rigorousintuition.ca

Elihu » Tue May 20, 2014 4:18 pm wrote:

the politics of governments are not controlled by businessmen

and the "carbon" tax would be controlled by?

Just because the "carbon tax" would be controlled by governments and Wall Street, and they would all profit from it, doesn't mean that AWG is a hoax.

It just means that these people are opportunistic parasitic bastards.

Ya know?

These people have zero morality and would try to profit off of anything. Radiation poisoning of children, they would try to profit off of that. Whatever, it just doesn't matter to them.

Iamwhomiam » Wed May 21, 2014 3:02 pm wrote:Ben, the questions I asked were not answered. Please try harder.

You fools will be the death of all of us. You wish for chaos rather than the well being of billions. If you are not working for dark forces, you heads are fucked up.

Iam!!!! ...what under heaven's name has come over you...where has your civility gone with all the ad homs....and why the regression to poopy mouth syndrome?

Nordic » Wed May 21, 2014 4:22 pm wrote: Just because the "carbon tax" would be controlled by governments and Wall Street, and they would all profit from it, doesn't mean that AWG is a hoax.

It just means that these people are opportunistic parasitic bastards.

Ya know?

These people have zero morality and would try to profit off of anything. Radiation poisoning of children, they would try to profit off of that. Whatever, it just doesn't matter to them.

I take your point...but are you suggesting that under a situation whereby AGW was a known hoax, these opportunistic parasitic bastards would decline the opportunity to profit from it?

Ben, just drop it and carry on. That's my advice. Just drop it and everybody else will I would imagine. Don't sully your handle with anything you're not FUCKING proud of. No excuses. Just kindness and a view to curiosity and open speculation. Just contribute and converse. I most certainly have not singled you out whatsoever. I really don't fucking care. I just read the shit I read here and read it. Anymore, I typically have no opinion because I know where I ethically stand as it is and even that is "one of those things". Let us just maintain the "info-stream" and keep kindness up.

82_28 » Wed May 21, 2014 5:04 pm wrote:Ben, just drop it and carry on. That's my advice. Just drop it and everybody else will I would imagine. Don't sully your handle with anything you're not FUCKING proud of. No excuses. Just kindness and a view to curiosity and open speculation. Just contribute and converse. I most certainly have not singled you out whatsoever. I really don't fucking care. I just read the shit I read here and read it. Anymore, I typically have no opinion because I know where I ethically stand as it is and even that is "one of those things". Let us just maintain the "info-stream" and keep kindness up.

Ok 82_28....I presume you don't mean for me to ignore my understanding that AGW is a scam of monumental proportions that will go down in history as one of the greatest examples of evil this world has probably ever known....but rather just give it a rest for awhile?

Sure, I am happy to do that...conditional of course on no ad homs from others...starting now...

Hum it for me, Sounder. I don't know the words. And while you at it, shove that sick prick Freud up you ass. We're done. Fucking twit!

But Iam, you keep flame baiting me so you don't really seem to be done with me. Still I suppose your primary purpose is to discourage discussion with vulgarities, so you do well on that account at least. You're a regular intertube warrior.

Never deal with a thing said and simply SCREAM. It's a strategy that works, till it doesn't anymore.

Just because the "carbon tax" would be controlled by governments and Wall Street, and they would all profit from it, doesn't mean that AWG is a hoax.

Of course not, that would be bad logic. Cancer is not a hoax either, but the 'war' on cancer is. If it was not a hoax then society would be more serious about removing cancer causing chemicals from our food and manufacturing processes.

It just means that these people are opportunistic parasitic bastards.

Yes but these opportunistic parasitic bastards do not just jump in to the money river to collect their loot, they also redirect the flow of the tributaries so they may enjoy their splash parties with greater abandon, i.e. our Monsanto state dept.

While we all dutifully dig the canals for their new endeavors.

annoying, boring and wrong - thats why i just feel like hurling shit at the deniers

Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
http://skepticalscience.com/global-cool ... ediate.htm

No, it mostly transferred to the ocean

"As Nuccitelli et al. (2012) (Figure 7) and Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013) (Figure demonstrated, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat over the past decade even while the warming of surface temperatures has slowed."
"Meehl et al. (2011)found that climate models expect 'hiatus decades' to occur, during which surface temperatures don't warm significantly because more heat is transfered to the deap oceans."

Recent articles about a global warming 'pause' miss that the planet as a whole is still rapidly warming
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... use-button


A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm

to paraphrase Bill Hicks, is there anyone her who denies humans are destroying the biosphere? kill yourself

annoying, boring and wrong - thats why i just feel like hurling shit at the deniers

Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?
http://skepticalscience.com/global-cool ... ediate.htm

No, it mostly transferred to the ocean

"As Nuccitelli et al. (2012) and Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013) demonstrated, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat over the past decade even while the warming of surface temperatures has slowed."
"Meehl et al. (2011)found that climate models expect 'hiatus decades' to occur, during which surface temperatures don't warm significantly because more heat is transfered to the deap oceans."

Recent articles about a global warming 'pause' miss that the planet as a whole is still rapidly warming
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... use-button


A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm

to paraphrase Bill Hicks, is there anyone here who denies humans are destroying the biosphere? kill yourself

heres how Murdoch builds consensus in Australia

big headlines on page 1 of the only national paper like this

“We got it wrong, says IPCC”
http://archive.today/tFrk8

followed by tiny retractions no-one ever sees detailing how the story was rubbish
https://twitter.com/MeddlesomPriest/sta ... 3413510145

good writers like John Quiggin used to waste hours debunking the rubbish published in the Australian, but it never stops
http://johnquiggin.com/2013/09/16/cant-quote-cant-link/
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/art ... correction
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/edit ... tence.html

but hey, its probably not the global media oligarchs making up the big lies, its all those ... ?

Slightly off topic, but give till it hurts (It's a long shot, but if it works..):

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/focu ... heworld--3

all they need is $200,000 to solve the earths energy problems ... nuclear power without waste ... they're just 1 step away

i wonder what that 1 elusive step is?

Beryllium electrodes. If things work as predicted it will help them demonstrate net gain. It won't result in a finished fusion reactor, but it will serve as a proof of concept. Worth 50 bucks if you ask me.

Just because the "carbon tax" would be controlled by governments and Wall Street, and they would all profit from it, doesn't mean that AWG is a hoax.

i just don't know what else to say to that. i couldn't agree more.

While we all dutifully dig the canals for their new endeavors.

i just don't know what else to say to that except its awesome! i'm getting a little old to dig