patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

Right from Robert Kenner's lips in the video:

"...into Global Warming, which is the next big payday..."

..."you can either lose pretty, or win ugly, and I can help you win"...

..."these guys are ready to do whatever it takes to go sell their product"...

Referring, of course, to the Merchants of Doubt who denied smoking causes cancer, denied that cigarettes started house fires, and now are profiting from massive money spent by the Koch Brothers to delay climate policy.

Once again, CIC demonstrates that the only argument he's capable of making is a lie.

You know, I doubt that he's even married like he claims. I don't think Buttfuck, Arkansas recognizes man-sheep marriage.

Call it Crazy says

My question is a one word answer: YES or NO

Ah, the mantra of a liar: answer my question in only one word and don't explain anything! So, Call it Crazy, have you stopped raping dead babies yet? One word answer: YES or NO!

The quotes, which are incomplete as indicated by those ellipses you've used are referring to climate change deniers, not the climate change scientists who have proven that man-made climate change is real and significant. So you are absolutely lying as evident to anyone who watches the video. You are also insulting the intelligence of anyone reading this thread with such an obvious lie.

Most of all, you are demonstrating your complete inability to be honest in any discussion.

You should stick to giving blow jobs to the animals at the petting zoo. It's the only thing you're good at.

Sorry, CIC, but climate change purists like Dan will tolerate no heretical discourse on their religion.

Try and they go immediately to name calling and scatological attempts at humor.

Call it Crazy says

FACTS

You mean like the fact that Robert Kenner was referring to climate change deniers when he said, and these are the full quotes,

At 00:45

Kenner: It started with tobacco. For fifty years they were able to create doubt around a product where we knew this product caused cancer and was addictive, and they were able keep questions alive as to whether this was true. And actually today they have to take out ads saying they lied. And thank god that they have to, but it took a long time for that to happen.

Maher: And that was the first one, tobacco.

Kenner: They were really good at it. Those same people went to work for multiple products.

At 2:30

Kenner: These people went on from tobacco to pharmaceuticals to into Global Warming which is the next big payday. Richard Berman was recorded at a conference in Colorado saying "you can either lose pretty, or win ugly, and I can help you win" and these guys are ready to do whatever it takes to go sell their product.

The fact that CIC can lie so badly about a video that is less than three minutes long shows how dishonest and despicable he truly is.

Richard Berman, the asshole photographed above, is one of the lobbyists promoting climate change denial. From The New York Times

“Think of this as an endless war,” Mr. Berman told the crowd at the June event in Colorado Springs, sponsored by the Western Energy Alliance, a group whose members include Devon Energy, Halliburton and Anadarko Petroleum, which specialize in extracting oil and gas through hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. “And you have to budget for it.”

Mr. Berman is well known in Washington for his technique of creating nonprofit groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom that secretly collect corporate donations to finance the aggressive, often satirical media campaigns his team conceives. They are intended to undermine his opponents, like labor unions or animal rights groups that have tried to spotlight the treatment of animals at meatpacking plants.

“I get up every morning and I try to figure out how to screw with the labor unions — that’s my offense,” Mr. Berman said in his speech to the Western Energy Alliance. “I am just trying to figure out how I am going to reduce their brand.”

Mr. Berman repeatedly boasted about how he could take checks from the oil and gas industry executives — he said he had already collected six-figure contributions from some of the executives in the room — and then hide their role in funding his campaigns.

“People always ask me one question all the time: ‘How do I know that I won’t be found out as a supporter of what you’re doing?’ ” Mr. Berman told the crowd. “We run all of this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity. People don’t know who supports us.”

So, keep lying about the three minute video that you think no one will take the time to watch. Every time you do, you just dig yourself a deeper hole and demonstrate why conservatives are the scum of the earth.

Quigley says

Sorry, CIC, but climate change purists like Dan will tolerate no heretical discourse on their religion.

Translation: I'm a conservative nut job that cannot discuss the science of climate change because it's conclusive. So I'll posion the well in the hopes that the audience is stupid enough to fall for my deception.

