World's Farmers Feel The Effects Of A Hotter Planet

[FinallyFree]

No ML, algore is a fraud. Using his soapbox for the easily influenced among us (you perhaps) to beleive his doom & gloom scenario all the while PROFITING from your blind allegiance.

I don't know if he is more corrupt then you are ignorant or vice versa.

It's a toss up.


Then there is disco. His answer to everything is that he already knows the rest of the US population (the other 65%) are the dumb ones and he already knows all the answers. He too is the perfect minion of the algore clan.

Dude, some people just cannot be convinced because their allegiance is already set. No matter what anyone says, they don't understand that things can be altered EVEN scientific data. There are reports coming out that the EPA re-calibrated their nuclear fallout detectors shortly after the Fukishima incident to show 'low levels of radiation' meanwhile the levels are much, much higher.

If you say anything against them, they will use that to say you do nothing but make personal attacks which essentially invalidates the points you've made. There's no point. Dumb people will be dumb, until the end.

 

[Cojito]

You're simply overlooking the main point of the entire problem: This information cannot be extensively studied or peer reviewed precisely because the topic is so heavily controlled, and meant to serve a particular purpose for corporate and political interest. Scientists who look at the information that actually becomes available exposing the fraud immediately lose their job and are blacklisted. In a climate of free debate, the facts could be openly discussed, without one side being stigmatized. The entire point is to keep the debate from occurring - the elite have private jets to fly, little scientists have little mouths to feed.

but the debate is occurring, and most scientists (and their kids) are fatter than a tick on a dog's ass. ok, i'm buzzed, so forgive me if i've misunderstood. but it seems like you're saying corporate and political interests have aligned to stifle dissent in the scientific community - that they actually want GW to be true?

weird, can you post any proof of that? i ask because the idea that corporations are aggressively seeking change seems counter-intuitive. typically corporations and governments resist change. change is hard. change is expensive. i would expect corporations to be resistant to GW, and employ lobbyists, and conservative talk show hosts to debunk it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

here's a suggestion...show us al gores doctorate!

Tell ya what, show us you know the difference between climate scientists and a former VPOTUS.

if al got things right, there wouldn't be any devisiveness in this thread;

Sure there would. It's easier to deny than consider.

we would be discussing what is working to alleviate our problem.(GW)

Or we would be reading 318 pages (with) discussion and lots of fluff.

that ain't happening, mainly because al was wrong.

Pete Repeat?

whats that mean?

You're a hack. You're a denier. Are you a birther?

the peer reviewed science was wrong. happened before, will again. just another means of continuing the cold war...

We gots lots o' tiny bubbles in here.

Crisis management is what the government is all about these days...if no crisis exist, they create them.

Now I get it, no middle-school on Saturday.

look at how long the nuclear proliferation bullshit played out...america still believes that the club is exclusive...this is what happens when you give politicians science, they convert it to a weapons system.

Wow, you and prison planet figured it all out.

americans believe that nuclear power is theirs to control.

Yes, Americans control American nuclear power. Doesn't get any more diabolical than that.

And all those other countries controlling their own energy policy. Ah, the travesty. Maybe we can get everybody to stop controlling. Uncontrolled nuclear sounds so much better.

But I know that'll never happen. We're blessed with enough blue collar mentalities to run the nuclear industry.

they quickly are approaching the point where food and water proliferation will be outlawed...and if they could get there sooner by saying the end is near (just like religion), then they certainly would.

Love the cottage cracks. At least you're not fluffing the same, tired stuff like grapeman.

Just kidding. grape now looks like a Rogue Scholar.

Yeah baby, population control is definitely whack-crack.

several stoners casting aspersions will not delay nor derail their agenda, and whomever is right will be forgotten anyway, its only important if you're reading the footnotes.

First thing I agreed with. You're right, deniers will lose out, carbon will be regulated and that's pretty much what happens every time. Regulating pollution, that is.

healthy banter between conversants is encouraged. when it comes to playing the name game the topic becomes toxic.

have a wonderful life.

Yep, you've sure brought the facts that support your cerebral observations. We're all healthier from your post. A healthy dose of wax on is almost as irresistible as Imodium. (Stops the mud valve.)

