha.

    Only if he’s on a hill and been hitting the pipe.

  220. new – which segregation democrat ran for office in 2012?

    BT – keep selling your platform and getting those votes!

    JD – substance to offer?

    leigh – if I give you a source, it will matter… how? will it affect your position in the slightest? No? That’s why I rarely bother.

  221. How do you know that?

  222. The point is, you are making things up. Pulling numbers out of a hat. Talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    Sources such as ‘The Nation’ and ‘Mother Jones’ don’t count.

  223. new – which segregation democrat ran for office in 2012?

    barack hussein obama

  224. Slippery, I say we are a shining example to carbon-spewing countries like China and India.

    We should get some windfall tax credits.

  225. My question had nothing to do with platforms or votes.

  226. His reading comprehension isn’t all that, BT.

  227. All of these shortcomings mean that promoters of the looming Ice Age global warming climate change have yet to produce the extraordinary evidence required by their extraordinary claims. I am a trained physicist, who has done plenty of statistical analysis in my career; I will not accept any assertions that I am a science denier, or that I am too dim to understand the mathematics or the analysis behind the theories. Rather, I am a skeptic, as every scientist is by nature a skeptic. It’s not that I deny that the looming Ice Age global warming climate change is real; it’s that I have not yet been presented with evidence sufficient for me to support the theories.

    Perhaps humanity would be better served if the “climate science” community spent less time repeating their as-yet-unsupported assertions to newspapers and politicians, and more time strengthening their evidence and sharing it with peers outside their immediate social circles.

    Squid seems to have won this thread.

    Also, scientists who selected as spokesman, and conspired with far-Left failed politician and misanthrope Al Gore deserve just the mockery they received. Science is best conducted far from the realm of politics. To choose a dirty Socialist and neo-Communist to lead the charge was utter folly.

  228. New – seriously? Here’s the 1948 Dixiecrat platform:

    http://www.davidpietrusza.com/1948-states-rights-democratric-party-platform.html

    It’s like it was written just for you guys. Pretty funny that you try to hang that as a noose around the head of today’s Democratic party, when it’s exactly what you want the Republican party to “return” to.

  229. leigh – so your mind wasn’t changed? Color me shocked. Shocked I say! Glad I dug out those links for you for the shit I supposedly made up but as it turns out didn’t make up.

    Fool me once and all that hubbub.

    My question had nothing to do with platforms or votes.

    Good job. Keep your eye off the ball. Focus on being right, and pure. Who cares about elections anyways.

  230. No, it isn’t. That is an historical document which reflects the strides that were taken by the Dems to keep a brother down.

    Don’t lie to us, son.

  231. Really leigh, what parts of that document do you disagree with?

  232. It’s like it was written just for you guys

    yo white boy go live with the negros for a while. you be culturally enriched no?

  233. new – i love how you pwnd yourself with that Dixiecrat thing.

  234. I love it when sloppy tries to tell us what we want, what we think, etc …. Hilarity ensues.

    Sloppy – Substance isn’t your strong suit. You are a verbose name caller. A coward. A dishonest serial troll. A bigot. You get what you deserve.

  235. That is an historical document which reflects the strides that were taken by the Dems to keep a brother down.

    nah the blacks do it to them selves quit acting white

  236. JD – I love how you call me a name caller and then call me names. Substance much?

  237. new – going for the hearts and minds now I see?

  238. slippey

    new – i love how you pwnd yourself with that Dixiecrat thing.

    go worship your “black” G-d

  239. Bullshit, slipperyslopedforehead. That’s not what this Republic needs, segregation; what this Republic needs is for it’s citizens to not be such slackers as to demand from the government teat their very existence. One should live one’s life well despite the government’s intervention, not because of it. If one requires government to hold his/her hand throughout his/her miserable life, one does not have much life.

    Democrats have mastered the technique of proffer, giving goodies from the treasury in exchange for their continued electoral victories. A pitiable, weak body of ‘Americans’, these enslaved Democrat voters. de Tocqueville knew this was coming, and when it did, the Republic’s demise was all but guaranteed.

  240. gnite ladies and gents. and newrouter too.

  241. new – going for the hearts and minds now I see?

    nah blacks are low iq like you ax the ebonics crowd and al sharpton

  242. There is no substance in your nonsense. You obfuscate, dissemble, and in the end, call us racist science deniers. It is what you do. And I mock you for doing so. I point and laugh.

  243. gnite ladies and gents. and newrouter too.

    good nite proggtard asshole!!11!! 100% vote baracky philly vote but we be multiculturalists!

  244. Slap that slippery sloping forehead, JD! The perpetual forever-child needs it!

  245. thank g-d we have the “talented tenth” like al sharpton!!!

    The Talented Tenth

  246. 1 –

    We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the greatest charter of human liberty ever
    conceived by the mind of man.

    No problem with 1.

    - 2 –

    We oppose all efforts to invade or destroy the rights guaranteed by it to every citizen of this
    republic.

