A Weather forum. Weather Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Weather Banter forum » Weather Related Newsgroups » alt.talk.weather (General Weather Talk)
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

alt.talk.weather (General Weather Talk) (alt.talk.weather) A general forum for discussion of the weather.

"Bill Nye, 'Science Guy,' Open to Jail Time for Climate ChangeSkeptics"



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 23rd 16, 12:21 AM posted to alt.california,alt.talk.weather,alt.global-warming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default "Bill Nye, 'Science Guy,' Open to Jail Time for Climate ChangeSkeptics"

On 4/16/2016 6:01 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Hot Lantis:
Not to those peer-herded, grant-slurping, AGW "true believers" who have
sublimated real science to crass compensation and career security.


But that begs the question of why extremely hard-headed people like the
ruling classes of China and India are 100% on-board with the science of
global warming.


Simple, they will benefit from the cap and trade tax schemes.

Not to mention that the USA seems to be the only country in the
developed world in which one of the major political parties continues to
engage in climate-change denial.


The climate is always changing, it's the very nature of climate TO change.

The human component of all this is grossly overstated:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...lumn/83292440/


The Paris accord talks a big game. It doesn’t just commit to capping the
global temperature increase at 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial
levels. The text goes even further and says the world’s leaders commit
to keeping the increase “well below 2 degrees Celsius” and will try to
cap it at 1.5 degrees Celsius.

But this is just rhetoric. My own research and the only peer-reviewed
published assessment of the Paris agreement used the United Nation’s
favorite climate model to measure the impact of every nation fulfilling
every major carbon-cutting promise in the treaty between now and 2030. I
found that the total temperature reduction will be just 0.086 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2100.

Even if these promises were extended for 70 more years, then all the
promises will reduce temperature rises by 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit by
2100. This is similar to a finding by scientists at MIT. It’s feeble.

History gives us extra reason for skepticism. The only global treaty to
cut carbon — the Kyoto Protocol — famously failed when it was never
ratified by the U.S. and was eventually abandoned by Canada, Russia and
Japan. Even before then, the treaty had holes in it so big that it was
never destined to achieve anything.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, we learned that the only surefire way to
make substantial emissions cuts was to go through a major economic
recession. Obviously, this approach is not very popular with
politicians, and we are unlikely to hear even the most climate-alarmed
presidential candidate calling for an economic downturn.

By the United Nations’ own reckoning, this treaty will only achieve less
than 1% of the emission cuts needed to meet its target temperatures.
Ninety-nine percent of the problem is left for the leaders of the 2030s
to deal with.

And what does it cost to make such feeble cuts? A great deal. This is
likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world.

U.S. promises alone — to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26%-28% below 2005
levels by 2025 — would reduce gross domestic product more than $150
billion annually.
  #2  
Old April 23rd 16, 12:55 AM posted to alt.california,alt.talk.weather,alt.global-warming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default "Bill Nye, 'Science Guy,' Open to Jail Time for Climate Change Skeptics"

In article , Hot Lantis wrote:

Simple, they will benefit from the cap and trade tax schemes.


That's the point of tax schemes: to change behaviour by rewarding those
activities that benefit society. Long term capital gains are taxed at a lower
rate to encourage people to make capital investment and to leave the investment
alone for a number of years.

The climate is always changing, it's the very nature of climate TO change.


Some climates are unique because they are caused by unique atmospheres. The
great rust out occurred because it was the first time free oxygen was available.
When plants occupied the land, they had an explosion of growth that decreased
carbon dioxide until the earth froze. After that the earth evolved life that
kept the carbon dioxide better balanced. That's also when all the coal was
created; we are now returning all that carbon to the air which has not evolved
in such carbon dioxide levels. What will happen? It's never happenned before. So
let's find out on the only planet we can currently live on.

The human component of all this is grossly overstated:


The only thing that has returned sequesterred carbon to biosphere faster than it
is removed is human activity. It is therefore subject to human control. We don't
control it, and we are creating a unique atmosphere never before occurring on
earth. What will happen? Let's find out on the only planet we can currently live
on.

The Paris accord talks a big game. It doesnąt just commit to capping the


Yeah. Imagine if some prime minister declared his country would land a man on
the moon and return him within a decade. Crazy. What possible country to rise to
such a technological challenge?

U.S. promises alone ‹ to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26%-28% below 2005
levels by 2025 ‹ would reduce gross domestic product more than $150
billion annually.


Technological innovation is too hard.

