Monckton Bases His Argument on Latif's ARGUMENT. LATIF REJECTS MONCKTON.
RAZ: So we're not getting hotter from 1998 right now.
Dr. LATIF: We are not getting hotter but not colder either, and so, you know, the situation is more or less steady, but this is nothing unusual.
RAZ: What is causing this? Why hasn't there been an increase in the Earth's temperature since 1998?
Dr. LATIF: Well, we believe that a change in ocean current, especially in the tropical Pacific and in the southern oceans on the Southern Hemisphere, cooled the sea surface temperature, and this then led to an offset, you know, to global warming, and so the net effect is basically that there was no additional change.
RAZ: So based on your research, if I have this right, climate change, particularly a warming of the Earth's climate, is still the trend. It's just been slowed down for the last few years because of ocean currents, changes in ocean currents.
Dr. LATIF: Exactly. So - and this is the reason, because we have the short-term climate fluctuation, therefore, it doesn't make sense to look at short periods to assess the human impact on climate. So you have to consider several decades. Only then you see basically the long-term warming trend, and therefore, we can't really draw any inferences from this hold in the last 10 years or so, you know, with regard to global warming.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668812
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
RETARDED.
18 comments:
Lord Monkcton is a wacko. He thinks that Kyoto type plans mean "the end of civilization". HORRILBE. It might mean the end of oil-based civilization, but it will not mean the end of civilization. Monckton is a reactionary that has not given change and thought.
You should really watch the 1.5 hour lecture he gave in St. Paul.
And an end to oil based civilization won't be a change to increase the standard of living of the middle class, it will lead to the destruction of industrial civilization. But its not about that. Its about control. The science isn't definite, and science is not done by consensus. Whether occuring or not, public policy should not be dictated by it.
Actually, yes it should be. We don't need to live as an oil civilization and eliminating oil will not destroy industrial civilization. The problem here is that you and people like Lord Monckton lack imagination.
Also, there is a consensus. Not at the UN, but among scientists. And, yes, science is done by consensus. You must have agreement for a theory to become fact and that agreement only comes through consensus. Jesus Christ, you really are afraid of the Jews taking your money!
I don't lack imagination.
We are going to run out of oil and I fully expect that if left to the people, a solution will be found as oil prices increase as per the market.
The problem is, because of government intervention, oil is being used up at a far faster pace than otherwise would be because prices are kept artificially low, and because of this, I believe the market will fail to provide a solution soon enough.
Limiting CO2 will only increase this problem.
Anyway, maybe we should just mass murder 3 billion people, that would be a fantastic way to bring down CO2 output.
And no, science is not done by consensus.
"I don't lack imagination."
Yes, yes you do.
"We are going to run out of oil and I fully expect that if left to the people, a solution will be found as oil prices increase as per the market."
That is garbage. Let the market and collective action work in tandem.
"The problem is, because of government intervention, oil is being used up at a far faster pace than otherwise would be because prices are kept artificially low, and because of this, I believe the market will fail to provide a solution soon enough."
WRONG. The elite in the world is expanding at a very high pace. This means that it will be near replacing the American middle class in the future. Therefore, it won't matter if the poor man's market denies car transportation to the lower folks. The rich will still be using as much or more.
"Limiting CO2 will only increase this problem."
You obviously haven't thought this through.
"Anyway, maybe we should just mass murder 3 billion people, that would be a fantastic way to bring down CO2 output."
That is your red herring, not mine. Fucking shove it up your ass.
"And no, science is not done by consensus."
Is that your argument? Good thing it was attached to some actual content, or I would have deleted it.
"Let the market and collective action work in tandem."
The market is collective action. Collective, voluntary action.
"The elite in the world is expanding at a very high pace."
The elite are going to replace the middle class? LOL. The poor are replacing the middle class. The poor in the world are expanding at a huge pace and with 20% unemployment in the US we're seeing the destruction of the middle class.
"That is your red herring, not mine. Fucking shove it up your ass. "
The oceans are by far the largest contributors to CO2...maybe there is some way we can get rid of them?
"The market is collective action. Collective, voluntary action."
So is government.
"The elite are going to replace the middle class? LOL. The poor are replacing the middle class. The poor in the world are expanding at a huge pace and with 20% unemployment in the US we're seeing the destruction of the middle class."
Not the global middle classes or elite, bonehead.
"The oceans are by far the largest contributors to CO2...maybe there is some way we can get rid of them?"
