Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

About That Global Warming...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

    The humans of the world are taking better care of the Earth, at least for the vast majority, than we have ever before in our history. Sure, there's things yet to be done, problems and challenges yet to solve and overcome, but by far we are taking better care of the Earth than ever before.

    With that real progress made, what do all the eco-menatlists have shout about? Make up something new is their response.
    The Earth is not some delicate glass house, our little bio-sphere is incredibly sturdy and resilient. The whole global cooling...scratch that, global warming...scratch that, global climate change hysteria and doomsaying is a natural consequence of the increasing self-importance and self-involvement of each generation since the baby boom. The absolute failure to recognize that there is no static let alone "normal" climate is simply beyond them. Each generation since the Baby Boomers have this sense that any departure from what they experienced during their formative years must somehow be an abberation caused by something (usually man). This is simply not the case. The last 2000 years have seen far more dramatic swings in global climate norms prior to the Industrial Revolution than even the most hysterical predications of the climate doomsayers. We are NOT killing the planet, we are NOT making it uninhabitable for humans. To the extent we are having ANY appreciable impact on the direction or magnitude of climate change (itself a perfectly natural and unpredictable phenomena) it is not at all clear that it represents a net negative impact on society. Yes there are costs, there are also benefits, it is far from a given that the costs will exceed the benefits. Even if the costs DO exceed the benefits, it is even less clear (in fact the evidence is to the contrary) that the long-term costs of trying to avoid the change are less than the cost of simply adapting to the change.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

      The Earth is not some delicate glass house, our little bio-sphere is incredibly sturdy and resilient. The whole global cooling...scratch that, global warming...scratch that, global climate change hysteria and doomsaying is a natural consequence of the increasing self-importance and self-involvement of each generation since the baby boom. The absolute failure to recognize that there is no static let alone "normal" climate is simply beyond them. Each generation since the Baby Boomers have this sense that any departure from what they experienced during their formative years must somehow be an abberation caused by something (usually man). This is simply not the case. The last 2000 years have seen far more dramatic swings in global climate norms prior to the Industrial Revolution than even the most hysterical predications of the climate doomsayers. We are NOT killing the planet, we are NOT making it uninhabitable for humans. To the extent we are having ANY appreciable impact on the direction or magnitude of climate change (itself a perfectly natural and unpredictable phenomena) it is not at all clear that it represents a net negative impact on society. Yes there are costs, there are also benefits, it is far from a given that the costs will exceed the benefits. Even if the costs DO exceed the benefits, it is even less clear (in fact the evidence is to the contrary) that the long-term costs of trying to avoid the change are less than the cost of simply adapting to the change.
      Agreed on all counts.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • I think if it involved doomsday you would a worldwide push to add flora and land management instead of the lust for co2 taxation that will enrich the elites.

        The only source that replaces fossil fuel is nuclear but that is off the table
        Last edited by Blue Doggy; 06-28-2019, 10:20 PM.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
          I think if it involved doomsday you would a worldwide push to add flora and land management instead of the lust for co2 taxation that will enrich the elites.

          The only source that replaces fossil fuel is nuclear but that is off the table
          If those who CLAIM we are "killing" the planet really believe it, then most of them should be hauled before the Hague for crimes against the humanity for their own personal failure to do anything and everything they could and can to mitigate the problem. Seriously, they should face the same (or worse) than the Nazi's did.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

            If those who CLAIM we are "killing" the planet really believe it, then most of them should be hauled before the Hague for crimes against the humanity for their own personal failure to do anything and everything they could and can to mitigate the problem. Seriously, they should face the same (or worse) than the Nazi's did.
            I accept the idea that higher co2 increases temps but do not accept the ability of a limited science being accurate in predictions. And there may be more positives than negatives

            The certainty of doomsday is absurdly non scientific imo.

            We see fear mongering creating hysteria on the left as they forgot critical thinking should never be set aside given the tenative nature of science historicallyhistorically.

            When the primary tool to address co2 is taxation and financial tools for investors a red flag should go up. When there is no push for adding flora and stopping deforestation of rain forests it looks like another scheme of elites getting more money from the 99 ppercent

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

              I accept the idea that higher co2 increases temps but do not accept the ability of a limited science being accurate in predictions. And there may be more positives than negatives

              The certainty of doomsday is absurdly non scientific imo.

