destroying capitalism saves the world from ecological calamity.
60 Minutes
- Thread starter Anonymous
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
destroying capitalism saves the world from ecological calamity.
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.
Thank you for your honesty. You are COMPLETING WRONG, but thanks again. It is very enlightening!
Ok... lets compare China, a socialist market economy, with The U.S.
By what measure is Socialist China better than The U.S. in terms of saving the world from ecological calamity?
The Data are contentious at best. But, even if we accept the data, it is MINIMAL warming at best. And, even if you disagree with all of the aforementioned, NOBODY is sure what is causing "Global Warming". It is convenient to point to increases in CO2, but their is NO established, causal relationship between increases in CO2 and increases in temperature. And there is DEFINITELY no guarantee that by reducing CO2 that it will cause Global cooling. This is ALL HIGHLY speculative and theoretical AT BEST.
I COULD walk out of my house today and I COULD get hit by an Asteroid and I COULD get killed by it. As a result, I COULD decide to never go outside again. This is the same argument you Global Warming Alarmists want us all to accept. We are NOT going to fundamentally destroy our way of life because something COULD happen.
Climate change, especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security — our economic infrastructure, and the safety and health of the American people. In addition, there is an urgent need to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, dramatically reduce wasted energy, and significantly shift our power supplies from oil, coal, and natural gas to wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources.
Wow! This is the biggest ass-clown assertion to date by you global warming alarmists. So, we should switch from what works to what doesn't work, and who or what is a threat to National Security?
You morons will say anything in the hopes that something will stick.
"Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron"
These are not words of Science, but thanks for your contribution...
Moron
You moron deniers will say anything in the hopes that something will stick.
Nice try Moonbat. That was from 2005 in emails when the FIRST IPCC assesment was being drafted, and underscoring the need for confidence intervals, which at that time were much more difficult to calculate.
In 2014 Thorne was a Lead Author of the FIFTH IPCC Assessment:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_FAQbrochure_FINAL.pdf
And what do the authors now agree on 10 years later with more data and better models?
Conclusions of AR5 are summarized below:
Working Group I
============
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".
"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years".
“Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.”
Working Group II
=============
"Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"
"A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"
"The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"
Working Group III
=============
“Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).”
“The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.”
You better catch up on your reading and stop watching Fox news:
"The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was completed in 2014. AR5 followed the same general format as of AR4, with three Working Group reports and a Synthesis report. The Working Group I report (WG1) was published in September 2013.
Conclusions of AR5 are summarized below:"
Working Group I
============
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".
"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years".
“Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.”
Working Group II
=============
"Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"
"A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"
"The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"
Working Group III
=============
“Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).”
“The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.”
Except for yet another example: the the likely runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.
Oh wait, that contradicts your claim that studies of "other planets" does not support the Greenhouse theory. What "other planets" did you have in mind Space Captain?
And which humans exactly caused a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus?
And since you want to discuss Greenhouse effects, Water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas (NOT CO2), owing to the presence of the hydroxyl bond which strongly absorbs in the infra-red region of the light spectrum.
Studies from other planets have nothing to do with greenhouse gas effects. They have to do with global warming with the absence of humans..... MORON!!!
Mars has demonstrated global warming, independent from the presence of humans.... Got it, moron?
Oh, what would we do if some mindless liberal wasn't making a completly irrelevant reference to FoxNews? I'm sorry for you to hear this, but regardless of what your American Hating scientist has said publicly, this is what his hacked emails said... “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.
"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years".
So which human activity caused such high levels of CO2?
Are you one of these religious morons who thinks man walked with dinosaurs?
So which human activity caused such high levels of CO2?
Are you one of these religious morons who thinks man walked with dinosaurs?
"Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron Moron"
These are not words of Science, but thanks for your contribution...
Moron
Not words of science, but totally appropriate nonetheless.
You've earned it!
It's not.
And you don't care what I think, so read what others more qualified than me have to say about it:
China: Yes, It's Capitalism
https://fee.org/freeman/detail/china-yes-its-capitalism
How China Became Capitalist
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist
China’s government may be communist, but its people embrace capitalism
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-communist-but-its-people-embrace-capitalism/
The Chinese like capitalism more than Americans
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/13/news/economy/capitalism-china-likes-more-than-us/