--
:- Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
If you assume the final scene is a dying delusion as Tom Cruise drowns below
the Louvre, then Edge of Tomorrow has a happy ending. Kill Tom repeat..
  #3  
Old April 23rd 16, 01:15 AM posted to alt.california,alt.talk.weather,alt.global-warming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default "Bill Nye, 'Science Guy,' Open to Jail Time for Climate ChangeSkeptics"

On 4/22/2016 5:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
On 4/22/2016 5:21 PM, Hot Lantis wrote:
On 4/16/2016 6:01 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Hot Lantis:
Not to those peer-herded, grant-slurping, AGW "true believers" who have
sublimated real science to crass compensation and career security.

But that begs the question of why extremely hard-headed people like the
ruling classes of China and India are 100% on-board with the science of
global warming.


Simple, they will benefit from the cap and trade tax schemes.


That's the point of tax schemes: to change behaviour by rewarding those
activities that benefit society.


You ****wit: he's saying it's the tyrants of China and the corrupt
"elected" leaders of India who will benefit from the transfer payments,
not the people.

  #4  
Old April 23rd 16, 04:45 PM posted to alt.california,alt.talk.weather,alt.global-warming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default "Bill Nye, 'Science Guy,' Open to Jail Time for Climate ChangeSkeptics"

On 4/22/2016 6:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
In article , Hot Lantis wrote:

Simple, they will benefit from the cap and trade tax schemes.


That's the point of tax schemes: to change behaviour by rewarding those
activities that benefit society.


That's a complete and utter lie, the purpose of the cheme is to enrich
the credit traders.

You're so mentally weak.


Long term capital gains are taxed at a lower
rate to encourage people to make capital investment and to leave the investment
alone for a number of years.


Non sequitur.

There should never be ANY "long term capital gain" from carbon credits.

The climate is always changing, it's the very nature of climate TO change.


Some climates are unique because they are caused by unique atmospheres.


What kind of lunacy is that?

The planet has abut one atmosphere.

The great rust out occurred because it was the first time free oxygen was available.


Complete non sequitur.

When plants occupied the land, they had an explosion of growth that decreased
carbon dioxide until the earth froze.


And damn the Kt boundary layer and that pesky indicator - Iridium, eh liar?

After that the earth evolved life that
kept the carbon dioxide better balanced.


ELEs are regular repeating events, period.


That's also when all the coal was
created;


No it's not.

we are now returning all that carbon to the air which has not evolved
in such carbon dioxide levels.


WTF?!?!????

Are you serious?

Air is not an organism, it does not "evolve".

It's a blend of molecules, not a living entity.


What will happen? It's never happenned before. So
let's find out on the only planet we can currently live on.


That's the biggest load of junk science since Al Gore began eating up
the carbon caps.

The human component of all this is grossly overstated:


The only thing that has returned sequesterred carbon to biosphere faster than it
is removed is human activity.


Volcanism is not a human activity.

Sea floor methane seeps are not a human activity.

Animal flatulence is not a human activity.


It is therefore subject to human control.


No, it is NOT!

Go on, control sea floor methane releases.

Rotsa ruck, you simple minded AGW stooge.

We don't control it,


But of course we do with every fly ash scrubber and sequestration
injection pump.

and we are creating a unique atmosphere never before occurring on
earth.


You have ZERO meterological evidence to support that claim, just nothing.

What will happen? Let's find out on the only planet we can currently live
on.


Non sequitur.

The impacts of global warming are actually beneficial to human life:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...outweigh-harms

Without the greenhouse effect to keep our world warm, the planet would
have an average temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius. Because we do
have it, the temperature is a comfortable plus 15 degrees Celsius.

Other inconvenient facts ignored by the activists: Carbon dioxide is a
non-polluting gas that is essential for plant photosynthesis. Higher
concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere produce bigger crop harvests and
larger and healthier forests--results environmentalists used to like.

There are legitimate reasons to restrict emissions of pollutants into
the atmosphere. Recycling makes sense and protecting the environment is
good for everyone. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking we can
change the temperature of the Earth by doing these things.

http://listosaur.com/science-a-techn...lobal-warming/

10. More Usable Land
Climate change could produce more usable land for agriculture.

Presently, vast swaths of the Earth — the northern half of Canada, for
instance, and the majority of Russia’s land area — aren’t suitable for
agriculture. As the globe warms, however, high-latitude zones now on the
verge of cultivation could become agriculture-friendly. More food for
the world’s people is certainly a good thing, although it must be
acknowledged that climate change could at the same time transform other
fragile regions such as sub-Saharan Africa into more of a desert than
they are already.