              We see fear mongering creating hysteria on the left as they forgot critical thinking should never be set aside given the tenative nature of science historicallyhistorically.

              When the primary tool to address co2 is taxation and financial tools for investors a red flag should go up. When there is no push for adding flora and stopping deforestation of rain forests it looks like another scheme of elites getting more money from the 99 ppercent
              Forget the certainty, the very notion that we are in any way, shape, or form doing something that will lead to anything other than potential inconvenience to the ability of the human race to survive and thrive on this planet is just silly fearmongering (either out of abject stupidity, or cycnical dishonesty). Even the most dire warnings of temperature increases are like a spit ball compared to a nuclear weapon in the context of natural climate history, during which life has thrived. Mankind has actually survived AND thrived under climate shifts just as, if not more significant over the last 5,000 years.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                Forget the certainty, the very notion that we are in any way, shape, or form doing something that will lead to anything other than potential inconvenience to the ability of the human race to survive and thrive on this planet is just silly fearmongering (either out of abject stupidity, or cycnical dishonesty). Even the most dire warnings of temperature increases are like a spit ball compared to a nuclear weapon in the context of natural climate history, during which life has thrived. Mankind has actually survived AND thrived under climate shifts just as, if not more significant over the last 5,000 years.
                In the era of human history each warming has been beneficial for humanity. This time is different or so we are told

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Leave it to an Australian to be a little truthful on this global warming crap the "media" keeps shoving at us

                  Barnaby Joyce, ... twice .. deputy prime minister of Australia...

                  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  You've probably never heard of Barnaby Joyce, but he has twice been deputy prime minister of Australia, from February 2016 to October 2017 and from December 2017 to February 2018.

                  Joyce is answerable only to his constituents in rural New South Wales.

                  On his Facebook page, Joyce wrote:

                  The very idea that we can stop climate change is barking mad.

                  Climate change is inevitable, as geology has always shown." These are the views of New Zealand lecturer of geology, David Shelley. A person vastly more competent than me and the flotilla of others telling the kids the world is going to end from global warming.

                  The central theme of David Shelley's analysis is that sea levels are rising and have been for thousands of years and will fall during the next ice age which is expected about now, give or take a thousand years.

                  When the ice age does arrive temperatures will drop around ten degrees. A warmer planet will be a disconsolate chronicle and many, maybe most, will die from starvation as is the usual experience of man or beast in previous ice ages.

                  The weather is going to brutally win the population problem and the parliament of Australia has no power against it. One may suggest that warmer weather is the better problem of the two.

                  I believe this is one of the greatest policy phantoms, the misguided and quite ludicrous proposition that Australia can have any affect on the climate. If we could we should be the first to make it rain and, more importantly, stop the recurrence of an ice age anytime in the coming millennium.

                  Politics takes politics to the absurd. We have to absolutely affirm that our domestic settings can deal with a proposition which is stated quite clearly by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that: "In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

                  You don't get the feeling when you listen to the political propaganda or the supporting lobbyists that there is any doubt about their capacity to "fix the climate problem" I do get the feeling that you will be tried for heresy if you dare question the zeitgeist so you basically have to lie about your honest assessment of what the hell we are doing to our economy, standard of living, our basic rights and the real future of our children.

                  Today, more than in the past, the political debate is set within a predetermined paradigm. Participants cannot ague outside these preset boundaries. Maybe it is over cynical but I believe the promotion of the primacy of the state over the individual is very well served by the apparent necessity of climate policy.


                  Private property rights are removed, by the implementation of vegetation laws, because of "climate action". The state will limit your access to electricity because of "climate action". You will drive an electric car because of "climate action". You will divest the nation of its largest export because of "climate action". Rather than state there is no prospect whatsoever that any action of ours, and most likely of anyone else, will have any affect [sic] whatsoever on the trajectory climate is on.

