Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:28 pm
this shit has been going on long enough that we can measure the inaccuracy in the predictions.
Page 9 of 15
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:54 pm
when he pulls out the flaws in the arguements math, and then corrects the math and arrives at his own similar conclusion.
this shit has been going on long enough that we can measure the inaccuracy in the predictions.
this shit has been going on long enough that we can measure the inaccuracy in the predictions.
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:56 pm
wap wrote: ↑Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:17 pmKYGTIGuy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:13 pm
The 1883 Krakatoa eruption darkened the sky worldwide for years afterwards and produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months. British artist William Ashcroft made thousands of colour sketches of the red sunsets halfway around the world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption. The ash caused "such vivid red sunsets that fire engines were called out in New York, Poughkeepsie, and New Haven to quench the apparent conflagration."[17] This eruption also produced a Bishop's Ring around the sun by day, and a volcanic purple light at twilight.
In 2004, an astronomer proposed the idea that the blood-red sky shown in Edvard Munch's famous 1893 painting The Scream is also an accurate depiction of the sky over Norway after the eruption.[18]
There are better articles out there but this was easy to find
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_er ... f_Krakatoa
Neat. I knew about the years long darkening but not the rest of it.
The Santorini eruption of ca 1650 BC is pretty fascinating, too, if you're into that sort of thing.
always learning more
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:59 pm
wap wrote: ↑Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:20 pmThe loudest sound ever heard by humans, yeah. Massive tsunami's across the Mediterranean. 10's of meters of ash buried the island, including a whole city, much like Pompeii, but over 1700 years earlier than Pompeii. You can visit this town today. I've been there twice. It was just discovered in 1967 and will likely take another 10-200 years to fully excavate. Every home that has been uncovered so far has been 2-3 stories tall with interior staircases, which was very rare for the 2nd millennium BC, with beautiful frescos on most interior walls, and, get this, running water and flushing toilets and a municipal sewage system. Likely wiped out the Minoan civilization, or at least crippled it to the point that they were easily conquered by the Mycenaeans. Also quite possibly the origin of the Atlantis myth and some say it was the cause of the Red Sea parting for Moses and the column of fire, if you remember from the movie 10 Commandments.
Fascinating stuff. If you're interested, this is a 5/7 book on the subject.
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:41 pm
Alarmist vs actual carbon emissions, basically all of the alarmist numbers are based on a bag of hogwash obviously.
Such bull, I get wanting to live cleaner and I think we all should try, however, the current
-hurt being spewed is getting on many people's nerves including my own. Sorry Greta, no Climate Apocalypse based on actual
This guy is cool to follow:
https://twitter.com/jritch
The article:
https://business.financialpost.com/opin ... apocalypse
Terence Corcoran: Conservatives right to have rejected climate extremism and they should stay cautious
In the dying days of the two-week United Nations’ 25th Congress of the Parties (COP25) in Madrid, a meeting described as Kafkaesque in one report, Time magazine Newsmaker of the Year Greta Thunberg said she and her Extinction Rebellion cohorts are “desperate for any sign of hope.” Well, here are two big signs of hope for today’s youth: The latest carbon emissions data and forecasts suggest the UN’s climate catastrophe scenarios are way off the mark.
Thirty years ago, when Time’s apocalyptarian editors declared Earth as Planet of the Year for 1988, they warned of the global environmental meltdown to come. Oceans will rise, deserts will grow, and human existence will be threatened. According to computer projections, claimed Time in late 1988, “the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere could drive up the planet’s average temperature 3 F to 9 F by the middle of the next century.”
Not happening. That temperature disaster (equal to an increase of 3 and 5 C) has been officially postponed at least 50 years. “If the current trend continues we may see temperature increases 3-5 degrees C by the end of the century,” the head of the UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said in its 2018 report.
But even that scaled-back WMO temperature outlook is not going to happen. Recent commentary from two climate researchers demonstrate that alarmism about rising temperatures and global environmental disaster are not justified for two reasons. First, the worst-case scenarios that are the basis for the constant barrage of catastrophic warnings from the UN and others have little or no basis in real science. Second, the latest global carbon emissions projections suggest the world is already well on the road to holding the world temperature increase down to manageable non-catastrophic levels.