Seriously dude, I hope ol' Al actually does whatever keeps you from discussing what is working to alleviate our problem.

 

[FinallyFree]

You're a hack. You're a denier. Are you a birther?

Isn't there something in the TOS about harassing other members?

The 'birther' term is simply a term used to label those who don't believe barry soetoro was born in this country (which, clearly, he wasn't - massive amounts of evidence to support this)...sounds like you also need to stop drinking the fluoride-ridden and lithium-ridden water...

 

[BlueGrassToker]

you're right of course. you probably shouldn't "banter" (something for which you seem ill equipped) with these "AGW freaks." but you could stop whining, man-up, and post your proof.

honestly, i'm curious. a quote and link to where Al Gore said we were facing "impending doom" would be a good start. my recollection was that he said GW would be gradual, and that we could take reasonable steps to minimize it. but i could be wrong. and if he did say that, by all means mock him for his hyperbole.

that said, i have no idea (i do really) why you choose to mock a messenger rather than just taking issue with the science itself. i mean, you obviously disagree with the science of GW. and clearly you're smarter (or at least less corrupt) than 97% of the world's scientists - so have at it.

Proof...see that is what none of us have. You do grasp that, yes?

You know, by stating that I am going against 97% of the worlds scientists really does show at just what level your exchange is at.
It is obvious..and without even doing a survey..that you are all screwed up with that statistic. Surely you will give us that much, yes? I mean...97% for real? Come now...
And could it also be possible that you use the same level of exchange for all the rest of your "proof" or whatever it is that makes you such a believer in the unproven theoretical?
Tell us you didn't pull that statistic out of your ass.


Now, am I supposed to take your rude comment about my abilities like a good boy? Or should I turn it around on you and show that maybe you are all fucked up? Wait..I think I just did that above.

You are welcome.

 

[BlueGrassToker]

Disco...you know they have been trading carbon credits on the european exchanges for some time now. How do you think all that is panning out? Maybe it takes time for folks to get comfortable with it? Or perhaps the public sees it for what it really is?
Wait...have you followed carbon trading at all?

I say fuck all with trading credits. I say mandate the damn thing the way you see fit. It is obvious that there is a class of people that have a higher degree of intelligence that needs to be making all these decisions.
They need to make us lesser minds comply. Just that simple. Yes?
After all it's what the fucks behind the bulk of this mess are after anyway. Control of society. But first, they need to tear them down. Bottom up..hip hip..and all that rot...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.

Now there's perception for ya. Unhelpful posts abound in this thread. Thank gawd there's somebody in here with the thin-skin it takes to cull. Only ~199 other posts to consider.

So let's get helpful... at least, serious.

Let's hear from the 3% ers. Or lets at least consider 3% er analysis. I get the feeling that the 3% who regularly take it on the chin of peer review do not wish to comingle with the dung of denial.

Dung, I say? Yes. Poly-eco-freedom is so fuckin' far from science, the only category left is dung.

Let's face it, scientists ain't the most sociable critters. They're not the folks you'd typically enjoy having a beer with. But surely Alex Jones, prisonplanet, infowars, ad nauseum have all the color necessary to sensationalize real climate scientists on their shows, doing their scientific thing.

helpful rant off

What happens when you get 72,000 deniers at a Giant's baseball game? You get 72,000 peeps who swear they're better players.

Half would complain that major league baseball is a bunch of bullies for not allowing them to play too.

 

[grapeman]

Let's hear from the 3% ers.

And that's pretty much how it goes in a debate with someone without facts. They make 'em up as they go along. The fact of the matter is that 65% of Americans do NOT believe in man made GW.

You therefore are the denier.

And if your mind cannot grasp the governmental advantage of regulating carbon then you would be the one still in middle school.

You see I grew up doing whatever I earned the right to do. Travel, business, family... whatever.

Now comes the "progressive" liberal who THINKS he is smarter then me. He thinkes he can tell me I need to pay a carbon tax for my business, my travels my life. Yet, there is NO science behind his claim. If you want your kids to grow up in a socialistic society then move to France. Maybe you already live there and it suits you just fine, knowing that mommy government will give you hand outs if you just shut up and sit down.

