43 pages of abject retardation.

4/27/2008 3:51:58 PM

Quote :

"Who cares? What does the US have to say about it? "My country" is already overtaking yours. The US is a declining shadow."

actually doing something about climate change really is a US-China issue. There are other players, but this is a tragedy of the commons. The rest will be on board if these two ever are.

United States 6,049,435
People's Republic of China 5,012,377
Russia 1,524,993
India 1,342,962
Japan 1,257,963

I mean really, the only part that other countries play in this is that they would get fucked when something really bad did happen.

4/27/2008 6:29:15 PM

Quote :

"43 pages of abject retardation."

spöokyjon

And yet, here you are.

4/28/2008 2:43:04 AM

I don't understand how this is a political issue.

4/28/2008 3:02:21 AM

business interests vs environmental interests


How hard is it to understand?

4/28/2008 3:05:23 AM

^^ Where did former VP Gore get his environmental science degree then? Oh, that's right, his BA's in government.

4/28/2008 3:36:34 AM

Appalachian State University Energy Center Admits Inflating Climate Change Estimates

Quote :

"RALEIGH – North Carolina legislators should question any claims of economic benefits from proposed climate change policies, now that the Appalachian State University Energy Center has admitted inflating earlier estimates by more than 900 percent. A John Locke Foundation policy analyst delivered that warning this week. 'Six months ago, the ASU Energy Center trumpeted its claims that policies to cut carbon dioxide emissions in North Carolina would add more than 325,000 jobs and $20 billion to the state's economy by 2020,' said Dr. Roy Cordato, JLF Vice President for Research and Resident Scholar. 'Now the same ASU team has snuck out a new report that drops that estimate to 32,000 jobs and $2.2 billion in gross state product.' 'That's not just a rounding error,' Cordato added. 'That's a major mistake that should call into question the researchers' competence. No serious scholar would put out research that makes a mistake that large.' Accurate estimates are important to North Carolina, since the policies studied would lead to higher taxes and fees, new restrictions, and price hikes for consumers, Cordato said. 'In fact, our own analysis from trained economists at the Beacon Hill Institute at Boston's Suffolk University shows that the policies would hurt — not help — the North Carolina economy.' The new ASU Energy Center report emerged at the April 22 meeting of the N.C. Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change. At the same meeting, a new analysis from trained Beacon Hill Institute economists warned that North Carolina would lose more than 33,000 jobs and face a $4.5 billion hit to its Gross State Product by 2011, if lawmakers adopt just a fraction of the policies under consideration now to address climate change."

http://www.carolinajournal.com/weeklynewsletter/2008-05-02-cj-newsletter.html

Is it really any big surprise?

5/2/2008 5:33:03 PM

Why is it the members of the John Locke foundation are utterly clueless about the Lockean proviso?

5/2/2008 5:35:08 PM

^ Nobody gives a fuck, LostCluesNutSack. Can you address the specifics of the post at issue or shut the fuck up? Thanks!

5/2/2008 5:48:40 PM

If you knew what the Lockean proviso was you'd see the relevance of my post.

5/2/2008 5:52:46 PM

^ Ah, the red herring favored by pedantic fuckwads and Reverend Wrong types:

Quote :

"You don't know logic--I win!"

Quote :

"You don't know theory blah blow it out your asshole--I win!"

Quote :

"You haven't read some fucking elitist book that nobody gives a fuck about except fuckwads--I win!"

For the record, I've explored Locke's writings and positions in a variety of settings. Since you've chosen not to address the specifics of the post at issue, however, it's clear that you have nothing to offer--as usual.

STFU.

5/2/2008 5:57:54 PM

Quote :

"For the record, I've explored Locke's writings and positions in a variety of settings."

For the record, "Lockean proviso" isn't even Locke's terminology -- it's Nozick's. I'm not so convinced you've explored them as closely as you claim.

