-1=e^ipi Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 No hes not an atheist but that doesnt change the fact that ISIL is primarily a political movement. Islamism is both a political and religious movement. THAT is why ISIL exists... and it exists completely because sunni arabs are disenfranchised. And I'm sure all the genocide and head chopping that goes on in Saudi Arabia is because... ?
dre Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 And I'm sure all the genocide and head chopping that goes on in Saudi Arabia is because... ? Genocide in Saudi Arabia? Do you just make this stuff up? In any case Im not saying that Islamic fundamentalism is not violent. I was pointing out the stupidity of the simplistic claim you made. I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
-1=e^ipi Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) Genocide in Saudi Arabia? Do you just make this stuff up? Saudi Arabia commits genocide against its homosexual people and apostates. Edit: They are also involved in genocide in Yemen. Edited October 28, 2015 by -1=e^ipi
hitops Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) So you don't think changing rain belts and rising sea levels is going to have any affect on people in the developing world? They might, but we have no idea. And even assuming they do, we do not know whether they will be positive or negative. How interesting. You feel they'll start eating sand or growing gills? And yes, it's already happening, no matter how much you don't want to be believe it. Am I supposed answer a question about sand eaters and gill people? Happening already you say....must have missed that paper.... Tell me, do you think the laws of physics surrounding CO2 absorption somehow don't apply because your economic views are on the line? An odd statement considering you neither know my economic views, nor the law of physics surrounding CO2 absorption. Now would be the perfect time to prove it, prove that climate change, which has only really started affecting us for the last 50 years or so (the, we burn too much carbon climate change) is at fault and be sure to prove that it isn't one of a hundred other things that are at fault when you do it. Where are people eating sand where they weren't 50 ears ago, because of climate change, and where are people drowning, because of climate change, and climate change alone. Of course you can't, then again it's easy to prove that the things you mention have happened many times in the recent history of civilization, im assuming we weren't at fault four thousand years ago, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_ You should know better than this. Obviously everything bad that happens today is because of climate change. Sure all those things have always happened, but before that was for other reasons. Today, it is because of climate change. Persian Gulf may soon be too hot to support human life Yep, we should definitely impose enormous costs of everyone because somebody tinkered with their computer simulation until it said something 'may' happen. Airtight. Edited October 28, 2015 by hitops
waldo Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 What is outrageous is the endless stream of hacks that make claims that have no supporting scientific evidence and expect others to prove that their claims are wrong. Here is one paper that refutes the claim that CO2 had anything to with Hurricane Sandy: http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/grayklotzbach2012.pdf isn't it odd... that paper isn't published anywhere, hey! Speaking of, as you say, "the endless stream of hacks"... here's a testament to the lead author of that paper: William Gray --- He has described global warming as a “hoax,” and something that “they've been brainwashing us [about] for 20 years.” in your rush to speak to Hurricane Sandy... any thoughts on what caused it to turn/track towards New Jersey... any thoughts as to what caused that blocking ridge and jet-stream positioning?
waldo Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 It is all a lie. Even the IPCC acknowledges that the only measured increase in extreme weather are heat waves but those heat waves are balanced by a corresponding decrease in cold snaps which are generally much more deadly. Basically, once you eliminate the false claims where there is no evidence supporting a link between climate change and the weather event you have a situation where there is no evidence of any tangible harm caused by warming to date. no - per the IPCC attribution linked to human influences: - at the global level: presents an increase in warm temperature extremes and a decrease in cold temperature extremes... to suggest a "balancing effect" is utter nonsense. - at a regional level: an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.
