The Calgary Herald’s Barry Cooper thinks that having a conversation would be a great thing
According to President Barack Obama, climate change is an American security problem.
As a follow-on to the 2012 Rio climate summit, which featured the iconic statue of Christ the Redeemer bathed in green light, the Pope is preparing an encyclical on climate change. Prior to the December climate summit in Paris, we can anticipate extravagant exhortations to save the planet. Such is the context for Premier Rachel Notley’s call for change in response to “the worldwide conversations around climate change.â€
A conversation would indeed provide a contrast with the usual exchanges of vitriol. For the following reasons, it seems highly unlikely to occur.
First, there is the problem of the natural causes of climate change. So far as I can tell from contemporary studies, natural causes include solar and gravitational changes, volcanic and magnetic changes linked to plate tectonics, and cosmic radiation. There are cycles in ocean currents, including Dansgaard/Oeschger cycles in sea-ice cover, and Milankovitch cycles in the Earth’s tilt, motion around the sun, and so on. The periodicity of these cycles ranges from decades to millenniums.
In contrast, we have about two centuries of thermometer readings and 35 years of microwave sounding units to estimate global average temperatures. In terms of climate cycles, that’s worth about one data point.
The big problem, of course, is that Warmists, mostly part of the far left Progressive movement, do not want a conversation. Like with most issues, they want a soliloquy. You are either part of their beliefs set or you need to shut up. Even by “force”. Hence the reason for sayings like “the science is settled”. Hence the reason websites, including news organizations, shutting down all comments from those opposed to the Cult Of Climastrology. Nor allowing articles that have a skeptical viewpoint. Warmists want nothing to do with debating Skeptics, and rarely do. They will often bow out or leave a news set when confronted.
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, noted that, if there were proof that CO2 was a significant factor in global worming, it would be written down. It isn’t. The effects of CO2 are described as “likely†or “probable,†which reflect a judgment, not a proof. More precisely, they are statistical estimates that flow from models that in turn reflect assumptions governing their operations.
I’ve mentioned that same thing about using those words many, many times. As far as the models go, they have not only failed in prediction, they fail when applied to the past. Hence the need to constantly “adjust” the data.
Again, Warmists do not want a conversation, because actually having a conversation exposes the true agenda, which is not science, but politics, as I’ve written time and time again.
When you’ve based your models on a flawed premise, your theory is automatically invalid.
In other words, it’s shit.
The Teach typed:
Two lies in one sentence! That is down right hoftian.
You can always tell when a typist like Teach is trying to mislead you. He repeats the same zombie lies time and again. Truth means nothing to a propagandist like Teach. Facts mean nothing. Evidence is a commodity.
Spurious argument. Invalid conclusion. Inability to prove or disprove the claim. Models are predictions…not based in concrete facts. Therefore claiming that someone is lying when he claims a prediction to be false is inadmissable evidence and your objection is over ruled. As for failing when applied to the past one would need to determine exactly what was being questioned as to the validity of simply failing.
In short your statement is nothing but a spurious and argumentative with no supporting evidence and is therefor ruled out of order.
Speculation on your part. You offer nothing but opinion and anecdotal evidence which is inadmissable. Zombies must be proven to exist in order to frame your rebuttal using a fictional character. Unless you can produce a Zombie that has been scientifically proven and classified then Im afraid your a propagandist using your propaganda in order to refute what you claim in propaganda.
Evidence is lacking therefor claiming it is a commodity would require you to provide examples of how evidence is a commodity….the implication being that evidence can be bought and sold just as a commodity can be bought sold or traded.
Therefor your entire post is lacking in substance, has offered no proof to support your claim and is without merit….Its the conclusion of the law department that this post should be given 0 rotten tomatoes and zero stars for its functional validity in the ongoing conversation.
Once again where are your solutions rather then totally invalid arguments based on Zombies and commodities?
Warmunist- “Let’s have a conversation on climate, but only I get to talk.”
Liam is what a dumb guy thinks a smart guy sounds like.
(Paul Krugman said this of Newt Gingrich).
Actually this is how a Poorly trained Astro-turfer with only one line of memorized argument sounds when he has no idea what to post….
Im sorry agitator. Some of us would like to hear good ideas on improving the environment. Most of us could give a flying flip if its fossil fuels or moondust from Fairy’s sitting on a ring of mushrooms.
As always until the AGW crowd can actually produce viable ideas that would actually work in all but the shallow recesses of their brains then Im afraid the discussion will be an argument rather then a productive meeting of the minds…..or in other words…..
Its what happens when one side thinks the other side is stupid…….as in Liam is what a dumb guy thinks a smart guy sounds like.
Cooper is a shill for the Alberta fossil fuel companies.
Cooper is cheerleader for that Keystone XL pipeline which will result in higher gasoline prices for Americans but bigger profits for fossil fuel companies.
Warren Buffet is the reason the XL pipeline hasnt been built.
His offices are in Omaha NE. Nebraska took the XL pipeline to the supreme court attempting to block the pipeline coming thru Nebraska….Now gee I wonder why they would do that.
Secondly and even more importantly Warren Buffet Owns a Railroad. THAT railroad transports OIL from the OIL FIELDS in North Dakota to markets. IF the pipeline comes thru all the oil would be funneled into the pipeline and his rather expensive railroad would be out billions of dollars.
Warren Buffet is a Democrat.
As for proof.
CNR and BNSF currently do the majority of oil transporting for both Canada and North Dakota Shale fields.
Canadian National Railway Co. (CNR) is beating benchmark stock indexes as profits and shipments surge, a boost for Gates, the largest shareholder….
BNSF Railway Co., owned by Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/B), is struggling. North America’s biggest railroad by sales is grappling with slow traffic and is being scrutinized by U.S. regulators for poor service, spurring concern that it risks a permanent loss of some customers.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-bill-gates-and-warren-buffett-are-railroad-rivals-2014-9#ixzz3ci7X0T4D
TransCanada Corp. (TRP.TO 2.62%) was sued by Nebraska landowners in a new bid to block the Keystone XL pipeline a week after the state’s highest court rebuffed an attempt to void the approved path across the state, a leg that would complete the route from Alberta tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries.
While you guys jockey for millionths of parts of CO2 the billionaires play you like fiddles.
So they will make more money transporting oil as the world uses less oil?
You may not have heard, but the Earth continues to warm from the
Sun melting polar ice releasing CO2. This CO2 stimulates green plant growth which sucks CO2 out of the soil, releasing it into the atmosphere when the new verdant plants die and decayCO2 from humans burning fossil fuels.