5/2/2008 6:03:32 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_on_sc/on_thin_ice;_ylt=Ar52kZcw1ZGD1MdCLP88L9EPLBIF

5/2/2008 6:04:33 PM

^^ Um. . .if I gave a fuck, I could've just looked it up. You keep babbling on about the shit that you brought up--all the while avoiding my simple request to address the post at issue. Address the specifics, cocksucker.

BTW, I don't give a flying fuck what you're convinced of or not, fuckhead.

PS: Eat shit and die, you motherfucking commie scum.

^ Are any of you capable of addressing the specifics of the post at issue? No?

5/2/2008 6:10:51 PM

Quote :

"^^ Um. . .if I gave a fuck, I could've just looked it up."

The point is you would have had to look it up. That is, you know about as much about John Locke as members of the "John Locke" Foundation. That is, you don't know anything about John Locke.

5/2/2008 6:13:37 PM

man wtf hooksaw...are your insults really neccessary? u sure are one big internet tuff guy

5/2/2008 6:17:04 PM

I think it's that time of the month for hooksaw

5/2/2008 6:56:13 PM

Quote :

"Why is it the members of the John Locke foundation are utterly clueless about the Lockean proviso?"

I am familiar with this, and with Nozick, and yet I still don't see where you're going with this point. Would you care to elaborate? (Or simply insult me, whatever.)

5/2/2008 7:10:41 PM

Why should I expect you to get it, given your past track record of reading comprehension?

5/2/2008 7:22:08 PM

Quote :

"man wtf hooksaw...are your insults really neccessary [sic]? u sure are one big internet tuff guy"

drunknloaded

I'm not just "tuff" on the Internet. FYI.

I happen to despise LostClues and everything he appears to stand for. Is that okay with you?

5/2/2008 9:13:38 PM

Quote :

"Why should I expect you to get it, given your past track record of reading comprehension?"

Great, act like a sociopath instead. I'm sure we all think you're smarter as a result, and not just some crank who talks tough from behind the anonymity of the internet.

Speaking of reading comprehension, I seem to recall it being you who had the difficulty say, actually reading what people say on multiple occasions. Or for that matter, even bothering to check usernames But don't let that stop you.

[Edited on May 2, 2008 at 9:25 PM. Reason : I mean, why make a point when you can simply insult people?]

5/2/2008 9:24:15 PM

Quote :

"Speaking of reading comprehension, I seem to recall it being you who had the difficulty say, actually reading what people say on multiple occasions. Or for that matter, even bothering to check usernames But don't let that stop you."

Name one point of content upon which I was incorrect. You can't do it.

Laters.

5/3/2008 6:22:15 AM

I pointed it out in that thread. Twice. And I've pointed out another of your errors right above. You simply ignored it and proceeded to crow about how brilliant you are. Which I'm sure everyone thinks you are, and not some borderline meglomaniac advocating mass murder over the internet.

Really, are you even here to contribute, or here simply to preach about how brilliant you are and how stupid everyone else is? You know, those people you advocate murdering en masse?

5/3/2008 11:01:13 AM

Quote :

"I pointed it out in that thread. Twice. And I've pointed out another of your errors right above. You simply ignored it and proceeded to crow about how brilliant you are. Which I'm sure everyone thinks you are, and not some borderline meglomaniac advocating mass murder over the internet. Really, are you even here to contribute, or here simply to preach about how brilliant you are and how stupid everyone else is? You know, those people you advocate murdering en masse?"

Hurfy durfy I call everybody who knows more than me a sociopath.

I am Doctor Steve Chaos.

5/3/2008 11:06:18 AM

So would that be a "yes?" Or simply more proof of my point that you would be the one with the reading comprehension issue?

By the way - which one of us advocates mass murder again? Because memory serves that it isn't me.

[Edited on May 3, 2008 at 11:11 AM. Reason : Perhaps a psych referral would do you some good. You know, before you do any REAL damage.]

5/3/2008 11:10:39 AM

Typical tactics by "Doctor Steve Chaos" -- divert and insult rather than discuss the issue at hand.

5/3/2008 2:16:09 PM

Which issue is that? The one where you insult anyone who questions one of your arguments, even for clarification's sake, the one where you openly advocate mass murder, or the one where you simply bluster your way out of any argument where you're repeatedly shown to be wrong?