In a recent Forbes commentary, University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. documented how UN officials at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed extreme carbon scenarios that were used to create dangerously high temperature projections. The IPCC’s most alarming outlook, a “business as usual” scenario, assumed that global carbon emissions would reach 80 billion tons a year by the end of the century. As Pielke writes, with that scenario, “The apocalypse had been scheduled.” Pielke outlines how the extreme became the official scenario. Instead of producing a range of possible emissions scenarios as it had in the past, the IPCC’s 2013 assessment report began focusing on one scenario, almost a worst-case outlook, that became the launch pad for sensational conclusions promoted by journalists, politicians and activists. “Decisions made within the IPCC have contributed to the apocalyptic turn in discussions of climate, moving us away from constructive discussions, scaring children and contributing to overheated rhetoric.”
Importantly, the apocalyptic outcome of the worst-case scenario — brought on by 80 billion tons of carbon emissions annually at the end of this century — continue to be broadcast even though there is ample evidence that the 80 billion projection is totally out of line with current trends. The scenario, says Pielke, “wildly overstates” even current emissions and portrays a future that is “highly unlikely if not impossible.”
Another researcher, Justin Ritchie at the University of British Columbia, recently produced a graphic demonstration of the extreme divergence between the IPCC’s apocalyptic scenarios and the latest trends in carbon emissions. Instead of tracking toward 80 billion tons any time soon, the International Energy Agency plots current emissions at less than 35 million tonnes and more or less flat-lining through to 2040. Ritchie, a post-doctoral research fellow at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, plotted the IEA data on his Twitter feed showing that carbon emissions appear stable and non-catastrophic.
The current trend in carbon emissions supports a dramatically non-apocalyptic outcome through to the end of the century. While the worst-case IPCC scenario implies temperature increases of +4 C, the trend plotted by the IEA suggests much lower increases. In an interview, Ritchie said the IEA scenario “put us heading toward 2.2-2.6 C warming by 2100. Another way of framing it is an additional 1.3-1.6 C from now.”
An end-of-century increase of 1.3-1.6 C would still be inconsistent with the Paris Agreement, but it is “well outside the range of what most would consider catastrophic — more in a range of potentially manageable.” Ritchie, in a 2017 research paper, noted systemic errors and other problems behind the IPCC worst-case scenario, including use of data that failed to predict recent shifts in energy use that moved earlier coal trend lines downward.
Ritchie supports Pielke’s argument that “we are heading for a long plateau” in global carbon emissions. If the IEA is right, said Ritchie, “before the middle of the century we are not off track the Paris Agreement goals.” Beyond 2050 will depend on the trajectory of emissions in the second half of the century.
Pielke concluded his ground-breaking Forbes commentary with a note on the importance of understanding how “a fateful decision by the IPCC to selectively anoint an extreme scenario from among a huge range of possible futures has helped to create the climate apocalypse, a scary but imaginary future.”
This imaginary future continued to dominate the COP25 meeting in Madrid over the past two weeks, motivating the language used by journalists, politicians and bureaucrats — and filling Greta and others with hopelessness. Pielke and Ritchie offer more than signs of hope. There will be no apocalypse.
Financial Post
Such bull, I get wanting to live cleaner and I think we all should try, however, the current
-hurt being spewed is getting on many people's nerves including my own. Sorry Greta, no Climate Apocalypse based on actual This guy is cool to follow:
https://twitter.com/jritch
The article:
https://business.financialpost.com/opin ... apocalypse
Terence Corcoran: Conservatives right to have rejected climate extremism and they should stay cautious
In the dying days of the two-week United Nations’ 25th Congress of the Parties (COP25) in Madrid, a meeting described as Kafkaesque in one report, Time magazine Newsmaker of the Year Greta Thunberg said she and her Extinction Rebellion cohorts are “desperate for any sign of hope.” Well, here are two big signs of hope for today’s youth: The latest carbon emissions data and forecasts suggest the UN’s climate catastrophe scenarios are way off the mark.
Thirty years ago, when Time’s apocalyptarian editors declared Earth as Planet of the Year for 1988, they warned of the global environmental meltdown to come. Oceans will rise, deserts will grow, and human existence will be threatened. According to computer projections, claimed Time in late 1988, “the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere could drive up the planet’s average temperature 3 F to 9 F by the middle of the next century.”
Not happening. That temperature disaster (equal to an increase of 3 and 5 C) has been officially postponed at least 50 years. “If the current trend continues we may see temperature increases 3-5 degrees C by the end of the century,” the head of the UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said in its 2018 report.
But even that scaled-back WMO temperature outlook is not going to happen. Recent commentary from two climate researchers demonstrate that alarmism about rising temperatures and global environmental disaster are not justified for two reasons. First, the worst-case scenarios that are the basis for the constant barrage of catastrophic warnings from the UN and others have little or no basis in real science. Second, the latest global carbon emissions projections suggest the world is already well on the road to holding the world temperature increase down to manageable non-catastrophic levels.
