The Growing Consensus of the Lack of Consensus for Global Warming
December 20, 2007 · By Greg Farries
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
There is also a lack of concensus regarding the nature of god. Time to throw that one out with the bath water too?
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
There is also a lack of concensus regarding the nature of god. Time to throw that one out with the bath water too?
-I thought that is what leftists were already doing.
I don’t think we are saying; how it is any different than the other times in history that it has happened?
Give us some real proof not Al Gore made up stories or U.N. sponsored propagandists with their livelyhood at stake.
Sorry, it should read. “I think we are saying”
Charles,
The problem is that the evidence is already out there. Those who choose to close their eyes to it are simply equating new evidence as more ‘Al Gore made up stories’ as you put it.
It’s happening. How anyone could claim otherwise is staggering - when was the last time the North-West Passage was completely ice-free? Before 2007, not in recorded history.
What’s different? CO2 in the atmosphere is a known ‘greenhouse gas’. Look to Venus as a demonstration. Who puts the CO2 in the air? We do.
“There is also a lack of concensus regarding the nature of god. Time to throw that one out with the bath water too?”
When they start wanting to charge us a God tax that we can’t opt out of, then yes.
Huh? Did you do any research? The passage has been clear plenty of times:
http://freestudents.blogspot.c.....ssage.html
So what? So is water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.
Huh?
Thus spake Abattoir:
Easily — because “global warming” is not measured with a ruler. All “evidence” is VERY indirect and the effect of carbon dioxide is argumentative.
Furthermore, a market is being created for “carbon credits” and people like Al Gore have vested interests in forcing other people to buy them. There is money to be made by forcing “global warming” down everybody’s throat.
Greg,
Yes, I did. You are forgetting the key word here: ‘pack’ ice. This is often used to mean drift ice (not attached to land) driven together into a large single mass. The ship in 2000 did not encounter any ‘pack ice’. This does not equal ‘ice-free’ as I stated.
This is a significant difference. We learn in chemistry class that ice and water only exist together around the phase change temperature, or about -6C. Any further heating of the ice water will go to melting the ice first, not heating the water (at equilibrium, of course).
Once the ice is completely gone, there is nothing keeping the water from heating further.
As to the greenhouse gases - yes, all those things are naturally occuring, and are all greenhouse gases. Our current climate depends on a specific (within certain bounds) equilibrium mix of all of these elements. Significant, long-term changes of any of them, no matter the cause, results in changes to the climate.
We are vastly increasing the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, and thus upsetting the natural balance. Millions of tons of CO2 (and other gases) are naturally created (forest fires, volcanoes) and absorbed (plant growth) each year. We are upsetting that natural balance by burning millions of tons of coal, oil, and gas.
Venus has the epitome of a ‘greenhouse gas’ atmosphere, with about 96% CO2. The CO2 acts as a blanket for the planet, making the planet hotter than Mercury, although it is twice as far away.
Charles,
There are many ‘rulers’ being used - and they are pointing to “something is changing here”. Ice-free NWP. Shrinking polar caps. Increased storm activity. Warming ocean waters. Milder winters. Melting glaciers. New Orleans. At what point, exactly, do you acknowledge something is changing? What would it take, in your eyes?
Carbon credits are a complete rip-off, unless you actually believe that throwing all this CO2 into the atmosphere might actually be harming something. Once you believe that, it’s an innovative free-market system for encouraging CO2 emission reductions. It rewards those who reduce their emissions, by taxing those who don’t. It’s a very capitalist approach.
“When they start wanting to charge us a God tax that we can’t opt out of, then yes.”
You mean like public funding for private religious schools?
Do I believe in man-made globle warming?–NO
Do I believe in natural climate change?–Yes
We can debate global warming until the cows come home, on websites like this, and never come up with an answer.
I retired a few years ago and have followed politics and news casts very carefully. To date the only reason that man-made global warming is happening is because the Media has told me so.
Not once in my years of retirement have I seen a TV show that debated the Pros and Cons with panel of qualified scientists so I could made an informed decision.
This political left,right scraping means nothing to me.
Try viewing “THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE”. It’ll give you a taste of the real truth.
Thus spake Abattoir:
An actual price tag would be a good start. The actual “science” is irrelevant because ultimately, people have a right to disagree.
Stop writing nonsense!
If you have to enforce the transactions in a particular market through the barrel of a gun, it is not a free market.
“You mean like public funding for private religious schools?”
This is not an extra tax we all have to pay for a religious purpose. This is simply taking tax payers money and using it to subsidise said tax payers educational choices. Agree with this funding or not, this is not what a carbon tax would be. To compare I could say use my taxes already collected and going for environmental projects to reduce the polutants in water and you could say reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. That I could live with.
You compare apples and oranges. If someone came up to me and said you MUST give me 100$ for every sin you have commited, then you would have a valid point. As it is now your comments are flippant and distracting from the others from having a rational conversation.
Greg, did you actually read the link you provided?
Good stuff!
Let’s just make sure we have it straight.
1) DON’T make or enforce government policy based on scientific evidence.
2) DO make or enforce government policy based on beliefs derived from myth.
Perfect.
Policies are not free of charge. Unless you associate a cost of your “make or enforce government policy” you are just saying nonsense.
Hyptheticallly, I am sure scientific evidence could also be provided to demonstrate that universal healthcare served on a silver platter to every single Canadian to treat anything from paper-cuts to brain transplants would be perfect too. Should we enforce such policy without knowing the cost?????
Charles,
A price take for what, exactly? The price of action, or the price of inaction?
The price of inaction..hmm…for starters, what is the property value of Manhattan? Now the price of action - that depends on your approach. Kicking and screaming - pretty expensive. Using it as an opportunity - could actually be profitable.