                  We have instead the congenial narrative that we are all trying to make the world get cooler, but one path or the other path is the better alternative of cooling policies . We will do this by shutting down all our power stations, replacing them with windmills and rejiggering our nation away from our largest exports of mining and agricultural resources to carbon neutral tourism and the knowledge economy. Australia will be the catalyst to a global epiphany and the totalitarian Chinese regime will follow our lead because of our righteousness followed by India and the United States.

                  No, I don't think that will happen. I hate to say it but I doubt the majority of people on the planet, give a toss about the Paris Agreement. I would be amazed if one percent of the planet could competently explain it.

                  I will make one prediction; after this is published it will be promptly followed by the remnants of the traditional media in furious pursuit of my heresy. Questions will be asked by the fourth estate and high octane derision will issue forth from the climate change actionistas.

                  No doubt I will be accused of not knowing what I am talking about, and when it comes to predicting the weather more than a fortnight or so out, that is true. But of those who ask the questions, will any of them truly understand what on earth are they are talking about?


                  https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...l_warming.html

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                    I accept the idea that higher co2 increases temps but do not accept the ability of a limited science being accurate in predictions. And there may be more positives than negatives

                    The certainty of doomsday is absurdly non scientific imo.

                    We see fear mongering creating hysteria on the left as they forgot critical thinking should never be set aside given the tenative nature of science historicallyhistorically.

                    When the primary tool to address co2 is taxation and financial tools for investors a red flag should go up. When there is no push for adding flora and stopping deforestation of rain forests it looks like another scheme of elites getting more money from the 99 ppercent
                    The problem is that the incredible complexity and multitude of factors (including negative feedback effects) raises serious questions about whether or not higher CO2 actually leads to substantially higher temperatures. The underlying premise upon which it is assumed it does is based on experiments where most if not all other factors are equal. They failure of models based on this very simplistic assumption to accurately predict temperature trends and the increasing evidence that other factors (some of which are themselves driven by higher CO2 levels) actually have greater impact raise serious questions about the amount of economic effort we put into trying to mitigate something that may not be happening, or if it is not nearly to the extent assumed (and certainly not the net negative impact the doomsayers declare it to have). One emerging area of study is the possibility that CO2 increases, through complex interplay with the environment, actually results in many instances in more expansive cloud cover, which largely offsets the "greenhouse" effects of the higher CO2 (an example of negative feedback loop). Now, in a simple system, the CO2 may have a much more linear impact on temperatures, but in a more complex system, it can have these offsetting natural negative feedback loops which largely mitigate the effect.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                      The problem is that the incredible complexity and multitude of factors (including negative feedback effects) raises serious questions about whether or not higher CO2 actually leads to substantially higher temperatures. The underlying premise upon which it is assumed it does is based on experiments where most if not all other factors are equal. They failure of models based on this very simplistic assumption to accurately predict temperature trends and the increasing evidence that other factors (some of which are themselves driven by higher CO2 levels) actually have greater impact raise serious questions about the amount of economic effort we put into trying to mitigate something that may not be happening, or if it is not nearly to the extent assumed (and certainly not the net negative impact the doomsayers declare it to have). One emerging area of study is the possibility that CO2 increases, through complex interplay with the environment, actually results in many instances in more expansive cloud cover, which largely offsets the "greenhouse" effects of the higher CO2 (an example of negative feedback loop). Now, in a simple system, the CO2 may have a much more linear impact on temperatures, but in a more complex system, it can have these offsetting natural negative feedback loops which largely mitigate the effect.
                      Great post.

                      David Berlinski is featured in some you tube videos that are a must watch for any skeptic and those that question the certainty displayed by so many in that community

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • It wasn't the climate at all.

                        Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
                        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ief-of-change/
                        It is little more than the means (one of many) to impose by the force of the government gun the leftist vision of what the US economy should be on everyone else, willing or not.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                          It wasn't the climate at all.



                          It is little more than the means (one of many) to impose by the force of the government gun the leftist vision of what the US economy should be on everyone else, willing or not.
                          Yet our hollowing out of our economic model into a damned service economy is at the feet of both parties thanks to initially the bush gop and embraced by clinton and enough dems to do what perot warned us about.

                          Today given both parties are globalists the green deal that does not include nuclear is unicorn and rain bow think and globalism insures green tech will not be made here as we pay more for energy with all gains in income going to the top.