Sorry, that's not what previous generations of Americans died for. They died for freedom. Mostly, freedom from a corrupt government.

 

[Cojito]

Proof...see that is what none of us have. You do grasp that, yes?

really, it was a simple question. i asked if you had proof Al Gore said we were facing "impending doom". i was sincerely curious. i really wanted to know if that was accurate. and now you're telling me what you wrote was a lie? or a typo perhaps? and if you believe "none of us have proof" then why believe what you believe? why not keep an open mind? why not err on the side of caution?

You know, by stating that I am going against 97% of the worlds scientists really does show at just what level your exchange is at.

i actually wrote "you obviously disagree with the science of GW. and clearly you're smarter (or at least less corrupt) than 97% of the world's scientists - so have at it." i was inviting you to take issue with their findings. i wanted to hear your objections to the science. not quibble about whether its 96% or 97%.

It is obvious..and without even doing a survey..that you are all screwed up with that statistic.

sure, no time for the survey. pity that. no doubt a survey would've proved your point.

Surely you will give us that much, yes?

"us?" um you mean all you deniers and conspiracy theorists? i'll give you this, straight from the mouth of Hunter S Thompson: "Paranoia is just another word for ignorance."

And could it also be possible that you use the same level of exchange for all the rest of your "proof" or whatever it is that makes you such a believer in the unproven theoretical?

if by that you mean i trust the scientific method, then yes, i confess. ya got me there.

Tell us you didn't pull that statistic out of your ass.

i did not pull that statistic out of my ass. i try not to use my butt hole for storage purposes.

Now, am I supposed to take your rude comment about my abilities like a good boy? Or should I turn it around on you and show that maybe you are all fucked up? Wait..I think I just did that above.

you did. and now i feel like a whipped dog. you da man.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Disco...you know they have been trading carbon credits on the european exchanges for some time now. How do you think all that is panning out? Maybe it takes time for folks to get comfortable with it?

Yep, climatic change is a comfort niche, waiting on all of us to subscribe before anything bad happens.

Or perhaps the public sees it for what it really is?

Political football to the denier.

wait...have you followed carbon trading at all?

Yeah, I'm a carbon day-trader. Seriously, here's an example. Sorry it's not from Cato. It's just simple dates, places and context. In other words, fact and opinion. You may have a hard time disagreeing with this stuff if you approach it apolitically.

I'll break it down a little further by denoting aspects (fact vs opinion.) I'd like to note that the opinion I happen to subscribe is still noted as opinion.

Black - facts

Red - opinion - In this case, I consider it objective because this ain't subjective in players, scope and analysis.

Green - Now this one's tricky. I'd have to get inside the heads of these instigators to really know the intent. Otherwise, I only have the opinion that they're not misrepresenting. I can understand the reasoning and logic, also feel it's truthful. For example, if you declare you'll vote for candidate X over issues Y, I can just plain dig it. But I can't prove intent. It would take a real baloney blower to diss you and say you're up to something else.

Purple - opinion begets fact. In other words, judiciary begets new law, aka fact.

*** Citations - This part suggests that peeps not argue with Wiki. Please understand the difference between the messenger and the source. Wiki is just repository. But I'll certainly acknowledge if or when you debunk what's intended to certify as truth.

See also: Climate change in the United States and Acid Rain Program

An early example of an emission trading system has been the SO2 trading system under the framework of the Acid Rain Program of the 1990 Clean Air Act in the U.S. Under the program, which is essentially a cap-and-trade emissions trading system, SO2 emissions were reduced by 50% from 1980 levels by 2007.[89]

Some experts argue that the cap-and-trade system of SO2 emissions reduction has reduced the cost of controlling acid rain by as much as 80% versus source-by-source reduction.[11][90]

In 1997, the State of Illinois adopted a trading program for volatile organic compounds in most of the Chicago area, called the Emissions Reduction Market System.[91] Beginning in 2000, over 100 major sources of pollution in eight Illinois counties began trading pollution credits.