In a recent Forbes commentary, University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. documented how UN officials at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed extreme carbon scenarios that were used to create dangerously high temperature projections. The IPCC’s most alarming outlook, a “business as usual” scenario, assumed that global carbon emissions would reach 80 billion tons a year by the end of the century. As Pielke writes, with that scenario, “The apocalypse had been scheduled.” Pielke outlines how the extreme became the official scenario. Instead of producing a range of possible emissions scenarios as it had in the past, the IPCC’s 2013 assessment report began focusing on one scenario, almost a worst-case outlook, that became the launch pad for sensational conclusions promoted by journalists, politicians and activists. “Decisions made within the IPCC have contributed to the apocalyptic turn in discussions of climate, moving us away from constructive discussions, scaring children and contributing to overheated rhetoric.”
Importantly, the apocalyptic outcome of the worst-case scenario — brought on by 80 billion tons of carbon emissions annually at the end of this century — continue to be broadcast even though there is ample evidence that the 80 billion projection is totally out of line with current trends. The scenario, says Pielke, “wildly overstates” even current emissions and portrays a future that is “highly unlikely if not impossible.”
Another researcher, Justin Ritchie at the University of British Columbia, recently produced a graphic demonstration of the extreme divergence between the IPCC’s apocalyptic scenarios and the latest trends in carbon emissions. Instead of tracking toward 80 billion tons any time soon, the International Energy Agency plots current emissions at less than 35 million tonnes and more or less flat-lining through to 2040. Ritchie, a post-doctoral research fellow at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, plotted the IEA data on his Twitter feed showing that carbon emissions appear stable and non-catastrophic.
The current trend in carbon emissions supports a dramatically non-apocalyptic outcome through to the end of the century. While the worst-case IPCC scenario implies temperature increases of +4 C, the trend plotted by the IEA suggests much lower increases. In an interview, Ritchie said the IEA scenario “put us heading toward 2.2-2.6 C warming by 2100. Another way of framing it is an additional 1.3-1.6 C from now.”
An end-of-century increase of 1.3-1.6 C would still be inconsistent with the Paris Agreement, but it is “well outside the range of what most would consider catastrophic — more in a range of potentially manageable.” Ritchie, in a 2017 research paper, noted systemic errors and other problems behind the IPCC worst-case scenario, including use of data that failed to predict recent shifts in energy use that moved earlier coal trend lines downward.
Ritchie supports Pielke’s argument that “we are heading for a long plateau” in global carbon emissions. If the IEA is right, said Ritchie, “before the middle of the century we are not off track the Paris Agreement goals.” Beyond 2050 will depend on the trajectory of emissions in the second half of the century.
Pielke concluded his ground-breaking Forbes commentary with a note on the importance of understanding how “a fateful decision by the IPCC to selectively anoint an extreme scenario from among a huge range of possible futures has helped to create the climate apocalypse, a scary but imaginary future.”
This imaginary future continued to dominate the COP25 meeting in Madrid over the past two weeks, motivating the language used by journalists, politicians and bureaucrats — and filling Greta and others with hopelessness. Pielke and Ritchie offer more than signs of hope. There will be no apocalypse.
Financial Post
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:14 pm
Unpopular opinion (in this thread anyway) time:
This made me wonder who is this expert Christopher Monckton? Oh, he doesn't have a degree in climate science or anything and appears to be quite a
artist and a generally awful person:Monckton is the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and reportedly a former advisor to the policy unit of the British government during the 1980s; he is employed as Chief Policy Adviser for the denier lobby group, Science and Public Policy Institute.[3].
Monckton is also Scotland Leader of the right-wing nationalist party United Kingdom Independence Party.
His critics, including The Guardian writer George Monbiot, point out that Monckton has only a "degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and...no further qualifications."
Monckton has made various false claims in the past such as that he is a member of the British House of Lords.[2], a Nobel Prize winner, inventor of a cure for HIV, winner of a defamation case against George Monbiot and writer of a peer-reviewed article.
Monckton is a staunch supporter of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and has claimed that President Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent[40]. In September 2012 Monckton claimed the odds that President Obama's birth certificate was real were "One in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000"
More good stuff here:Monckton, who married in middle age and has no children, and whose coat of arms features a pink portcullis, has made a series of inflammatory homophobic statements about gay people.