Enlighten us all, internet toughguy.

5/3/2008 2:29:10 PM

Quote :

"Which issue is that? The one where you insult anyone who questions one of your arguments, even for clarification's sake, the one where you openly advocate mass murder, or the one where you simply bluster your way out of any argument where you're repeatedly shown to be wrong?"

How dare you accuse me of employing your own tactics? You are the incorrect one. Demonstrably and repeatably so. My work is done here.

5/3/2008 3:34:46 PM

Accuse? The proof is sitting right here in this thread.

Jesus Christ, you really are off the damned rails. Someone should call the mental hospital before you decide to execute your grand "political philosophy."

5/3/2008 4:02:55 PM

There's this, too:

Quote :

"I'm training for 'white women raping.' It's something we've been training for more and more as we continue to flood your country."

LostClues

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=518685&page=5



Meanwhile--back on the topic--is there anyone who will meaningfully address the fact that the Appalachian State University Energy Center has admitted to inflating its numbers related to climate change? Anybody?

[Edited on May 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2008 5:36:40 PM

I chalk that up to being on par with the White House gutting and censoring reports in order to play down the effects that our actions have on the atmosphere/environment. Neither one are acceptable imo but at the same time they are a reality.

5/3/2008 8:27:45 PM

Quote :

"Accuse? The proof is sitting right here in this thread. Jesus Christ, you really are off the damned rails. Someone should call the mental hospital before you decide to execute your grand "political philosophy.""

You are wrong, wrong, woefully wrong.

How does it feel?

5/4/2008 1:34:17 AM

SHUT THE FUCK UP, LIUSCLUES. YOU HAVE CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO THIS THREAD. YOU HAVE CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO THIS FORUM. SHUT YOUR FUCKING FACE.

^^ would you compare that to the previous administration wanting "scientists" to exaggerate the "concerns" over global fear-mongering warming? Hmmm. I wonder if anyone who is big in the AGW movement today was a part of that administration... Hmmm...

5/4/2008 1:36:24 AM

^^To be told I'm wrong by a blustering sociopath, who absolutely no one on this board takes seriously?

Kind of amused, actually.

[Edited on May 4, 2008 at 1:37 AM. Reason : Haha - I see my point has been established already]

5/4/2008 1:36:45 AM

^^ I am not trying to give anyone a free pass in this regard. To insinuate otherwise would be foolish. I think that there are two extremes here and I am simply trying to illustrate the need for balance.

5/4/2008 1:54:37 AM

Quote :

"SHUT THE FUCK UP, LIUSCLUES. YOU HAVE CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO THIS THREAD. YOU HAVE CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO THIS FORUM. SHUT YOUR FUCKING FACE."

The pinnacle of well-reasoned discourse here, people. And you people call ME the sociopath? Just look at this behavior.

5/4/2008 2:40:00 AM

^x6 When you post the "White House," I assume you mean previous administrations, too? After all, the Clinton administration "wanted to hear warming was worse that it was."

Quote :

"Politically, [Jim] Hansen [head of NASA's top institute studying the climate] calls himself an independent and he's had trouble with both parties. He says, from time to time, the Clinton administration wanted to hear warming was worse that it was. But Hansen refused to spin the science that way."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985_page2.shtml

And going from an estimate of "325,000 jobs and $20 billion to the state's economy by 2020" to an estimate of "32,000 jobs and $2.2 billion" and this. . .

Quote :

"At the same meeting, a new analysis from trained Beacon Hill Institute economists warned that North Carolina would lose more than 33,000 jobs and face a $4.5 billion hit to its Gross State Product by 2011, if lawmakers adopt just a fraction of the policies under consideration now to address climate change."

. . .are no big deal to you?! Wow, you certainly are forgiving when experts on "your side" make a mistake.

^ You're a fucking idiot that spews nothing but hate-filled bullshit and you should be terminated immediately by any means necessary. BTW, you have yet to address the issue of the Appalachian State University Energy Center admitting to inflating its climate change-related estimates, fucking commie pig scum.

