More Evidence Against the Carbon Dioxide Scam

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

i love how you two are fighting over the same woman. it's silly.

[JustARandomPanda]

right, I'll have to go make a thread on information source ridicule so that you may be on topic there. then you can talk all the shit you want about how the correct information sources and requisite black boxes arent being used to process and come up with the "necessarily correct" CO2 is going to kill us all conclusion.

 

still nothing substantive from you, ralis. not a single damned thing.

 

Actually a thread about what qualities an information source must possess to be deemed a good source could be an interesting thread.

 

 

not seeing how sunspot funks can produce things like cooling conditions on earth? (even after what I just posted, though I've been saying it for yeeears.)

 

not understanding how the TSI concept doesnt catch a bunch of that change? (how's that uv doing?)

 

not drawing the line from a to b that co2 concentration is a byproduct and not a driver?

 

still missing all the places on the absorption curve where co2 is overlapped and overshadowed by water vapor?

 

cmon man, you can do it! give me a sensible argument! tell me why what I am saying is wrong without waving your hand and saying "your information sucks and doesnt deserve my time!" you've said often enough how edumucated you are, let's see some of that education shine through, dude!

 

From what I've seen over the years Ralis typically leaves stuff like that up to other people who post. Though he does have a backseat driver tendency to complain about the deficiencies in other people's posted arguments without offering up his own reasoning showing why his reasons are more insightful and theirs isn't.

 

I tend to do the opposite...and likely a lot of people find my posts to be a long-winded bore.

 

 

because until you attempt it, I'll just keep chuckling at you turning tail and running from debate every time.

 

or is it a matter of you dont want to expose yourself to humiliation? (I'd think it'd be more humiliating doing what you're doing instead of speaking up, but hey, maybe your foundations arent as strong as you claim them to be, otherwise we might have actually seen an argument out of you by now!)

 

Well obviously I can't speak for Ralis but JB - you don't make a good case for interesting a possible opponent into a serious debate with you when you beat your chest and hoot how your going to humiliate them. LOL. I know I'd likely have little interest in debating anyone who posted such as I'd think it was more of a pissing match to them than any real interest in discussing something.

[JustARandomPanda]

A lot of absolutist environmentalists don't have a sense of humor. . . They don't get Limbaugh humor either. EVIRONMENTALISTS ARE ABSOLUTIST!

 

 

Lloyd this line of argument is dodgy. You're doing the same thing about Environmentalists that a lot of people do in condemning Conservatives and Conservatism as secretly being Authoritarian-Luvin citizens. There are more than one kind of Environmentalist. For example, JMG would not fit the description you give above but he definitely cares about the environment enough he has inspired hundreds of people to change their lifestyles to live more in harmony with the earth while being resilient to the monetary and fiscal gaming that's going on these days.

 

And he's only one kind not covered by your portrayal.

 

In ascribing Environmentalists as Absolutists (Cold Prickly alert!) it in effect asserts an absolute statement itself.

[ralis]

 

Actually a thread about what qualities an information source must possess to be deemed a good source could be an interesting thread.

 

 

 

From what I've seen over the years Ralis typically leaves stuff like that up to other people who post. Though he does have a backseat driver tendency to complain about the deficiencies in other people's posted arguments without offering up his own reasoning showing why his reasons are more insightful and theirs isn't.

 

I tend to do the opposite...and likely a lot of people find my posts to be a long-winded bore.

 

 

 

Well obviously I can't speak for Ralis but JB - you don't make a good case for interesting a possible opponent into a serious debate with you when you beat your chest and hoot how your going to humiliate them. LOL. I know I'd likely have little interest in debating anyone who posted such as I'd think it was more of a pissing match to them than any real interest in discussing something.

 

 

Thanks for posting this response. I am avoiding any discussion with JB for the reasons you state. 'Chest beating' being apropos in this case. I stated a very good argument with extensive references in the 'Canadian Tar Sands Thread' and I stand by that.

[lloydbaker]

You are making a lot of claims. Show me your peer reviewed research. Are you a climatologist? I doubt it. Your use of 'isness' indicates that you want absolute answers. I have kicked the addictive habit of using 'is' in my writing. Rarely will you see me use it. Authoritarians love using 'is'.

 

All sentences imply something is. All thought are the thinker's theory about what is. Constantly repeating that anything I say is my theory just as anything anyone else says is their theory is silly. You seem to be using absurd rhetorical devices to disparage others.