This is nothing less than a lie of another kind. It is precisely because there are mountains of evidence from a multitude of independent lines gathered by scientists across the world from every nation that I, and any rational person, accept the reality of man-made climate change. At this point, anyone denying man-made climate change is a lying scumbag or a religious nut or both.

There is more evidence supporting man-made climate change than there is supporting that the Earth is round. That means you sound even more ridiculous than a flat-Earther when you deny the facts of climate change. And you deserve even less respect.

On the topic of raping dead babies,I thought Democratic & Republican voters had patents,copyrights & a monopoly. I have heard rumors that the extreme Right & Left are planning a hostile takeover to eliminate the weak members who don't enjoy fucking up everything.

Call it Crazy says

Instead, you'll try to link smoking, fire retardant couches and Global Warming all together in your video

Well, they are all linked in that
1. Big tobacco hired fake scientists to spread doubt that smoking causes cancer.
2. These fake scientists also convinced government that couches, rather than cigarettes, were the cause of house fires which lead to laws requiring toxic chemicals being sprayed on couches, chemicals which have caused harm to people.
3. These same fake scientists and lobbyists are now trying to make big bucks from big oil to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt on climate change and climate change policy.

So, yes, they are related in that the same asshole individuals are involved in all three campaigns of misinformation.

The real question is why an unemployed, bigoted asswipe like you is helping them instead of protesting that Obama can't be president because he was born in Kenya.

That the Earth has undergone a warming in the last half century is a fact. That it was caused by carbon dioxide is a SPECULATION! It's a theory at best, and one with severe holes in it. A much more historically proven model to explain the slight rise in global temps along with arctic and Antarctic ice melt is solar activity cycles. The earth has been this warm before and it has been through cold ages as well. All scientific evidence points to solar activity (or lack of it) as te cause.
To choose out one gas like carbon dioxide and suggest that it's very weak heat insulating effect will cause global chaos and ruin is disingenuous at best, fraudulent pseudoscience at worst! An I think the worst is definitely the right way to look at so-called "climate scientists" whose paycheck depends on substantiating a global warming theory from the 70s. If their data finds different results, they're forced to either change the data (they got in trouble for that a few years ago) or modify the theory to "climate change" in an attempt to make some sense out of the real live world in which we live!
The facts:
1) CO2 is a weak insulator, so even though it's concentration has increased dramatically, its effect is still hard to measure.
2)water vapor is a much, much better insulator by orders of magnitude. So it methane, and both gases are hard for humans to affect atmospheric concentrations.
3) solar activity and energy output has been at a high for the past 30 years. This has caused glaciers to melt significantly, caused droughts, and raised global temps a bit.
4) solar activity has dropped significantly in the past few years and is now approaching a minimum. Scientists predict lower global temps, citing historical evidence. The last time solar activity went this low we had a mini ice age.

The science is settled. Global warming (due to CO2) is a fraud.

Quigley says

To choose out one gas like carbon dioxide and suggest that it's very weak heat insulating effect will cause global chaos and ruin is disingenuous at best, fraudulent pseudoscience at worst! An I think the worst is definitely the right way to look at so-called "climate scientists" whose paycheck depends on substantiating a global warming theory from the 70s. If their data finds different results, they're forced to either change the data (they got in trouble for that a few years ago) or modify the theory to "climate change" in an attempt to make some sense out of the real live world in which we live!

The thing here is that we can actually create lab environments to test these theories. I mean given the sheer amount of madness devoted to the topic, isn't is possible to construct biospheres of varying CO2 concentrations, and determine if added levels, cause runaway temperature gradients?

Call it Crazy says

Only idiots like you would believe a claim like that. Intelligent people couldn't figure out that taking dried plant material, rolling it in paper, lighting it on fire and inhaling the smoke was going to be perfectly healthy for them?

1. I never believed the lies of the Tobacco industry.
2. Whether or not people where dumb to believe those lies does not change the fact that the people claiming that climate change is not real are the same people who claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer.
3. Only idiots like you would believe that man-made climate change isn't real at this point in history.

Rin says

isn't is possible to construct biospheres of varying CO2 concentrations, and determine if added levels, cause runaway temperature gradients?

One such has been constructed, and it's 1:1 scale. We call it "Venus".