9. Longer Growing Seasons
Longer growing seasons are one possible benefit of global warming.

It’s conceivable that the world’s current breadbaskets could become even
more productive as temperatures warm, increasing yields. Farmers
accustomed to one harvest a year may even see two. What’s more, a larger
variety of crops could be grown in more locations than is currently
possible.



8. Extra CO2 For Plants
More CO2 in the atmosphere would be good news for plants.

We humans can only expel carbon dioxide, but plants love it. With
heightened levels of CO2 in the atmosphere thanks to a warming globe,
plants will have the opportunity to get drunk on the stuff, growing
larger and more robust. This in turn would be good news not just for
agriculture, but also for the many animal species that depend on plant
life (at least those not already threatened by habitat degradation).



7. Northwest Passage Becomes Reality
An ice-free Arctic Ocean could mean good news for shipping companies.

The long-sought shipping lane through Canada’s polar regions is already
close to being a viable alternative during the summer months. Its
existence could mean the world’s largest ships, particularly oil tankers
too big for the Panama Canal, which have to round the southern tip of
South America, would have a much shorter route between the Atlantic and
Pacific oceans at their disposal.



6. Arctic’s Resources Become Accessible
A milder climate could make the Arctic's natural resources more available.

Nobody really knows just how much oil exists in the Arctic, but oil
companies and various nations, are moving fast in an effort to find out.
Russia is already taking a lead staking claims to promising stretches of
international waters that had long been under frozen lock and key.
Drilling for Arctic oil, currently not a viable option, could be soon.



5. Less Energy Required For Heating
Credit: Advanced Telemetry
Credit: Advanced Telemetry
This obvious benefit of warmer winters has yet to come to pass, as
recent winters across North America and Europe have actually trended
colder than normal in many locales. Whether this is simply a statistical
anomaly or a more long-term effect of climate change remains to be seen.



4. Warmer Weather is Healthier
Warmer weather could mean fewer cases of the flu and other cold-weather
ailments.

The doomsayers have made much of tropical diseases such as malaria
spreading as the globe warms, but cold-weather illnesses like the flu
kill more people every year. If warmer winters (when they do finally
take hold) mean less time spent indoors in close quarters, where so many
contagions are spread, maybe someday flu shots will become a thing of
the past.



3. Warmer Weather is Safer
Expect fewer icy roads, and fewer car accidents, in a warming climate.

No more middle-aged men falling down with heart attacks while shoveling
snow. No more motorists careening off icy highways. No more kids falling
through thin ice, or elderly people freezing in their homes. Wintertime
is a dangerous time. Granted, record-breaking heat waves have killed
scores of people, especially in northern cities where older buildings
aren’t equipped for such heat, but those structures are being demolished
and replaced daily.



2. People Enjoy Sunny Climates
Climate change could bring more sunny days.

Where do senior citizens go to retire? Cleveland? Not usually.
Statistics may not show the residents of Florida to be any happier than
people elsewhere, but nobody would complain if they had their weather.
However, some scientists believe climate change has thus far led to an
increase in extreme conditions, from heat waves and cold spells to
snowstorms and flooding, not just warm, sunny days.



1. Increased Interest in Alternative Energy
The threat of climate change has spurred interest in alternative energy.

Fear of global warming has already led many people to look beyond fossil
fuels at wind and solar power as possible alternatives for powering our
way of life. If climate scientists are to be believed, it will likely be
too little, too late. But ironically, such efforts could represent
progress toward weaning us from our dependence on foreign oil. A warmer
globe leading to energy independence? Even this cloud could have a
silver lining.

The Paris accord talks a big game. It doesnąt just commit to capping the


Yeah. Imagine


**** your snippage, ****.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...lumn/83292440/


The Paris accord talks a big game. It doesn’t just commit to capping the
global temperature increase at 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial
levels. The text goes even further and says the world’s leaders commit
to keeping the increase “well below 2 degrees Celsius” and will try to
cap it at 1.5 degrees Celsius.

But this is just rhetoric. My own research and the only peer-reviewed
published assessment of the Paris agreement used the United Nation’s
favorite climate model to measure the impact of every nation fulfilling
every major carbon-cutting promise in the treaty between now and 2030. I
found that the total temperature reduction will be just 0.086 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2100.

Even if these promises were extended for 70 more years, then all the
promises will reduce temperature rises by 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit by
2100. This is similar to a finding by scientists at MIT. It’s feeble.