 

Peer review is not a valid concern as it only a manifestation of "collective authority." Gallileo got some bad peer reviews, for example.

[ralis]

All sentences imply something is. All thought are the thinker's theory about what is. Constantly repeating that anything I say is my theory just as anything anyone else says is their theory is silly. You seem to be using absurd rhetorical devices to disparage others.

 

Peer review is not a valid concern as it only a manifestation of "collective authority." Gallileo got some bad peer reviews, for example.

 

What I am saying, using 'is' leaves out a lot of possibilities as opposed to one extreme view which you seem to adhere to. You have not provided links to the so called conspiracy of Soros, Rockefellers et al.

 

I am challenging generalizations. I guess that you have no proof of the conspiracy. When I was very young I believed in such worldwide conspiracies as an emotional response. Then I realized that was no longer important. There is more to life than worrying about who controls the world.

Edited April 24, 2013 by ralis

[lloydbaker]

There are more than one kind of Environmentalist. For example, JMG would not fit the description you give above but he definitely cares about the environment enough he has inspired hundreds of people to change their lifestyles to live more in harmony with the earth while being resilient to the monetary and fiscal gaming that's going on these days.

 

Who is JMG?

 

I said a lot of environmentalists don't have a sense of humor. I should have continued: "a lot" of environmentalists are absolutists.

 

However, I would point-out that anyone who believes in living in harmony with the earth, actually is buying into absolutist environmentalism. The idea of pre-arranged natural harmony with which to conform is unproven absolutism.

 

To continue to survive without a drastic die-off, humanity must continue to plow ahead changing the environment, taking into account as best possible cause and effect.

Edited April 24, 2013 by lloydbaker

[lloydbaker]

What I am saying, using 'is' leaves out a lot of possibilities as opposed to one extreme view which you seem to adhere to. You have not provided links to the so called conspiracy of Soros, Rockefellers et al.

 

I am challenging generalizations. I guess that you have no proof of the conspiracy. When I was very young I believed in such worldwide conspiracies as an emotional response. Then I realized that was no longer important. There is more to life than worrying about who controls the world.

 

All you have to do is read David Rockefeller's AutoBio where he basically confirms his role and the role of others in similar positions in setting the agenda for the world. Sure, he doesn't confirm the more wacko theorists, just the basics: The Trilateral Commission he founded with Zbig, the CFR, the Bilderbergers, the UN, etc.

 

I generally don't even use the word conspiracy; ruling class influence is more appropriate. All you need to do is google around the Rockefeller Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund sites to see what they promote. Recently, someone leaked a Rockefeller Bros. Fund power point presentation which showed how they co-ordinated wide-spread environmentalist oppostion to the Keystone Pipeline. A few years ago, the Rockefellers formed a stockholders bloc to restrain Exxon from finding too much oil, insisting on green energy projects. Soros also has a far flung array of Foundations pushing similar causes. Both have been PetroDollar recyclers and thus part of the Saudi/OPEC/Big Oil camarilla. I'm just urging people keep their eyes open for this sort of information, not allowing the shrillness of some theorists to blind them to easily confirmable aspects.

 

If I was to set out to prove my contentions based on decades of studying and thinking, I wouldn't do it here. I'd write a book or www site or something. I just put forth my ideas. Treat them as a hypothesis in your mind to check against information as you move forward in life. Check some of the sources I mention.

 

Even precise scientific experiments don't "prove" precise scientific theories. They just provide another instance of conformity of observation to theory, or not. Overall worldviews are always far from "proveable."

 

I never text in all capitals, but just as sometimes I raise my voice for emphasis when speaking, I capitalize certain phrasing when texting or blogging for emphasis.

Edited April 24, 2013 by lloydbaker

[JustARandomPanda]

Who is JMG?

 

I said a lot of environmentalists don't have a sense of humor. I should have continued: "a lot" of environmentalists are absolutists.

 

However, I would point-out that anyone who believes in living in harmony with the earth, actually is buying into absolutist environmentalism. The idea of pre-arranged natural harmony with which to conform is unproven absolutism.

 

To continue to survive without a drastic die-off humanity must continue to plow ahead changing the environment, taking into account as best possible cause and effect.

 

 

I guess the classical Chinese and their teachings on conforming to the Tao were all Absolutists.