In 2003, New York State proposed and attained commitments from nine Northeast states to form a cap-and-trade carbon dioxide emissions program for power generators, called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

This program launched on January 1, 2009 with the aim to reduce the carbon "budget" of each state's electricity generation sector to 10% below their 2009 allowances by 2018.[92]

Also in 2003, U.S. corporations were able to trade CO2 emission allowances on the Chicago Climate Exchange under a voluntary scheme. In August 2007, the Exchange announced a mechanism to create emission offsets for projects within the United States that cleanly destroy ozone-depleting substances.[93]

Also in 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to administer the NOx Budget Trading Program (NBP)under the NOx State Implementation Plan (also known as the “NOx SIP Call”) The NOx Budget Trading Program was a market-based cap and trade program created to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power plants and other large combustion sources in the eastern United States. NOx is a prime ingredient in the formation of ground-level ozone (smog), a pervasive air pollution problem in many areas of the eastern United States.

The NBP was designed to reduce NOx emissions during the warm summer months, referred to as the ozone season, when ground-level ozone concentrations are highest.

In March 2008, EPA again strengthened the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 parts per million (ppm) from its previous 0.008 ppm.[94]
In 2006, the California Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act, AB-32, which was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Thus far, flexible mechanisms in the form of project based offsets have been suggested for five main project types. The project types include: manure management, forestry, building energy, SF6, and landfill gas capture.

However, a recent ruling from Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith of San Francisco's Superior Court states that the rules governing California's cap-and-trade system were adopted without a proper analysis of alternative methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[95]

The tentative ruling, issued on January 24, 2011, argues that the California Air Resources Board violated state environmental law by failing to consider such alternatives. If the decision is made final, the state would not be allowed to implement its proposed cap-and-trade system until the California Air Resources Board fully complies with the California Environmental Quality Act.[96]

Since February 2007, seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces have joined together to create the Western Climate Initiative (WCI),a regional greenhouse gas emissions trading system.[97] July 2010, a meeting took place to further outline the cap-and-trade system which if accepted would curb greenhouse gas emissions by January 2012.[98]

On November 17, 2008 President-elect Barack Obama clarified, in a talk recorded for YouTube, his intentions for the US to enter a cap-and-trade system to limit global warming.[99]

The 2010 United States federal budget proposes to support clean energy development with a 10-year investment of US $15 billion per year, generated from the sale of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credits. Under the proposed cap-and-trade program, all GHG emissions credits would be auctioned off, generating an estimated $78.7 billion in additional revenue in FY 2012, steadily increasing to $83 billion by FY 2019.[100]

I consider the above paragraph as fact in the context it was proposed. The results have yet to pan but the segment doesn't suggest it has. I'll still rate it green because of possible suspicions to the contrary.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) , a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill, was passed on June 26, 2009, in the House of Representatives by a vote of 219-212. The bill originated in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and was introduced by Rep. Henry A. Waxman and Rep. Edward J. Markey.[101] It was never passed in the Senate.

The big Republican wins in the November 2010 U.S. Congressional election have further reduced the chances of a climate bill being adopted during President Barack Obama's first term.[102]

I say fuck all with trading credits. I say mandate the damn thing the way you see fit. It is obvious that there is a class of people that have a higher degree of intelligence that needs to be making all these decisions.

Sometimes I get bent when a solution goes against what I believe. I personally disagree with your suspicion (for lack of your better word.) But I wouldn't look very cool trying to tell you you're wrong. I'd be lying if I said I haven't suggested on occasion.

They need to make us lesser minds comply. Just that simple. Yes?
After all it's what the fucks behind the bulk of this mess are after anyway. Control of society. But first, they need to tear them down. Bottom up..hip hip..and all that rot...

I might regret saying this but I'm a lesser scientific mind than peer review. (No suggestion you're included in the lesser mind part.) But I do suggest you might gain insight by putting the solution on the back burner for the time being, At least long enough to consider what professionals do on a daily basis for decades.

If you believe this suggestion is futile, I understand how you feel. I happen to think it's futile not to consider what we face.

You asked me good questions. My attempt to answer does more than link information. I try to emphasize what's being dissed, even when it's relevant, at least to me.