He claimed that gay men have up to 20,000 sexual partners over their "short, miserable lives" (surveys show that they have the same number of sexual partners, on average, as straight people, viz. six)[42]
He called AIDS and other diseases the "wages" of gay promiscuity
He called for the regular screening of the population for AIDS and the life-long quarantine of all carriers.[43]
He dismissively referred to LGBT people as "QWERTYs" after the letters on the keyboard.
He claimed that gays only want to get married so that they can adopt children, which is unfair to children.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/C ... r_Monckton
Kinda hard to take this guy seriously.
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:15 pm
Wow, you're reaching back a long way in this thread.dubshow wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:59 pmwap wrote: ↑Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:20 pm
The loudest sound ever heard by humans, yeah. Massive tsunami's across the Mediterranean. 10's of meters of ash buried the island, including a whole city, much like Pompeii, but over 1700 years earlier than Pompeii. You can visit this town today. I've been there twice. It was just discovered in 1967 and will likely take another 10-200 years to fully excavate. Every home that has been uncovered so far has been 2-3 stories tall with interior staircases, which was very rare for the 2nd millennium BC, with beautiful frescos on most interior walls, and, get this, running water and flushing toilets and a municipal sewage system. Likely wiped out the Minoan civilization, or at least crippled it to the point that they were easily conquered by the Mycenaeans. Also quite possibly the origin of the Atlantis myth and some say it was the cause of the Red Sea parting for Moses and the column of fire, if you remember from the movie 10 Commandments.
Fascinating stuff. If you're interested, this is a 5/7 book on the subject.
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:31 pm
classic logical fallacy attacking the character instead of discussing thewap wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:14 pmUnpopular opinion (in this thread anyway) time:
This made me wonder who is this expert Christopher Monckton? Oh, he doesn't have a degree in climate science or anything and appears to be quite a
Monckton is the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and reportedly a former advisor to the policy unit of the British government during the 1980s; he is employed as Chief Policy Adviser for the denier lobby group, Science and Public Policy Institute.[3].
Monckton is also Scotland Leader of the right-wing nationalist party United Kingdom Independence Party.
His critics, including The Guardian writer George Monbiot, point out that Monckton has only a "degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and...no further qualifications."Monckton has made various false claims in the past such as that he is a member of the British House of Lords.[2], a Nobel Prize winner, inventor of a cure for HIV, winner of a defamation case against George Monbiot and writer of a peer-reviewed article.Monckton is a staunch supporter of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and has claimed that President Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent[40]. In September 2012 Monckton claimed the odds that President Obama's birth certificate was real were "One in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000"More good stuff here:Monckton, who married in middle age and has no children, and whose coat of arms features a pink portcullis, has made a series of inflammatory homophobic statements about gay people.
He claimed that gay men have up to 20,000 sexual partners over their "short, miserable lives" (surveys show that they have the same number of sexual partners, on average, as straight people, viz. six)[42]
He called AIDS and other diseases the "wages" of gay promiscuity
He called for the regular screening of the population for AIDS and the life-long quarantine of all carriers.[43]
He dismissively referred to LGBT people as "QWERTYs" after the letters on the keyboard.
He claimed that gays only want to get married so that they can adopt children, which is unfair to children.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/C ... r_Monckton
Kinda hard to take this guy seriously.
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:42 pm
Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:31 pmclassic logical fallacy attacking the character instead of discussing thewap wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:14 pm
Unpopular opinion (in this thread anyway) time:
This made me wonder who is this expert Christopher Monckton? Oh, he doesn't have a degree in climate science or anything and appears to be quite a
More good stuff here:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/C ... r_Monckton
Kinda hard to take this guy seriously.
expected response was expected.
How can you take what this clown says as
if he's a proven yuuuuge liar?Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:25 am
Valid point.wap wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:42 pmBig Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:31 pm
classic logical fallacy attacking the character instead of discussing the
expected response was expected.
How can you take what this clown says as
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:17 am
I've gone through the exercise of fact checking some of his older data, and it checks out, so I'm more inclined to take newer stuff on a little more faith.wap wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:42 pmBig Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:31 pm
classic logical fallacy attacking the character instead of discussing the
expected response was expected.
How can you take what this clown says as
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:07 am
[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:23 am Nothing like trusting a random liar on the internet rather than scientists!
Re: Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:30 am
I only listen to people who say what I believe.[user not found] wrote:I've heard that scientists have an agenda but internet liars definitely don't
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:14 pm
[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:23 am Nothing like trusting a random liar on the internet rather than scientists!