    No problem with 2.

    - 3 –

    We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be guaranteed to all citizens only
    by a strict adherence to our Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the
    constitutional rights of the states and individuals…

    No problem with 3.

    - 7 –

    We stand for the check and balances provided by the three departments of our government. We
    oppose the usurpation of legislative functions by the executive and judicial departments. We
    unreservedly condemn the effort to establish in the United States a police nation that would destroy
    the last vestige of liberty enjoyed by a citizen.

    No problem with 7.

    - 8 –

    We demand that there be returned to the people to whom of right they belong, those powers
    needed for the preservation of human rights and the discharge of our responsibility as democrats
    for human welfare. We oppose a denial of those by political parties, a barter or sale of those rights
    by a political convention, as well as any invasion or violation of those rights by the Federal
    Government.

    No problem with 8 as amended.

  247. according to the latest figures by an international team, including researchers at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia.

    East Anglia? The Harry Reids of science.

  248. hey slippey

    new – going for the hearts and minds now I see?

    outside of mimicking whites black “culture” suxs

  249. slippey suxs dick at the bottom of societal collapse and does anal too!!

    STEELY DAN, Razor Boy

  250. Why did I just know slip would refer to data from the East Anglia group?

    AKA the group that, when searching for evidence of global warming found evidence for global cooling and instead of being good scientists and saying “Hm, that’s odd” and then trying to find out why that was so instead tried to hide that so they could continue trumpeting the grave dangers of global warmingclimate change and how we have to have massive restrictions on industry. For Science!

    Perhaps Slip mistakes doctrinal purity for scientific inquiry, though it’s more likely he’s just another vat-grown troll spewing what he’s told.


  251. - 3 –
    We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be guaranteed to all citizens only
    by a strict adherence to our Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the
    constitutional rights of the states and individuals…

    No problem with 3.

    Any time you see the words ‘social’, ‘economic’ and ‘justice’ together, hang on to your wallet. It’s also known as ‘redistribution’.

  252. ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2011) — Global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have increased by 49 per cent in the last two decades, according to the latest figures by an international team, including researchers at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia.

    If they say the sky is blue, I’m going outside to check.

  253. Good job. Keep your eye off the ball. Focus on being right, and pure. Who cares about elections anyways.

    What’s right got to do with it? Power is where it’s at!

    If we ever meet, slope, remind me to shoot you.

  254. What’s right got to do with it? Power is where it’s at!

    Do what thy manhood bids thee do, from none but self expect applause;
    He noblest lives and noblest dies who makes and keeps his self-made laws.*

  255. It’s like it was written just for you guys.

    Except for, well, those key bits about segregation.

    But those parts don’t matter, do they? Racist.

  256. 8 billion tons of carbon that we put in the atmosphere

    Note that the portion of that “we” that is actually within the reach of the US government is really more like 1.5 billion tons (and shrinking), while the rest of the “we” is the part that is growing.

    Not that I am really concerned. Climatology prediction and modeling, as a science, is still being done by people who can’t seem to understand the importance of validating your prediction tools down to the model/mechanism level.

  257. What’s the point of selling your soul to win an election (except you did just that in the waning light of the Romney campaign)?

    I think it’s fair to say that if you had bothered to do even some superficial checking, you would have discovered that Romney wasn’t on the top end of Jeff’s list of desirable candidates.

    In light of this silly, unevidenced jumping to tragically incorrect conclusions that you have been demonstrating for the last few days, why should we give your lecturing us about how Republicans are anti-science any regard? You give every appearance of not having a clue how science (and its close companion, logic) works. I’d say that you couldn’t have made a more ignorant claim than this one, but I suspect you’ll outdo yourself soon.

    In a contest between Romney and Obama, of course Jeff picks Romney. Because he’s racist aware that in a choice between unsuitable and even more unsuitable, you go with the least-worst choice. The primary difference between the two is not so much that Romney is a conservative (he isn’t, to any appreciable extent) but that Romney is answerable to conservatives.

  258. Who cares about elections anyways.

    Good question. Because it wasn’t ballots we used on tyrants in 1776.

  259. Gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on traditional marriage, wingnuts!

    “I now pronounce you Spouse A and Spouse B.”

  260. “I now pronounce you Spouse A and Spouse B.”

    I propose, instead: “Spice”.

  261. Oh. That’s already taken.

  262. “I now pronounce you Spouse A and Spouse B.

  263. I now pronounce Slipperybrain boring as hell.

  264. Really leigh, what parts of that document do you disagree with?

    I’ll see your dixiecrat platform and raise you

    Really, jackbooted Birkenstocked goose-stepping prancing morons should be more careful to not get smirch on themselves whilst besmirching others.

  265. “slipperyslope says November 28, 2012 at 10:28 pm
    JD – I love how you call me a name caller and then call me names. Substance much?”

