Posted on 03/19/2017 8:22:57 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
Personally, I start from the point that Anthropogenic Global Warming is an invention of a liberal politician and not a scientist. AGW just happens to serve as an excuse for liberal politicians to do exactly what they want to do.
It also is a fact that strategic bombing against Germany was not all that effective in any other way than in reducing Germanys fuel supply. And therefore a political attack on the use of carbon fuels is quite similar to an effective bombing attack against the country.
When the elites give up their private jets and close down their mega mansions then I’ll take some note.
He can convince me that he truly believes in what he says by giving up his luxury homes, his jet rides, his cars and go live in a cave and eat raw meat that he caught with his bare hands...
Otherwise, he is full of it...
Just my opinion....
Sure, Scott - they can do that. It will only cost $50 million. And guess what, when this "blue ribbon panel" is done - you will find that, mirabile dictu, they all agree that we have climate change!
Besides he had no hand in creating this great economy that offers so much to so many and that he wishes to destroy. He only benefits from that which wishes hurt. Typical hypocrite.
Yep...True hypocrite...Just like 99% of Follywood....
Translation....my carbon footprint is very probably one fiftieth...maybe even one one hundredth...of his.
Is there ‘climate change”??? Sure....
Climate changes every day...If it’s one degree warmer or cooler tomorrow, the climate has changed...
Does man change climate...Nope....
How about some REAL LEGITIMATE KNOWLEGABLE SCIENTISTS “convince me” ?
How about some REAL and HONEST people “convince me” this isn’t a world redistribution of wealth scheme by the totalitarian global ‘elites”?
Rather than some super egotistical child who thinks the world revolves around him and who shoots his mouth off SOLEY for LOOKITMEE publicity, and Hypocrite with his mansions and private jet setting?
THEN and ONLY then, might I be convinced. But some little snot nosed bastard who thinks by faking someone else’s character on screen somehow credentials him on #FakeScience, then no. I’d never be “convinced” by that juvenile POS
What happened to that ice? Air conditioners? VW diesel engines? Private LearJets? Four hundred foot yachts (like yours)?
Sure, Scott - they can do that. It will only cost $50 million. And guess what, when this “blue ribbon panel” is done - you will find that, mirabile dictu, they all agree that we have climate change!
That it, the model gets tweaked until it shows what the modeler wants it to show.
He could make another point; that we co not have sufficiently accurate data to show good “hindcasting” we simply do not have the data.
But he is not scientist in the field (my career was as a meteorologist, so I can easily see it), so I will give him a pass on it.
The fact is that climate models that predict disaster offer several benefits to climate modelers that non-disastrous models do not.
For one, if there is no disaster, why do we need climate modelers? For another, there is great mental reward in perceiving oneself as the savior of the world.
The strategic bombing of Germany's industrial and urban centers was conducted to counter the rockets being fire into Britain. It was carried out to disrupt production and, "de-house" the population centers which were supplying the Nazi's. It forced Germany to defend it's territory and limited their capacity to attack, thus hastening the surrender.
As to the article, Models of the economy and climate change are hoaxes riddled with falsified premises and data. The media, however, is pushing the agenda full tilt.
Just ask one of these cultists, if they got to be in charge of the globe's thermostat, what temperature they would set it at and why/how they know that is the right temperature, and see what kind of answer you get. If they can't tell you what the ideal temperature is, how can they conclude it's getting too hot or too cold? If they can tell you what the ideal temperature is, getting them to reveal the source of their esoteric and arcane knowledge is usually worth a pretty good laugh.
DeCaprio would be well on the way to covincing me if he sold his yacht(s) and jet(s) and several of his homes, and comported himself as someone who SERIOUSLY believes that we are in a climate crisis. He’s behaving as a total fraud, so far.
I guess they don't call it Caliphony for nothing...
Yikes, you want them to live like common folks. You are mean. 8>)
I've often asserted (much to the consternation of my leftie opponents) that I would be willing to change my opinion or attitude on a topic of they could persuade me thorough a convincing argument. The left's inability to differentiate between real and serious represents a major impediment to a persuasive argument.
The "arguments" that they tend to offer up are chaotic messes of conjecture laced with emotion and spiced with junk facts - just to suggest the appearance of knowledge. To quote the great Ronald Reagan, "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Not knowing never seems to deter lefties, as they are never reluctant to resort to bullcrap in place of facts. They believe that a sensational sounding factoid, delivered with impassioned scorn, is the ultimate debate strategy. "But my challenge", I remind them, "is to persuade me. You've failed so far because your argument is muddy, contradictory, and frankly phony."
Drives them crazy every time.
This posting has no links or attribution to source.
So far no one has proposed a solution to climate change. If you believe climate change, then you also have to believe solutions will require real sacrifice. LED bulbs won’t do it.
If you want me to believe that you believe in climate change, lay down an objective, ie, no more than 1.5 degrees F increase by year xxxx. Then layout a program that will achieve that objective along with the costs.
So far the only programs described will cost trillions and will only limit temperatures to about a fourth of the objectives. One can only assume that these programs are not serious since they do not achieve serious results.
Bottom line. If carbon is the problem, then you must limit carbon to pre-industrial age amounts, say 1900. But, then, populations have increased so, per capita, that moves the date back into the early 1800s. Now lay out a program that limits energy consumption to the total carbon emissions of the early 1800s. Now explain to the people why they have to reduce their standards of living to those levels.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.