HydroCabron says

One such has been constructed, and it's 1:1 scale. We call it "Venus".

90 Atmospheres and 99% CO2 isn't a useful test.

Rin says

90 Atmospheres and 99% CO2 isn't a useful test.

How do you think it got to that point? That's the idea.

BTW, I think the concept of "runaway" is a diversion. The problem, to my eyes, is that if the rate of change is large enough (the derivative, not the underlying quantity), then we hit a mass extinction which could take 10 million years to correct. I read about this a lot, and "runaway" is not the current issue of concern.

HydroCabron says

One such has been constructed, and it's 1:1 scale. We call it "Venus".

The scale is 0.9497:1. Luckily you didn't post such a discrepancy regarding the relative sizes of the two Death Stars.

HydroCabron says

Rin says

90 Atmospheres and 99% CO2 isn't a useful test.

How do you think it got to that point? That's the idea.

BTW, I think the concept of "runaway" is a diversion. The problem, to my eyes, is that if the rate of change is large enough (the derivative, not the underlying quantity), then we hit a mass extinction which could take 10 million years to correct. I read about this a lot, and "runaway" is not the current issue of concern.

No one knows the geological history of Venus to start with. And since no spacecraft can survive on its surface w/o getting baked and squeezed within hours, there will be no future studies on what happened on Venus.

The comparison to our sister planet is comparing the insides of an ordinary building to the insides of a pressurized chemical reactor, esp when the original designers of that reactor have gone AWOL. One can't make any causations/correlations.

On earth, we can construct biospheres, fill 'em with minor plant life, small animals, algae, etc, and monitor their conditions. And between biospheres, using expert system controllers, manage the ambient CO2 levels so that one is always a percentage point displaced from the other.

How do you negate the insulating effects of the biosphere containment from the experimental data? Building a greenhouse and testing for a greenhouse effect seems absurd, with predictable results. Even if you built it underground and used artificial sunlight, there wouldn't be the right amount of heat loss. Heat loss, even if imperfect due to insulating conditions (like clouds) is still inevitable. Solar rays are the primary component of any heat gain/loss scenario, and global Warmists completely ignore this most salient point.

Quigley says

How do you negate the insulating effects of the biosphere containment from the experimental data? Building a greenhouse and testing for a greenhouse effect seems absurd, with predictable results. Even if you built it underground and used artificial sunlight, there wouldn't be the right amount of heat loss. Heat loss, even if imperfect due to insulating conditions (like clouds) is still inevitable. Solar rays are the primary component of any heat gain/loss scenario, and global Warmists completely ignore this most salient point.

It doesn't have to be a 'Greenhouse', it's simply an enclosed space, so that the percentages of the gases and the biocontent are contained. As for heat loss, with improvements in sensor technologies, how much gets radiated out could also be measured. Sure, the convection process won't be measured without a nightly purge job among the scrubbers, replacing the purge w/ the right N2, O2, CO2 combination.

Quigley says

That the Earth has undergone a warming in the last half century is a fact. That it was caused by carbon dioxide is a SPECULATION! It's a theory at best, and one with severe holes in it. A much more historically proven model to explain the slight rise in global temps along with arctic and Antarctic ice melt is solar activity cycles. The earth has been this warm before and it has been through cold ages as well. All scientific evidence points to solar activity (or lack of it) as te cause.

If you listen to denialists, some believe there is no warming (CIC), some believe there is warming but it's not CO2, some believe it's CO2 but it's not caused by humans. The only common point between them is they don't like the current scientific consensus.

WHY DON'T YOU MAKE YOUR STORY STRAIGHT?????

And why? Seriously if there is a serious theory conflicting with the consensus, why aren't thousands of young scientists everywhere in the world jumping on the occasion to make a name for themselves?

The denialists only explanation remains that there is a worldwide conspiracy of liberal atheist satanist scientists, that have total control of everything published, in all countries including opponents of the US such as China, Russia etc.... (who all recognize that climate change is happening).

Their only explanation remains that the only free scientists are the one who are financed by the oil industry and happen (by pure chance of course) to defend it.