 

There is such a thing as conforming to natural harmony. You should ask PythagoreanFullLotus about it some time. And really should start looking into doing some of those Taoist exercises and meditations I recommended.

[lloydbaker]

I guess the classical Chinese and their teachings on conforming to the Tao were all Absolutists.

 

There is such a thing as conforming to natural harmony. You should ask PythagoreanFullLotus about it some time. And really should start looking into doing some of those Taoist exercises and meditations I recommended.

 

Well, I certainly wouldn't rule-out in advance that conforming to the TAO is abolutism.

 

Natural harmony is a very very very big assumption. . . Looking at "natural history", I'd say that nature tends toward a bloody equilibrium which lasts only until the next big disruptive change. . . then chaos and carnage and movement to a new equilibrium. Humanity is part of nature and are a factor in destroying one equilibrium and moving toward another. I don't see any reason to think humanity should passively conform to nature.

 

I ordered the 2 books you mentioned so I might know better what Taoists are trying to do. On the other hand, I have had a program of self observation for many years which might be considered a form of meditation. . .

Edited April 24, 2013 by lloydbaker

[JustARandomPanda]

The year of the Water Snake is bringing good changes (at least for me it is). Less posting - a lot less posting - and more contemplating is coming up. I still carry too many beliefs and concepts about 'how things should be'. Debating on TTB forums is interfering with quieting thoughts down. To the point I'm now catching myself composing replies to various TTB threads ( including this one ) while trying to meditate! That's when I know it's time to pipe down and just observe when here.

 

Hope to see more go-rounds from Ralis, PFL, JB and Lloyd. Maybe I'll get lucky and see Enishi post again in OT someday.

 

Cheers!

[joeblast]

haha well hey, I've tried all kinds of different tactics and none have produced any sort of rebuttal aside from poo-pooing of data sources and poo-pooing that it didnt go through the long since captured pal review echo chamber process. I mean, if he's that confident then he must have some scientific understanding and should be able to at least formulate some rebuttal.

 

I suppose from now on I can simply expect "poo-poo on your data" and nothing else - that's fine, its just that when your debate opponent so confidently asserts he's correct and you are incorrect, you'd expect him to be able to say why that is so. absent that, one side of this debate looks rather...impotent. ok ralis, no more baiting you. you can reply substantively, to which I would likely reply - but if your reply is not substantive then do not expect me to waste my time addressing it.

 

so how's about that OP its still the only post in the thread that has discussed the actual phenomena - which is significant in what was discovered and solidly backs up all the evidence that is telling us CO2 is a small blip on the radar and in high enough concentration acts as a coolant* - so like if Al Gore hadn't falsified his results in his 24 hours of climate insanity presentation where he attempted to show that pure co2 wound up producing a higher temperature in the little isolation chamber, we'd have seen a true believer face up to empirical evidence and accept what science told him - instead he turns around and says we cant present this result, falsifies his presentation (he almost got rid of all the evidence, but high enough resolution pictures dont lie, Al) and then all efforts to reproduce it obtained the exact opposite results.

 

*so look at the longer history and think about what we just saw the satellites measure - a huge amount of energy pouring into the earth's atmosphere because of a CME - now juxtapose that with the '09-10 sunspot funk, the polar vortex that formed, how that altered the behavior of the jet stream slightly - things start getting cold when the sun isnt regularly blasting us with additional heat above and beyond its regular output-shine. now...without that mechanism being represented in your climate model - what does this tell you?

 

additionally - absent that representation in a model - if one uses a proxy to attempt to model that behavior, one has to start...making shit up, for lack of a better term - how can we tweak this so that it represents what we're measuring? and by your model being incomplete and missing some important chunks, you cant make the existing chunks accurately describe effects resultant from the missing chunks.

[lloydbaker]

JMG would not fit the description you give above

 

Again, who is JMG? Can I suggest abbreviations that block the flow of a thread be avoided? I can't know for sure what you are talking about if I don't know who JMG is.

Edited April 24, 2013 by lloydbaker

[lloydbaker]

haha well hey, I've tried all kinds of different tactics and none have produced any sort of rebuttal aside from poo-pooing of data sources and poo-pooing that it didnt go through the long since captured pal review echo chamber process. I mean, if he's that confident then he must have some scientific understanding and should be able to at least formulate some rebuttal.