waldo Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 ... than even the worst case scenario posited by the IPCC, have occurred in human history and were not anything remotely close to extinction events. At one time a thousand or so years ago, it was warm enough that there were vineyards and wineries in Britain. [waldo: the IPCC doesn't do "extinction events"... perhaps you'd like to speak to just what the "worst case scenario posited by the IPCC" actually is, particularly any related contextual attachment - yes? That standard "vineyard in Britain" talking point has no relevance to today's relatively recent warming and causal attachments] For right now, the costs of trying to stop global warming are enormous. Firstly, Canada's impact is almost nothing, and we could de-industrialize our whole country without making a fraction of a dent in the 'problem'. [waldo: always telling to read someone come out so forcefully against mitigation pursuits to reduce GHG emissions - well done, particularly in this thread... that continues to be derailed from the OP intent! Your "de-industrialize" phrasing is also quite "alarmist"... efforts towards reducing reliance on fossil-fuels are on an extended 40-50 year time frame presuming world-nation compliance in that regard. Are you of a mindset that presumes existing and accompanying 'gap filling' technological advancements over that period won't be adopted... just to continue historical ties/attachment to fossil-fuels? You're ripe with talking points: references to Canada's direct emissions without regard to the indirect emissions related to Canadian exports is a ready-reach for proponents of the status-quo, like you] Secondly, the costs of just dealing with changes in climate are orders of magnitude lower than trying to stop it. [waldo: source/cite and explain your adaptation only mindset that presumes to adapt... and re adapt... and re-adapt, etc., to ever increasing GHG levels, related warming and climate change] Attempts to stop 'climate change' are probably going to create far more suffering, death and poverty than any amount of climate change could, even by the worst predictions of the IPCC. [waldo: source/cite] Lastly, the IPCC's own best models, when you plug in data from 50 years ago and look at today, they badly overestimate temperatures. Why would I trust them to be any better in predicting something I cannot measure in the future? [waldo: source/cite] If you think scientists are non-emotional, morally perfect robots who do not respond to the same human incentives that everyone else does, I would call you naive. The IPCC is full of scientists who's own financial and professional livelihoods are directly dependent on, and inseparable from, the predictions being as bad as absolutely possible. We have no problem believing doctors might prescribe or treat based on their own financial interests. For some reason climate scientists are exempt from this basic understanding of human nature. [waldo: the IPCC has relatively few employees... the scientists you speak of are dedicated volunteers who step forward to assist in creating the iterative grouping of reports; key reports rely upon peer-reviewed publications inclusive of those of a legitimate "skeptical nature". Legitimate criticism of the IPCC, its findings and methodology are required for overall improvements and help to offset those intent to disparage the IPCC simply because it presents findings based on the prevailing science of the day.]
waldo Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 many here seem quite willing to speak derisively of the IPCC... while actually avoiding the UNFCCC-IPCC ties/mandate, particularly as relates to this thread and the upcoming Paris COP 21 meetings... meetings that, by design, are preceded by the just recently completed first-ever meeting of G20 Energy Ministers and the upcoming mid-November G20 heads of government meeting. It must be quite disconcerting to the "IPCC naysayers" to recognize past G8/G20 meetings that have had direct reliance upon the IPCC findings...in any case relevant high-level findings of the IPCC AR5 "Summary for Policymakers" report... those effectively "driving" the COP process: Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term, and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.Many adaptation and mitigation options can help address climate change, but no single option is sufficient by itself. Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales, and can be enhanced through integrated responses that link adaptation and mitigation with other societal objectives.
Keepitsimple Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales, and can be enhanced through integrated responses that link adaptation and mitigation with other societal objectives. The unelected IPCC objective.....Social Engineering cloaked in save-mankind, sheep's clothing. The failure of Kyoto has knocked these guys off their plan. Paris won't just be about targets - the Social Engineers have to get governments talking about money again. The rich pay the poor. Back to Basics
waldo Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 The unelected IPCC objective.....Social Engineering cloaked in save-mankind, sheep's clothing. The failure of Kyoto has knocked these guys off their plan. Paris won't just be about targets - the Social Engineers have to get governments talking about money again. The rich pay the poor. the IPCC doesn't set policy... it's reports are 'signed off' by representatives of the participating world nations. The IPCC, quite obviously to the thinking knowledgeable, can't determine respective world nation social policies/programs. The IPCC has no "Social Engineers" engaged in "Social Engineering"; it was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC. I expect you should set your sights a bit higher and target the UNFCCC: the IPCC FAR report (1990) played a decisive role in leading to the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the key international treaty to reduce global warming and cope with the consequences of climate change. The UNFCCC was adopted in May 1992 in New York and opened for signature at the ‘Rio Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro a month later. It entered into force in March 1994 and has achieved near universal ratification with ratification by 189 countries of the 194 UN member states (December 2006). 1.2.1 Article 2 of the Convention Article 2 of the UNFCCC specifies the ultimate objective of the Convention and states: ‘The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner’ (UN, 1992).
cybercoma Posted October 28, 2015 Author Report Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) The unelected IPCC objective...Oh, this sounds like an interesting path. Let's have elected scientists. That way we can fire the ones who have findings we don't like by voting in new ones. Oh, I know! We can just do what the church used to do and kill the ones we don't like. Edited October 28, 2015 by cybercoma
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 COP21 in Paris = "Climate Justice", whatever the hell that means. Hang on to your purse/wallet ! Economics trumps Virtue.