5/4/2008 6:56:59 AM

Gore's Myanmar Words as Inopportune as they were Repulsive

Quote :

"Thirty days after Steve McIntyre caught NASA cooking climate history again - this time in a feeble attempt to somehow conceal the alarmist-embarrassing downward trend since 1998 -- Al Gore shamelessly portrayed Saturday's Myanmar cyclone catastrophe as a 'consequence' of global warming. A mere 16 days after NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory confirmed that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation's cool phase shift would likely bring colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years, Gore told NPR that the 'trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures.' This just 6 days after a German study also predicted cooler ocean temperatures due to the Meridional Overturning Circulation entering a weak cycle, and in spite of there being absolutely no empirical evidence of a global warming / storm strength link. Gore's monotonous and baseless account of AGW forced violent cyclones and hurricanes came just two days after McIntyre reported that 4 of the past 5 months were '"all-time" records for Southern Hemisphere sea ice' levels. In fact, it was the very day after Anthony Watts reported another false start to the distinctly overdue Solar Cycle 24, a likely contributory factor to falling global temperatures, that the Nobel Peace Prize winner exploited the deaths of over 22,000 (reported and still rising) human beings to egoistically advance his threatened AGW political agenda while callously protecting his personal financial interest. And with 41,000 reported missing since Cyclone Nargis devastated the former Burma, the death figures are sure to rise to unthinkable numbers. Meanwhile, the nation's corrupt military rulers are making aid delivery to ease survivor misery nearly impossible. And while these poor souls will undoubtedly see years of unimaginable suffering and the arduous rebuilding of over a million destroyed homes, this man -- who professes his desire to save the planet - saw another opportunity. That it arrived at the end of a one month period in which another wheel fell off the greenhouse gas disinformation bus almost daily only adds to the morass. This was an astonishingly nauseating display -- even for the likes of Gore."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/gores_myanmar_words_as_inoppor.html

Indeed.

Sea Ice Extent

Quote :

"According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the March 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites, was below the 1979-2000 mean, but greater than the previous four years."

Quote :

"Meanwhile, the March 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the largest sea ice extent in March (28.6% above the 1979-2000 mean) over the 30-year historical period, surpassing the previous record set in 1994 by 10.9%. Sea ice extent for March has increased at a rate of 4.2%/decade."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/global.html#seaice

[Edited on May 10, 2008 at 4:19 AM. Reason : ]

5/10/2008 4:12:53 AM

University Research Contributes To Global Warming, Professor Discovers

Quote :

"Add university research to the long list of human activities contributing to global warming. Hervé Philippe, a Université de Montréal professor of biochemistry, is a committed environmentalist who found that his own research produces 44 tonnes of CO2 per year. The average American citizen produces 20 tonnes. Hervé Philippe 'I did my PhD on nucleotide sequencing in the hope of advancing our knowledge of biodiversity, but I never thought that the research itself could have a negative impact on biodiversity,' he said, during a recent biology department symposium. Philippe has a well-established international reputation for his work on phylogeny and according to his calculations his computers produce 19 tonnes of CO2 per year, the air conditioning in the laboratory produces 10 tonnes of CO2 per year, and transport from one meeting to another produces 15 tonnes of CO2 per year. Philippe doesn't believe in the myth that technology is the solution. 'In 1973, that type of rhetoric already existed,' he says. 'But environmental problems have gone from bad to worse. In Canada, for instance, oil consumption is 1.7 times greater despite better technology.'"

Quote :

"He doesn't believe in one magical solution, but rather in transformations adapted to each area. For universities, he recommends having less frequent international conferences, increasing the use of video-conferences, avoiding research on well explored topics, reducing publications and evaluating the amount of CO2 produced by research projects."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507155305.htm

5/13/2008 5:40:03 AM

You don't even consider whether or not an article bolsters your argument, do you?