History gives us extra reason for skepticism. The only global treaty to
cut carbon — the Kyoto Protocol — famously failed when it was never
ratified by the U.S. and was eventually abandoned by Canada, Russia and
Japan. Even before then, the treaty had holes in it so big that it was
never destined to achieve anything.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, we learned that the only surefire way to
make substantial emissions cuts was to go through a major economic
recession. Obviously, this approach is not very popular with
politicians, and we are unlikely to hear even the most climate-alarmed
presidential candidate calling for an economic downturn.

By the United Nations’ own reckoning, this treaty will only achieve less
than 1% of the emission cuts needed to meet its target temperatures.
Ninety-nine percent of the problem is left for the leaders of the 2030s
to deal with.

And what does it cost to make such feeble cuts? A great deal. This is
likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world.

U.S. promises alone — to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26%-28% below 2005
levels by 2025 — would reduce gross domestic product more than $150
billion annually.


U.S. promises alone ‹ to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26%-28% below 2005
levels by 2025 ‹ would reduce gross domestic product more than $150
billion annually.


Technological innovation is too hard.


Self flagellation over natural process otoh is not...

  #5  
Old April 23rd 16, 04:47 PM posted to alt.california,alt.talk.weather,alt.global-warming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default "Bill Nye, 'Science Guy,' Open to Jail Time for Climate ChangeSkeptics"

On 4/22/2016 7:15 PM, Creepy banjo music wrote:
On 4/22/2016 5:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
On 4/22/2016 5:21 PM, Hot Lantis wrote:
On 4/16/2016 6:01 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Hot Lantis:
Not to those peer-herded, grant-slurping, AGW "true believers" who
have
sublimated real science to crass compensation and career security.

But that begs the question of why extremely hard-headed people like the
ruling classes of China and India are 100% on-board with the science of
global warming.

Simple, they will benefit from the cap and trade tax schemes.


That's the point of tax schemes: to change behaviour by rewarding those
activities that benefit society.


You ****wit: he's saying it's the tyrants of China and the corrupt
"elected" leaders of India who will benefit from the transfer payments,
not the people.


Thank you.

And also the cap traders, the ones who rig and run the scheme.

The Al Gores of this sad sack planet.
  #6  
Old April 23rd 16, 08:06 PM posted to alt.california,alt.talk.weather,alt.global-warming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default "Bill Nye, 'Science Guy,' Open to Jail Time for Climate Change Skeptics"

In article , Hot Lantis wrote:

On 4/22/2016 7:15 PM, Creepy banjo music wrote:
On 4/22/2016 5:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
On 4/22/2016 5:21 PM, Hot Lantis wrote:
On 4/16/2016 6:01 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Hot Lantis:
Not to those peer-herded, grant-slurping, AGW "true believers" who
have
sublimated real science to crass compensation and career security.

But that begs the question of why extremely hard-headed people like the
ruling classes of China and India are 100% on-board with the science of
global warming.

Simple, they will benefit from the cap and trade tax schemes.

That's the point of tax schemes: to change behaviour by rewarding those
activities that benefit society.


You ****wit: he's saying it's the tyrants of China and the corrupt
"elected" leaders of India who will benefit from the transfer payments,
not the people.


Thank you.

And also the cap traders, the ones who rig and run the scheme.


I notice you clipped the reference to long term capital gains tax rate, and I
know why you clipped it.

--
:- Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
If you assume the final scene is a dying delusion as Tom Cruise drowns below
the Louvre, then Edge of Tomorrow has a happy ending. Kill Tom repeat..
  #7  
Old April 23rd 16, 08:17 PM posted to alt.california,alt.talk.weather,alt.global-warming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default "Bill Nye, 'Science Guy,' Open to Jail Time for Climate Change Skeptics"

In article , Hot Lantis wrote:

Some climates are unique because they are caused by unique atmospheres.


What kind of lunacy is that?

The planet has abut one atmosphere.


Oh, my.

Um....no, it hasn't. You're pretty stupid not to know its chemistry and physics
have varied wildly from 4.5 billion years ago to about 600 million years ago.