 

[trichrider]

oooh. i feel all tingly inside...do that again LOL.

now that i understand where you're coming from.

show some resentment. it accentuates your pontifications.

well no matter. see you in the next global warming swindle!!!

 

[JJScorpio]

If everyone just wants to be rude and argue we may as well bin it.....

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

oooh. i feel all tingly inside...do that again LOL.

now that i understand where you're coming from.

show some resentment. it accentuates your pontifications.

well no matter. see you in the next global warming swindle!!!

More tingly fluff, please.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

No ML, algore is a fraud. Using his soapbox for the easily influenced among us (you perhaps) to beleive his doom & gloom scenario all the while PROFITING from your blind allegiance.

I don't know if he is more corrupt then you are ignorant or vice versa.

It's a toss up.


Then there is disco. His answer to everything is that he already knows the rest of the US population (the other 65%) are the dumb ones and he already knows all the answers. He too is the perfect minion of the algore clan.

I believe in supporting one's opinions, not just saying "I don't likey" with very little substance.

I believe in the consideration of peer review.

I believe in formal and specialized education for specialized fields of study.

I also consider myself capable of reading. Nothing compelling in your posts unless one believes an individual debunks peer review.

 

[grapeman]

Cojito? Have you seen the movie ? "Inconvenient Truth"? Not enough DOOM & GLOOM for you in the movie?

BTW - I was wondering if this movie is so important and critical, why is algore still charging money to view the film?

Oh. A bit of science & logic for you at the link.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Greenhouse_Gases_Cool_Earth.pdf

 

[Cojito]

Cojito? Have you seen the movie ? "Inconvenient Truth"? Not enough DOOM & GLOOM for you in the movie?

i did not see it. no. just video snippets. but i didn't get the impression Gore was offering up a doomsday time line in the movie. and he's always been quite hopeful that we can reverse GW. but again, i did not see it. so you believe Gore actually said we were facing "impending doom?" - do you have a citation for that? and did people like you watch the film and take away the wrong message, or did Gore overstate the case (or just simplify the peer reviewed science behind GW so that the average viewer could understand?)

 

[enter sandman]

lets build a huge thermometer and stick it in the earth somewhere........

 

[greenmatter]

lets build a huge thermometer and stick it in the earth somewhere........

great idea maybe we could all agree on where to stick the thermometer.

i will assume it is not an oral thermometer and vote washington d.c. or wherever msnbc, fox and cnn are located.

 

[mad librettist]

I say mandate the damn thing the way you see fit. It is obvious that there is a class of people that have a higher degree of intelligence that needs to be making all these decisions.

sounds a lot like the debate before the first speed limits for automobiles were set.

and we all know speed limits are just a waste of time. Drivers speed up and slow down as part of a natural cycle.


PS- I can't see his posts... did grapeman address any of the science yet, or is he still sticking to discrediting people?

 

[grapeman]

i did not see it. no. just video snippets. but i didn't get the impression Gore was offering up a doomsday time line in the movie. and he's always been quite hopeful that we can reverse GW.

Yes. His hope is based upon you and me complying with this nonsense and allowing him to trade carbon credits for us all. Making him and his cronies billions in the process. At the same time he released this bullshit movies, algore was taking stakes, or had stakes in carbon trading companies.

While disco and ml may think the man benevolent and just trying to help humankind, those of us with IQ's that put us above the dimwit category can see the scheme for what it is. Especially since the science that got us here is so flawed, one sided and any that oppose it are called names (deniers). A typical tired old flap of the left. When you can't defend your position, call them names.

Sort of like when someone disagrees with obama they are called racist. That shit just doesn't work anymore.

They ask for proof. They get the proof. Actual intentional design flaws in the code that artificially produces GW temperatures. They call you a denier. You put names of some of the most respected scientists out there that are pointing out the fact that money is driving the research to skew the results? They call you a denier and the scientist a flack. You point out the science that carbon (what they want to regulate) does not and cannot cause GW and they call you a denier.

This is because the community of GW has become a religion. As we all know, religions are not based in science but in a firm belief of things like "when I blow myself up, I'm gonna get 72 virgins".

That's the level of stupidity and belief system rational people are dealing with in the GW debate.

Thank god the rational folks are winning the argument.