Quigley says

Solar rays are the primary component of any heat gain/loss scenario, and global Warmists completely ignore this most salient point.

Right. Climatologists and their models don't account for the sun.
Seriously?

Quigley says

1) CO2 is a weak insulator, so even though it's concentration has increased dramatically, its effect is still hard to measure.

2)water vapor is a much, much better insulator by orders of magnitude. So it methane, and both gases are hard for humans to affect atmospheric concentrations.

There are gases that have a stronger greenhouse effect and no one is saying their concentration is changing so it proves the accumulation of CO2 cannot have a cumulative effect.
Nice reasoning.

Quigley says

3) solar activity and energy output has been at a high for the past 30 years. This has caused glaciers to melt significantly, caused droughts, and raised global temps a bit.

That's actually not true. The solar output has been flat to down since the 50's, a period during which warming accelerated.

Quigley says

4) solar activity has dropped significantly in the past few years and is now approaching a minimum. Scientists predict lower global temps, citing historical evidence. The last time solar activity went this low we had a mini ice age.

So why aren't we seeing a cooling compared to the 80's?

Basically you are naive enough to believe that scientists deliberately ignore variations in sun activity.

Call it Crazy says

Heraclitusstudent says

If you listen to denialists, some believe there is no warming (CIC),

If you were "listening" you would know I NEVER said that.

Really? You want me to pull the dozens of posts you wrote where you use cold whether as anecdotal proof that the climate is not warming?
What about this?

Call it Crazy says

Unfortunately, facts on the ground are a bit different...

*

Call it Crazy says

What does that chart tell you?

What do you claim it says? It's your chart. Explain it for us.

It's not MY chart!!!!!

Drink another one,,,,buddy!!!!

Smoke some more of that raw ass chronic, that icky sticky medical shit you're ALWAYS smoking, that somehow still leaves YOU an order of magnitude more cogent than I,,,,

♻️

Only idiots deny what is already happening. Miami is already dealing with the present effects of climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/jbmQHPvmVXo

https://www.youtube.com/embed/H4UueAile5A

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-JbzypWJk64

Assholes like CIC whose homes aren't threatened by rising sea levels don't get a say in climate change policy. Fuck those assholes. If they want to obstruct climate change policy, let them pay for the costs of climate change. All of their possessions should be confiscated to pay for the damage their lies cause.

Hold on just a minute there, Dan. People chose to build the city of Miami, where the land meets the sea. Why should us flyover folk, pay to solve your problem?

Miami has benefited immensely because of their location, they should have been squirreling away all that money to solve their problems that arise because of their specific location.

Yep and about 150 million Americans live on the coastlines. What's half the population?

Climate change deniers always look like idiots.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/lPgZfhnCAdI

Scientists explaining climate change and the proof for it look intelligent.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/dkR3TI6xyzU
https://www.youtube.com/embed/FZYMD0oSQQQ

Since the fossil fuel industry is doing so much to prevent climate policy needed to safeguard the public and save lives, we should just treat them as terrorists and cease all their property. Nationalize any industry that spends money on spreading FUD about man-made climate change because climate change is going to cause the loss of far more lives than 9/11.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/QiTCjWx-hhE

https://www.youtube.com/embed/h7z7Dozuwgo

Yep and about 150 million Americans live on the coastlines. What's half the population?

People choose to live on the coasts, they want all the benefits of living on the coast, but they don't want to pay their fair share of the costs?

Instead, you want us in flyover country to pay your bills? Does this mean that they'll return the favor and rent me the summer beach house at half off?

errc says

Instead, you want us in flyover country to pay your bills? Does this mean that they'll return the favor and rent me the summer beach house at half off?

I don't expect the fly-over states to bail out the coastlines even though the fly-over states get bailed out constantly for tornadoes, flooding, and drought. Just look at the dollar spent per receive graph below.

However, I do hold those states responsible for causing sea-level rises through pollution. If Floridians caused tornadoes in the mid-West, you can be sure the mid-Westerners would be pissed off as hell the first time their business was destroyed or their kid was killed by one of those tornadoes.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://climate.nasa.gov/state_of_flux#Huang_He_Delta_930x430.jpg