“Stop talking nonsense” - that’s productive. Try taking an economics class, and then talk about the free market.
The right to pollute CO2 is a valuable asset. I could easily compare it with the right to draw water from a public river. Without any regulation, it is cheapest for factories to draw all the water they could ever need.
The government needs to regulate the amount of water taken from the river to protect the environment, so it charges for the water. It therefore becomes profitable for the users to conserve the water they use.
The carbon credit system is quite similar. Instead of charging a flat rate per ton of CO2 (or per litre of water), they are allowing factories to pollute x amount for free, and they can sell their excess capacity to others. The principle is the same - restrict the asset, and this gives it a monetary value.
Abattoir,
Stop butchering language and re-take your Econ101 class but stay awake next time.
Free market has the word free in it for a reason. You clearly fail.
Thus spake Abattoir:
“The government needs to regulate….
The carbon credit system is quite similar.”
Enough said.
Charles,
So, by your definition, a ‘free’ market is one without regulation? Then we, by definition, do not have any free markets, because they all have regulations. Can you honestly think of one that does not have any?
Think about it. The financial sector has regulations on trading, interest rates, lending, .. the list goes on. Patents and trademarks are fundamentally regulatory controls on a free market. The automotive, telecom, pharmaceutical, electronic sectors all face their own controls.
A free market does not mean a market without regulation or control. A free market is one in which the prices of goods and services are determined using supply and demand. This does not mean they are not regulated, controlled, or stimulated by government.
Keep the snide comments to yourself, and try learning something.
“As it is now your comments are flippant and distracting from the others from having a rational conversation.”
Yet another enlightening “discussion” at thepolitic.
Blah blah blah blah, you are stupid…
No, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah… see you are stupid.
If you knew anything blah blah blah blah blah, then you would clearly see that I am right blah blah blah blah, you idiot.
Oh yeah, well, blah blah blah blah blah… you don’t understand economics…
Pfft, blah blah blah blah… see how big and smart I am… blah blah blah blah
Ugh, it is like watching Question Period, it means nothing.
StE: you don’t like it, don’t bother reading it. All you’re doing now is flamebaiting.
Thus spake Abattoir:
That definition is correct but it is not my definition. It is common knowledge — so common that it is even found as the very first entry in Wikipoedia!
Abattoir finally learns economics:
Correct.
Like I said, go back and re-take Econ101 but stay awake the next time.
At your service!
I think I did learn something: You never took an economics course in your life, did you?
Oh Charles, you are so big and strong and so so smart. How could we ever get by without your wise words to show us the way?
*gag*
Btw, I think this is interesting:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calga.....ments.html
Looks like people are starting to get sick of people hiding behind the internet.
I will also post this under Unruh’s thread.
Hmm, Charles is his REAL name. Same for me, so I’m not sure who you’re referring too?
Also, I read the link you provided, and again, I’m not sure how this is relevant to the discussion at hand?
Charles,
I also referenced that precise entry on Wikipedia before I posted, and I see nothing there that contradicts my posts.
“A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers.”
I want to buy some Tylenol to treat a headache. The drugstore wants to sell me the Tylenol. They have a set price, and I am willing to pay that price, or I am free to go to the drugstore across the street where it is 10% cheaper. The price is set by our mutual consent. The price is not set nor controlled by the government. Neither of us is being forced or coerced. This is a free market transaction, by the very definition you quoted.
Yet it is not a market without regulation. The drug must have government approval, the manufacturer cannot use the Tylenol trademark without permission, the drugstore must pay the employees a certain minimum wage, the government charges a sales tax, etc.
Let me try to break it down for you, Charles. Free market != no regulation. Free market = no price controls. The free market you have in mind would be anarchistic.
And yes, I did take economics in university. Did well, too, thanks.
Never said it wasn’t his real name Greg (not that I care), I was just making fun of him for thinking he is big man on the economic campus.
The link was actually more appropriate in a different thread. You will see it posted there.
Abattoir,
Congratulations! You have finally learned a logically consistent definition of the free market.
To violate a free market, prices do not have to be set nor controlled by the government. There needs only be some element coercion influencing the agents of that market. Your Tylenol(TM) transaction occurs within the context of a coercive environment. Just to name a few, taxation and patents are coercive conditions.
Here is some more advice to put in your bag of vast economic education:
The next time that you wish to level a strawman argument for or against the free market — or you encounter somebody else doing so, for that matter — find out what government institutions and structures are hidden behind the scenes which either foster or hinder that market in question.
Economics is constantly butchered for political means. You, Abattoir, have been suckered into accepting a misleading concept of the free-market and no doubt, you take all the strawmen arguments for or against it for granted.
“And yes, I did take economics in university. Did well, too, thanks.”
Now demonstrated throughout the entire internet to have been an embarrassment. Either you were given a free pass without knowing it or your school ripped you off.
Smarter Than Yourself,
You have the ability to learn too, I am sure.
Charles,
Sigh - this is tiresome. Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the verb ‘to coerce’. According to Merriam-Webster, ‘to coerce’ means ‘to restrain or dominate by force’, ‘to compel to an act or choice’, or ‘to achieve by force or threat’.
I’m afraid that none of these definitions apply in my earlier Tylenol example. I am not coerced to purchase any Tylenol - I am free to look for alternative products if I find the price too high.
If you can’t accept that, understand this: your definition of ‘free market’ would be harmful to any nation, and I’m glad we don’t have one.
The ‘carbon credit’ system is a ‘free market’ system, using the more common definition as in ‘Canada’s market is a free market’.
Leave the personal attacks at the door. You don’t know me or my education. Disagree with me if you like, but please don’t debase the conversation.