-1=e^ipi Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) COP21 in Paris = "Climate Justice", whatever the hell that means. Hang on to your purse/wallet ! It's a mixture of social justice with climate change alarmism. I.e. people claiming that climate change disproportionately harms women, transgender people and 'people of colour' and therefore fighting climate change is socially just. Edited October 28, 2015 by -1=e^ipi
waldo Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 COP21 in Paris = "Climate Justice", whatever the hell that means. Hang on to your purse/wallet ! don't be shy... perhaps you can heighten discussion opportunity by attaching who/what has drawn that 'equality'... and in particular speak to the legitimacy of that 'who/what' and pointedly address what formal attachment and influence that 'who/what' has to COP21. Thanks in advance. It's a mixture of social justice with climate change alarmism. I.e. people claiming that climate change disproportionately harms women, transgender people and 'people of colour' and therefore fighting climate change is socially just. same request of you --- "perhaps you can heighten discussion opportunity by attaching who/what has drawn that 'equality'... and in particular speak to the legitimacy of that 'who/what' and pointedly address what formal attachment and influence that 'who/what' has to COP21" thanks in advance. You can extend on your reply to that request by expounding on your "people" reference... who are your declared "people"? .
-1=e^ipi Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 who are your declared "people"? SJWs.
waldo Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 SJWs. care to address what formal attachment to and direct/indirect influence upon COP21 that your declared "SocialJusticeWarriours" have? .
-1=e^ipi Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 care to address what formal attachment to and direct/indirect influence upon COP21 that your declared "SocialJusticeWarriours" have? I never made such a claim.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) What do we want ? CLIMATE JUSTICE !!! When do we want it ? NOW !!! Saddle up warriors....to Paris we go !!! http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/events/cop-21-paris-climate-mobilisation http://www.tehelka.com/2015/10/will-push-for-climate-justice-in-cop21-prakash-javadekar/ https://climatejusticeaction.net/en/cop21-un-climate-summit-paris-2015/ http://climatejusticeproject.com/ https://www.oikoumene.org/en/press-centre/news/pilgrims-for-climate-justice-plan-to-impact-cop-21-in-paris http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/08/will-climate-justice-movement-seattle-paris-talks http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/is-modi-s-pitch-for-climate-justice-more-than-rhetoric-115101401369_1.html (Funny part is that I am day trading oil stocks right now. ) Edited October 28, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 What do we want? CLIMATE JUSTICE!!! When do we want it? NOW !!! Saddle up warriors....to Paris we go !!! hey now! Thanks... good on ya. But uhhh... you only addressed a part of my request; this request: "perhaps you can heighten discussion opportunity by attaching who/what has drawn that 'equality' {between COP21 and "Climate Justice"}... and in particular speak to the legitimacy of that 'who/what' and pointedly address what formal attachment and influence that 'who/what' has to COP21." your googly strawman effort is weak!
waldo Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 I never made such a claim. and yet... somehow... although you chose to reply to that googly strawman presented by dropping yet another of your ad nauseum reference to SJWs... you chose not to question the guy's presumed attempt to equate the formal COP21 process with so-called "Climate Justice" - go figure, hey!