    Casting substance before dull witted trolls is like casting pearls before swine. If you could genuinely recognize substance there would be a lot more of it showing up in your posts. But there isn’t. You forgo substance to resort to calumny, copy pasta, moving goal posts, and ignorant foolishness. So you’ll take what you get.

  266. Think whatever you want. In fact, make it apparent to anyone who would wonder that you uphold a property owner’s “right” to not rent to black people, and an employer’s right to not hire a black person. When a candidate wants to run for office under the “R” banner, help them be clear on the issue. Tsk Tsk them if their spine should soften on property rights and employer rights.

    Again with the dishonest douchery. I made it clear that I would uphold a black property owner’s right not to rent to me for whatever his reason. Employment laws are a different matter, or at least are usually treated as such. But here’s the thing: unless you favor quotas (which you say you don’t), then the only way you can judge an employer who doesn’t have many blacks or hispanic or gay workers is to pretend you can see into his heart. That is, if all his other employees have similar resumes.

    And that’s what it is you want to do: impute to others a racism that you hope, by the nature of the accusation and from where it comes, protects you from the same indictment. Or, to put it another way, you are a preening moral coward.

    What’s the point of selling your soul to win an election (except you did just that in the waning light of the Romney campaign)?

    I didn’t sell my soul. I determined that I had a responsibility to my children to at least try to forestall the collapse that’s coming. The only chance I had to do so on a national scale was to try to get a placeholder elected — one answerable to conservatives. Also, I had to cancel out the votes of wannabe fascist tyrants like you.

    Besmirch the reputation of anyone who suggests that the planet might be warming, and that there’s a possibility that the 8 billion tons of carbon that we put in the atmosphere might have something to do with it. Make sure your candidates tow the line on this one too.

    Besmirch? You mean like calling scientifically trained skeptics “climate deniers”?

    The fact is, too many people have grown too dumb. That doesn’t mean I have to grow dumb in order to win them over. That’s pandering. I’d rather just keep repeating the facts and try to deprogram whomever I can.

    I hope you hold these positions, and I hope you’re vocal about it, because it ensures your failure.

    Yeah. It certainly beat the hell out of Reagan.

    Unfortunately (for me), your candidates seem to (if Romney’s any guide) be distancing themselves from The Hobbits. You must make that a more uncomfortable position for them to take. A reasonable Republican might win, after all.

    Yes. Your concern is touching.

    But here’s the thing: we’ll continue to stick to our principles — which happen to be the principles of our Founding — and wait for the money to run out. Once you have nothing left to buy people off with, you have nothing left, period. You stand for nothing save a thirst for power and control.

    Unfortunately for you, it still isn’t working on half the population, and we won’t go down without a fight. Bank on it.

  267. I hope you hold these positions, and I hope you’re vocal about it, because it ensures your failure.

    Someone has to have principles. We can’t all come from Chicago.

  268. What, exactly, does a “Bank” have to do with “climate change”? Does my money get harder to give to despots and carnival barkers if it gets warmer?

    Climate changes. Carbon Dioxide is not an environmental pollutant. Carbon Monoxide is. Soot is. Ozone at ground level is. Sulfur is. Litter is. Carbon Dioxide is NOT.

    Carbon Monoxide will knock you out, if not kill you at 150 to 200 ppm. The normal outdoor level of Carbon Dioxide is 350 – 450 ppm (on the high side, it’s usually estimated at 280ppm), it’ll kill you at 100,000 ppm. That’s the EPA saying it, not me.

    I’ve had this gem in my drafts for about a year, with a link to the guy who originally figured this out, but I 404 on the link now. If I get there I’ll post it in the thread. The gist of the post was that carbon sequestration schemes and credit were a total fraud, because the amount of carbon dioxide required to raise the temperature of the atmosphere one degree is so damn huge. I found the math to be convincing. You can still find the numbers on-line, at the EPA, NSF and IPCC.

    Observationally, according to scientists, it will take an increase of 125ppm to raise atmospheric temperature by 1 degree Celsius. According to climate scientists it takes 93ppm. Why? Because they use models. The models assume a 1.8 degree rise in temp with every doubling of concentration. I’m not going to doubt them, but they’d make shitty bakers and probably worse brewmasters. These climate scientists have measured the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over time and also the amount of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel (going back to 1751, somehow) and have concluded that it takes ~14,138mmt of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by ~1 ppm. If that’s true, and it takes ~125 ppm to raise the global temperature ~1ºC, the rest is math. Not computer-level math either. Multiplying ~14,138mmt/pmm by ~125ppm/ºC gives us ~1,767,250mmt/ºC.

    Digging around on the EPA site, we can find that, in 2010, the US produced 6,822 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent.

    How much would we reduce warming if we removed the entire US output of “CO2 equivalent” in 2010 from the yearly CO2 output?

    0.0038602348281228 of a degree Celsius. Round up if you want. 0.004 of a degree. Per year.

    Math is hard. Especially for bankers.

Leave a Reply