GLOBAL WARMING: CHECK
BAD: CHECK

POST

5/13/2008 8:52:10 AM

^ Um. . .I have my beliefs based on the information I've been able to gather and so does the PhD listed ^^ above. Obviously, I do not believe that global warming or its various and oft-changing incarnations pose an imminent threat--if any threat at all. I simply report, and readers can decide for themselves.

Your pithy posts really offer next to nothing. At least I source most of my posts, how about you?

BTW, I didn't need to do any research or a hold PhD to tell you that--if you believe CO2 is causing a problem in the atmosphere--emitting less of it by using videoconferencing instead of traveling, for example, might help. I've posted as much in this very thread, I think.


[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 9:35 AM. Reason : .]

5/13/2008 9:32:55 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-mckibben11-2008may11,0,2392815.story

Quote :

"A few weeks ago, NASA's chief climatologist, James Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several coauthors. The abstract attached to it argued -- and I have never read stronger language in a scientific paper -- that "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm." "

So here you have the chief climatologist at NASA saying, in no uncertain terms, that the world we've thrived on, in it's current form, will cease to exist unless we take immediate action. Believe what you want but you can't really spin what he said to be anything other than that.

5/15/2008 3:28:30 PM

Quote :

"But can you think of any other scientific-related problem where we would accept scientists to cross that line and recommend policy? No, I'm not recommending policy. In some cases I do. I make statements. Yes you do! You certainly do. But I identify them as my opinion. ... I don't think my opinion about policies has any more weight than that of anybody else, but, I shouldn't be prevented from saying it, and I shouldn't be prevented from connecting the dots. ... The question is, should scientists recommend policy? Well, I don't think scientists should recommend policy, but I think we should make clear the policy implications of our science. And I think it's all right to point out the impact of alternative policies on the particular issue; in this case, the climate."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/hansen.html

--James Hansen

5/15/2008 3:41:39 PM

Quote :

"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/hansen.html"

Quote :

"This is an edited transcript of an interview conducted January 10, 2007."

One would assume he's changed his mind a bit.

5/15/2008 3:43:43 PM

Hansen is nothing but a political pawn

5/15/2008 3:49:06 PM

Quote :

"Obesity seen contributing to global warming By Michael Kahn GENEVA (Reuters) - Obesity contributes to global warming, too. Obese and overweight people require more fuel to transport them and the food they eat, and the problem will worsen as the population literally swells in size, a team at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine says. This adds to food shortages and higher energy prices, the school's researchers Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts wrote in the journal Lancet on Friday. "We are all becoming heavier and it is a global responsibility," Edwards said in a telephone interview. "Obesity is a key part of the big picture." At least 400 million adults worldwide are obese. The World Health Organization (WHO) projects by 2015, 2.3 billion adults will be overweight and more than 700 million will be obese. In their model, the researchers pegged 40 percent of the global population as obese with a body mass index of near 30. Many nations are fast approaching or have surpassed this level, Edwards said. BMI is a calculation of height to weight, and the normal range is usually considered to be 18 to 25, with more than 25 considered overweight and above 30 obese. The researchers found that obese people require 1,680 daily calories to sustain normal energy and another 1,280 calories to maintain daily activities, 18 percent more than someone with a stable BMI. Because thinner people eat less and are more likely to walk than rely on cars, a slimmer population would lower demand for fuel for transportation and for agriculture, Edwards said. This is also important because 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions stem from agriculture, he added. The next step is quantifying how much a heavier population is contributing to climate change, higher fuel prices and food shortages, he added. "Promotion of a normal distribution of BMI would reduce the global demand for, and thus the price of, food," Edwards and Roberts wrote. (Editing by Stephen Weeks)"

http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKL1572011320080515?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

5/18/2008 10:47:33 AM

everything causes global warming. clearly we just need to kill off all humans. that will solve the problem

5/18/2008 7:14:49 PM

That's what we're trying to prevent you dipshit.

5/18/2008 7:34:59 PM

but it's the only thing that will help, man!

5/18/2008 7:49:16 PM

Wrong.

5/18/2008 7:50:20 PM