--
:- Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
If you assume the final scene is a dying delusion as Tom Cruise drowns below
the Louvre, then Edge of Tomorrow has a happy ending. Kill Tom repeat..
  #8  
Old April 23rd 16, 08:39 PM posted to alt.california,alt.talk.weather,alt.global-warming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default "Bill Nye, 'Science Guy,' Open to Jail Time for Climate ChangeSkeptics"

On 4/23/2016 2:06 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
In article , Hot Lantis wrote:

On 4/22/2016 7:15 PM, Creepy banjo music wrote:
On 4/22/2016 5:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
On 4/22/2016 5:21 PM, Hot Lantis wrote:
On 4/16/2016 6:01 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Hot Lantis:
Not to those peer-herded, grant-slurping, AGW "true believers" who
have
sublimated real science to crass compensation and career security.

But that begs the question of why extremely hard-headed people like the
ruling classes of China and India are 100% on-board with the science of
global warming.

Simple, they will benefit from the cap and trade tax schemes.

That's the point of tax schemes: to change behaviour by rewarding those
activities that benefit society.

You ****wit: he's saying it's the tyrants of China and the corrupt
"elected" leaders of India who will benefit from the transfer payments,
not the people.


Thank you.

And also the cap traders, the ones who rig and run the scheme.


I notice you clipped the reference to long term capital gains tax rate, and I
know why you clipped it.

There ought be NO gain associated with trading ephemeral and imaginary
carbon caps and credits.

That IS sheer madness!

http://epublications.marquette.edu/c...xt=account_fac

The cap and trade system proposed at Kyoto envisioned that
a limit (i.e., cap) would be imposed by the government on the
amount of CO2 emissions allowed in a given period. Organizations
with emissions that do not exceed the limit are free to trade the
difference between the cap and their expected amount of emissions
as “CO2 credits.” Likewise, organizations that anticipate
exceeding the limit may purchase these credits in order to
exceed the cap amount. The economics of purchasing the credits
make sense when their cost is less than the cost required to
reduce emissions below the cap.

Question one: cost basis. Essentially no
differences should exist because Revenue
Procedure 92-91states that the costs related
to the acquisition and holding of the
credits are capitalized.

Question two: depreciation. No depreciation
is allowed under Revenue
Procedure 92-91. While this seems appropriate
for credits that do not expire, it presents
an issue for carbon credits that do
expire. Because the market for carbon credits
is relatively unregulated, carbon credits
(as well as other credits for gas emissions)
can take virtually any shape or form,and their useful life varies
significantly.

Short-term credits are considered temporary,
as are longer-lived credits that are
leased or rented. Even renewable credits
are risky, in that the underlying event that
allows for renewal may cease to exist and
the credit may be deemed worthless. The
key issue for depreciating the basis of the
credit appears to hinge on the certainty of
the useful life of the credit.

  #9  
Old April 23rd 16, 08:44 PM posted to alt.california,alt.talk.weather,alt.global-warming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default "Bill Nye, 'Science Guy,' Open to Jail Time for Climate ChangeSkeptics"

On 4/23/2016 2:17 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
In article , Hot Lantis wrote:

Some climates are unique because they are caused by unique atmospheres.


What kind of lunacy is that?

The planet has abut one atmosphere.


Oh, my.


Oh yes.

Um....no, it hasn't.


Oh yes it DOES!

You're pretty stupid not to know its chemistry and physics
have varied wildly from 4.5 billion years ago to about 600 million years ago.


Your climate statement was not historically loaded, you said:

"Some climates are unique because they are caused by unique atmospheres"

That implies that in the larger realm of extant micro-climates (which we
do have) you seem to feel there is a causal factor derived from more
than one atmosphere.

Where is the earth's "other atmosphere?"

Does it come out to play on weekends?

Good grief!



  #10  
Old April 23rd 16, 09:05 PM posted to alt.california,alt.talk.weather,alt.global-warming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default "Bill Nye, 'Science Guy,' Open to Jail Time for Climate Change Skeptics"

In article , Hot Lantis wrote:

Your climate statement was not historically loaded, you said:

"Some climates are unique because they are caused by unique atmospheres"

That implies that in the larger realm of extant micro-climates (which we
do have) you seem to feel there is a causal factor derived from more
than one atmosphere.


Always double down on stupid.

In article , Hot Lantis wrote:

The great rust out occurred because it was the first time free oxygen was
available.


Complete non sequitur.

When plants occupied the land, they had an explosion of growth that
decreased
carbon dioxide until the earth froze.


And damn the Kt boundary layer and that pesky indicator - Iridium, eh liar?


--
:- Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
If you assume the final scene is a dying delusion as Tom Cruise drowns below
the Louvre, then Edge of Tomorrow has a happy ending. Kill Tom repeat..
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright ©2004-2017 Weather Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.