                          In the end the common man loses as govt injects itself even deeper into daily life.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                            So you guys think scientists with decades of experience in the field who supply the reports and research about climate change just forgot about that massive shiny thing in the sky?

                            Do you seriously think they're all geeks who sit inside all day at the computer so maybe they just forgot the sun exists?
                            Ah, I think that they have yet to produce a single climate model which meets the single most important criteria for "science", that it accurately PREDICTS the future, rather than merely having its assumptions retroactively adjusted to explain the past (which the same models previously got wrong).

                            It is also clear that they are failing to account for negative feedback loops, driven by the same underlying factors that their models predict will drive up temperatures, when those same factors can result in other effects which ameliorate temperature increases (cloud cover becoming an increasingly likely such negative feedback).

                            Also, as I have pointed out ad nauseum, even if the science were clear (and it isn't, either in the scope or significance of our impact on climate change), the real question has nothing to do with science, but with economics. Once you dispell with the truly stupid and completely unsupported narrative that we are killing the planet or making it in any way less inhabitable by man, the question is what will the NET future costs (assuming it is even a net COST as opposed to a net benefit) of OUR impact, and whether the net present value of the cost of avoiding the net present value of the long-term costs are greater or less than the net present value of the long-term costs of simply adapting.

                            I also think scientists are as prone to incentives (most climate research funding comes from sources that will dry up if you don't find bad things) and confirmation bias. Any number of people involved in climate science and alarmism making some version of the statement "we are spewing all this carbon into the atmosphere, and that can't be good". Well, when you START from that premise (which is not a given), your entire research can be fundamentally tainted by confirmation bias (especially when you are dealing with a field that overwhelmingly relies on assumption-based models). If you START from the premise that X "can't be good" and the financial incentives are all driven to confirm that assumption, you have fertile ground for confirmation bias and flawed assumptions.

                            Try this for example. Modern medicine relies on pumping our bodies full of all sorts of drugs and antibiotics, and that can't be a good thing! Well, in the aggregate, not only CAN it be a good thing, but it is DEMONSTRABLY a good thing, as evidenced by our longer, healthier lives.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Here is a perfect example of all that has been skillfully argued on this thread. I live on the shore of Lake Superior. In my 50 years I have seen water levels change over four feet. Quite significant considering the Great Lakes system contains 20% of the world's fresh water.

                              Great Lakes Water Levels

                              In the mid 80's I recall irritation with rising water levels. We were watching powerless as yards and parks were eroding away. Rising waters stole our sandy beaches. There was no one to blame - it was just a matter of life all had to deal with. We adjusted. In the late 90's water levels began dropping consistently. This coincided with the release of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" and the global warming hysteria. For the next 15 years our area was inundated with climate scientists preaching carbon emissions as the conduit draining our precious lake. Warmer temperatures, less snowfall, and human consumption were draining our lake.

                              Then something funny happened. After one and one half decades of dropping water levels in three short years Lake Superior filled right back up to 1980's levels. I am sure all of you can guess what I am about to say next. 100 free carbon credits for the first one to say it . . . YES, the rising lake levels are now blamed on global climate change.

                              Climate Change is a tough sell here. First of all I live in a city that often has winter streaks of 2-3 weeks with daytime highs below 0 degrees Fahrenheit. A little warming simply does not sound threatening to us. Second of all, this area is filled with touristy land formations like cliffs and drumlins in addition to thousands of lakes left behind by the receding glacier 10,000 years ago. In order to believe the climate should not change you must be an ice age denier.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Until these well paid climate boys can create a predictive model that works their understanding of co2 isn't up to snuff and their predictio are of no relevance

                                So if they were using experiments to validate a hypothesis they would have failed miserably

                                Their model takes the place of experiments given the situation


                                So what we have here is like kipling's monkeys in that we all say so, so it must be true!

                                Billions have been given to these boys giving them a steady income but only for co2 as little goes to the primary driver of climate which is our star. Billions has not produced a viable model while their emails proved they were dishonorable and dishonest which would have been a career killer in any other field
                                Last edited by Blue Doggy; 3 weeks ago.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X