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:14 pm
And[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:25 am I've heard that scientists have an agenda but internet liars definitely don't
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:21 pm
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:38 pm
again with the logical fallacy.[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:26 pmSerious comment but a bit off topic:Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:21 pm ok, let's talk about where power come from.
https://youtu.be/7fIkA-dpiZk
The Heartland Institute should be charged with voluntary manslaughter for what they did to spread disinformation about smoking.
Try a better source.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150419004 ... about-kids
on the surface most of that passes my sniff test for logical conclusion.
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:47 pm
your think tank comes right out and says they hate my think tank soley based on the finding source. of course they will shit on them. this coin has two sides bendy[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:41 pmSigh....Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:38 pm
again with the logical fallacy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150419004 ... about-kids
on the surface most of that passes my sniff test for logical conclusion.
https://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12 ... king-risks
They are NOT a libertarian organization, they are corporatists.
What We Do
The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a nationally-recognized watchdog that leads in-depth, award-winning investigations into the corruption that undermines our democracy, environment, and economic prosperity.
The Koch brothers and their network of billionaires are operating with a reach and resources that exceed those of political parties and they are using that power to erode the integrity of our elections and sap taxpayer dollars away from investments in public infrastructure, education, and healthcare to benefit narrow special interests and global corporations.
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:49 pm
sigh.[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:47 pm This bullshit representation of corporatists pretending to be libertarians really pisses me off.
Fake libertarian Corporatists: global warming isn't human made or isn't real at all *rabble rabble*
True libertians: the science absolutely indicates that global warming is real and we need to ensure consumers have appropriate access to information so they can make informed choices and the market can properly function
I've actually dug into the science in the ipcc reports. it's shit. I'm not simply ecoing a think tank.
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:29 pm
I have a engineering degree from an ABET certified school. I know how to read a graph with error bars and interpret experimental data.[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:53 pmWhere is your doctorate from? Since you make such well informed analysises I'm sure your thesis was well received?Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:49 pm
sigh.
I've actually dug into the science in the ipcc reports. it's shit. I'm not simply ecoing a think tank.
Seeding distrust academia of the FIRST move that corporatists make. Once those pesky academics are out of the way then you can so whatever you want.
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:34 pm
You are wrong here bendy. You are not even familiar with how a technical reasech paper is written... they tell you explecidly why and how they do things so others can repeat it aka peer review... and that's part of the problem with ippc, its. not. peer. reviewed.[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:30 pmSo you know what this symbol means:Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:29 pm
I have a engineering degree from an ABET certified school. I know how to read a graph with error bars and interpret experimental data.
≠
and when people like me or others go point out those own mistakes where they didn't even do their own fucking math right, we are the crazy science deniers.
we will have to simply agree to disagree here.... I have forgotten more than you will ever know about this subject.
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:48 pm
[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:41 pmActually you're hitting the nail on the head on why I'm right. I ABSOLUTELY AM NOT QUALIFIED AND NEITHER ARE YOU. You're not an environmental scientists. Being able to read a paper doesn't make you one and never will make you one.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:34 pm
You are wrong here bendy. You are not even familiar with how a technical reasech paper is written... they tell you explecidly why and how they do things so others can repeat it aka peer review... and that's part of the problem with ippc, its. not. peer. reviewed.
and when people like me or others go point out those own mistakes where they didn't even do their own fucking math right, we are the crazy science deniers.
we will have to simply agree to disagree here.... I have forgotten more than you will ever know about this subject.
It's a shame, you're a *really* bright guy, one of the brightest on here. Sadly you've been hoodeinked. You're a stooge for Corporatists.
Suppression and distortion of information is, by definition, interference of the market and anti-libertarian.
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:02 pm
where are you advocating a market solution.[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:49 pm I love how I'm the one advocating for the market to solve the problem and I'm the one that's out to lunch.
The world has truly gone crazy.
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:13 pm
so, nukes or bust. got it.[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:08 pm[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:47 pm This bullshit representation of corporatists pretending to be libertarians really pisses me off.
Fake libertarian Corporatists: global warming isn't human made or isn't real at all *rabble rabble*
True libertians: the science absolutely indicates that global warming is real and we need to ensure consumers have appropriate access to information so they can make informed choices and the market can properly function
Global Warming - Discussion-Rant
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:14 pm
Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:02 pmwhere are you advocating a market solution.[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:49 pm I love how I'm the one advocating for the market to solve the problem and I'm the one that's out to lunch.
The world has truly gone crazy.