 

Joe Blast: Are you the JBG Serene mentioned?

 

I attempted to point-out the "powers that be" who use vast monetary resources to DETERMINE the consensus on global warming and many other issues. Isn't it obvious that Goldman Sachs and their front man Gore are trying to set-up a carbon credits market that will profit themselve immensely at the expense of a more and more energy deprived population?

 

Also, the incredible "tolerance" for Islam, the most primitive anti-liberal religion on the planet, amounts to butt-kissing for Saudi PetroDollars. See Rockefeller, Soros, Norquist, Bloomberg, Carter and many many others.

Edited April 24, 2013 by lloydbaker

[joeblast]

nah, I'm not too certain who jmg is either.

[JustARandomPanda]

JMG = John Michael Greer

 

Apologies. Thought everyone knew who who I was referring to since I named him (not initials) in other threads. He's very much a Decentralist.

 

Anyway I'm out. Won't be discussing much here at TTB for quite a while unless it's about qigong or meditation in some way. I've been composing replies during my meditation and qigong time. Ugh. When something like that interferes with those I know it's time to dial the posting way down.

 

It's time to discover what the universe is like when thoughts, beliefs, emotions and concepts don't overlay everything.

 

 

I'll still be lurking your threads though so JB et. al. don't use this as an excuse to quit posting too (unless it's to help quiet monkey-mind like me ).

[joeblast]

I completely understand that, SB. I dont have a ton more to say that I havent already said, but the OP here was some new evidence and measurement that was relevant to further highlighting the fact that co2 isnt what AGW believers claim it to be.

[zanshin]

So if global warming is nonanthropogenic or nonexistent, still lots of ways to hack up the Earth.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-earthquakes-linked-wastewater-injection-135333327.html;_ylt=AsM68lXhlPS8EAMeA8lKb2nQtDMD

[joeblast]

absolutely true - and that one belongs in the tar sands thread

[joeblast]

[lloydbaker]

It's time to discover what the universe is like when thoughts, beliefs, emotions and concepts don't overlay everything.

 

I know it's irritating for me to pick at the TAO and Buddhism while, at the same time, admitting my exposure to it has been sporadic and non-systematic.

 

However, your sentence embodies my basic objection: the idea that one can get in contact with the universe via stilling meditation. Contact with the nature and laws of consciousness, YES! But, it would seem to me theories of the univese come only from interpretation of the senses, hopefully with the help of the scientific method.

[lloydbaker]

So if global warming is nonanthropogenic or nonexistent, still lots of ways to hack up the Earth.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-earthquakes-linked-wastewater-injection-135333327.html;_ylt=AsM68lXhlPS8EAMeA8lKb2nQtDMD

 

That x follows y does not prove y caused x. Seismic activity is not a constant over time in any case. Energy is too important to flesh and blood people to yell stop every time someone fears something.

Edited April 26, 2013 by lloydbaker

[JustARandomPanda]

I know it's irritating for me to pick at the TAO and Buddhism while, at the same time, admitting my exposure to it has been sporadic and non-systematic.

 

However, your sentence embodies my basic objection: the idea that one can get in contact with the universe via stilling meditation. Contact with the nature and laws of consciousness, YES! But, it would seem to me theories of the univese come only from interpretation of the senses, hopefully with the help of the scientific method.

 

 

Whatever makes you happy Lloyd.

 

It's just that I've gotten to the point where discussions are not helping me to discover anything except more opinions - mine and everyone else. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Don't need to wash, rinse, repeat it any longer. Hence why I explained why I won't be participating much here anymore for the reasons I explained earlier to JB. Hope you continue to feel welcome soap-boxing upon whatever it is you wish.

 

 

Over and out.

 

Cheers everyone.

[Birch]

I have a dumb question. Why is the scientific truth of global warming or not of any import? Is this some Chomsky-ish requirement? Some sort of circus of evidence?

[voidisyinyang]

Survey: Scientists Have 97% Consensus Human Activity Causes Climate Change

A new survey of the scientific community has found near unanimous agreement that human activity causes climate change. Citing the work of more than 29,000 scientists in peer-reviewed journals, the survey’s authors say the consensus on human-caused global warming stands at 97.1 percent. Addressing the efforts by industrial polluters to fund climate skepticism, the study’s lead author, John Cook, said: "There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception."

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/21/headlines#52112