Maybe, just maybe, the oceans have existed for millions of years along with the atmosphere, hence being part of the pre-industrial balance. Maybe, we are adding to the CO2 produced by the oceans and hence causing an imbalance. MAYBE THIS IMBALANCE IS LEADING TO A WARMING.
"So is government."
Nope, if government action was voluntary action, we wouldn't need government.
"Not the global middle classes or elite, bonehead."
Huh?
"Maybe, just maybe, the oceans have existed for millions of years along with the atmosphere, hence being part of the pre-industrial balance. Maybe, we are adding to the CO2 produced by the oceans and hence causing an imbalance. MAYBE THIS IMBALANCE IS LEADING TO A WARMING."
The ratio of CO2 to the rest of the atmosphere is constantly changing...there's no such thing as some magical "balance".
"Nope, if government action was voluntary action, we wouldn't need government."
Democracy is voluntary government.
"Huh"
The number of middle class and capitalist class Chinese, Russians, and Indians, not to mention all the other little countries, is expanding.
"The ratio of CO2 to the rest of the atmosphere is constantly changing...there's no such thing as some magical "balance"."
There is if the major CO2 producers stay relatively constant in their production of CO2.
"Democracy is voluntary government."
I surely do not give away 40% of my pay check voluntarily.
"The number of middle class and capitalist class Chinese, Russians, and Indians, not to mention all the other little countries, is expanding."
Yes, sorry, as the Chinese become more capitalistic, their middle class grows. I agree with this. You're the one that's always arguing they're a nation in poverty with who's labour we can't compete with. Anyhow, I'm more refering to the destruction of the middle class of the west and the growing disparity between the richest 1% and the other 99%.
"There is if the major CO2 producers stay relatively constant in their production of CO2."
What about population growth? The more people the more CO2....THERE IS NO MAGICAL BALANCE. The largest producer of CO2 is the ocean and as the ocean gets warmer it produces more CO2, THERE IS NO MAGICAL BALANCE.
"I surely do not give away 40% of my pay check voluntarily."
If you believe in republican governance, yes you do. Otherwise, you are either an anarchist or authoritarian. Which is it, Josh?
"Yes, sorry, as the Chinese become more capitalistic, their middle class grows. I agree with this. You're the one that's always arguing they're a nation in poverty with who's labour we can't compete with."
That's because what I mean by "middle" class is different than what you mean. I mean the actual classes, not how much money people make. The total number of small business owners, managers, engineers, doctors, lawyers, intellectuals (you know, the middle class), and capitalists is expanding, even while the Chinese worker makes between 6000PPP and 8000PPP per year, which are slave wages. Also, that is not an argument, that is FACT.
"What about population growth? The more people the more CO2...."
Exactly, now you are getting it.
"THERE IS NO MAGICAL BALANCE."
There was a balance before the Industrial Revolution, when CO2 production by humans was negligible.
"The largest producer of CO2 is the ocean and as the ocean gets warmer it produces more CO2, THERE IS NO MAGICAL BALANCE."
Nope. The ocean lets off more stored CO2 as it warms. That stored CO2 is coming from the biosphere and human CO2 production.
"If you believe in republican governance, yes you do. Otherwise, you are either an anarchist or authoritarian. Which is it, Josh?"
I would volunteer funds to a government I felt performed its proper function.
"Nope. The ocean lets off more stored CO2 as it warms. That stored CO2 is coming from the biosphere and human CO2 production."
The largest emitter of CO2 is the ocean and as the ocean gets warmer it emits more CO2, THERE IS NO MAGICAL BALANCE.
"I would volunteer funds to a government I felt performed its proper function."
You don't volunteer funds, dummy. That's not how republican representative democracy works. Again, which is it? Anarchist or authoritarian?
"The largest emitter of CO2 is the ocean and as the ocean gets warmer it emits more CO2, THERE IS NO MAGICAL BALANCE."
Yes, there is! The graph shows it to be so! In fact, the only times in history that there were big warms was when a significant number of new volcanoes erupted, hence disrupting the temperature balance through global warming!
"You don't volunteer funds, dummy. That's not how republican representative democracy works. Again, which is it? Anarchist or authoritarian?"
Lol, closer to anarchist than authoritarian, that is for sure.
It still doesn't work for you, Josh. Since you believe in private property, you are, by definition, an authoritarian. It is the authority of private property that you worship. You are an authoritarian.
Post a Comment