-1=e^ipi Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 I just find these climate justice arguments ridiculous. Much like I find arguments that use the bible to justify climate change mitigation ridiculous. Decisions should be made on the best available empirical evidence.
waldo Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 I just find these climate justice arguments ridiculous. and yet you replied to that googly strawman effort without speaking to this, your assessment finding... better late than never; good on ya!
hitops Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) the IPCC doesn't do "extinction events"... perhaps you'd like to speak to just what the "worst case scenario posited by the IPCC" actually is, particularly any related contextual attachment - yes? That standard "vineyard in Britain" talking point has no relevance to today's relatively recent warming and causal attachments[/b][/color]]I didn't say the IPCC did extinction events. The scenarios they do, speaking of CO2 levels, have occurred in human history without the necessary connections to warming that the IPCC implies will occur. But regardless, if it does, they do not offer clear evidence that it will much matter. For right now, the costs of trying to stop global warming are enormous. Firstly, Canada's impact is almost nothing, and we could de-industrialize our whole country without making a fraction of a dent in the 'problem'. [waldo: always telling to read someone come out so forcefully against mitigation pursuits to reduce GHG emissions - well done, particularly in this thread... that continues to be derailed from the OP intent! Your "de-industrialize" phrasing is also quite "alarmist"... efforts towards reducing reliance on fossil-fuels are on an extended 40-50 year time frame presuming world-nation compliance in that regard. Are you of a mindset that presumes existing and accompanying 'gap filling' technological advancements over that period won't be adopted... just to continue historical ties/attachment to fossil-fuels? You're ripe with talking points: references to Canada's direct emissions without regard to the indirect emissions related to Canadian exports is a ready-reach for proponents of the status-quo, like you]Sounds like you needed to vent here. You wandered across a few different areas. I'm not sure if there a specific point you want addressed. source/cite and explain your adaptation only mindset that presumes to adapt... and re adapt... and re-adapt, etc., to ever increasing GHG levels, related warming and climate change[/b][/color]]Well 'climate change' has no real specific meaning, so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to explain how we adapt physically to an idea. It is exactly analogous as if I said to you "badness is happening, what do you propose to stop the badness?" On warming, there is no trend for significant warning for nearly 20 years, so again I don't recommend adapting to something not clearly happening. But even if it is happening, it is not clear what the effect might be, or that we need any drastic measures to deal with it. source/cite http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2011/06/06/economics-adaptation-climate-change A negligible amount compared to trying to stop CO2 rise. And even that assumes nothing else will change. But a lot will change. Millions more will continue to develop and leave poverty just as they have for the last 20-30 years, continuing to increase global economic output and wealth. Those increases in global wealth will wipe out that cost of adaption many, many times over. But that will not happen if we insist on doing anything serious about reducing CO2 emissions. source/cite http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13143-014-0011-z the IPCC has relatively few employees... the scientists you speak of are dedicated volunteers who step forward to assist in creating the iterative grouping of reports; key reports rely upon peer-reviewed publications inclusive of those of a legitimate "skeptical nature". Legitimate criticism of the IPCC, its findings and methodology are required for overall improvements and help to offset those intent to disparage the IPCC simply because it presents findings based on the prevailing science of the day.[/b][/color]] A distinction without a difference. It is the same as saying that doctors are all volunteers, because look medical conferences and professional bodies don't pay them salaries. You know better. many here seem quite willing to speak derisively of the IPCC... while actually avoiding the UNFCCC-IPCC ties/mandate, particularly as relates to this thread and the upcoming Paris COP 21 meetings... meetings that, by design, are preceded by the just recently completed first-ever meeting of G20 Energy Ministers and the upcoming mid-November G20 heads of government meeting. It must be quite disconcerting to the "IPCC naysayers" to recognize past G8/G20 meetings that have had direct reliance upon the IPCC findings... So to be clear, you see the existence and direct reliance of the IPCC upon the political process as something making it more likely to be objective? Edited October 28, 2015 by hitops
eyeball Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 Right, all that violence over the last several thousand years in that area, is due to climate change. No, I didn't say all of it and thinking that I did explains why you also blurt meaningless thing's like the rest of your response. This is the ultimate example of how non-falsifiable the climate change narrative is. Literally anything counts. Incomprehensibility just leads to more of the same. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
hitops Posted October 28, 2015 Report Posted October 28, 2015 No, I didn't say all of it and thinking that I did explains why you also blurt meaningless thing's like the rest of your response. 'and the fact that you think that means that you are a.......' - not an argument Actually is the perfect example of climate change attribution. Something has been happening forever? = due to various factors. Same thing continuing to happen today = due to climate change. There is no better demonstration of how the story works. Incomprehensibility just leads to more of the same. Could not describe the expert consensus on climate change any better.
Recommended Posts