Greenpeace — Nobeernolife

Greenpeace has no sway with anyone I know.

I thought it was possible to communicate with you, after you asked a reasonable question. But now we are descending into the heated exchange of CNN talking points... at which point communication becomes meaningless. Group mentaly takes over. Sad!

CNN talking points — Nobeernolife

Facts aren’t talking points.

But now we are descending into the heated exchange — Nobeernolife

Also, I’m not heated right now.

Green peace has no sway with anyone I know.

Oh, now you are a climate change denier? Because Greenpeace bought heavily into the political "man made climate change" agenda, which is the reason Dr. Patrick Moore left them.
(Somehow I suspect that Greepeace does have sway with people in your echo chamber....)

I personally don’t listen to Greenpeace. Nor does anyone I know. I happen to understand how they figured out that climate change is human caused, and I’m convinced by the science. I prefer not to explain it all here again as I did in another thread months ago.

You are a climate scientist?

I am not a climate scientist, but like I said, I understand how they reached that conclusion.

I suggest you actually research it and try to understand it yourself. If you come to a different conclusion than 97% of climate scientists, then I would like to hear your reasoning.

I am not a climate scientist,

so what business do you have to "explain" climate scientists to others? It is clearly a massively complex subject.

but like I said, I understand how they reached that conclusion.
No, you don´t.

I suggest you actually research it and try to understand it yourself.

Reading opinion articles and repeating them is not "research". I am not qualified to do climate research myself, and neither are you.

If you come to a different conclusion than 97% of climate scientists, then I would like to hear your reasoning.

Yes, the famous 97%. Please explain who selected them, what they were asked, how many of them answered, and what they answered. If you are referring to the Cook study, you will be surprised.

I understand the scientific method. I know what steps they took to determine that the planet is heating up, and also how they reached the only conclusion that could be reached, viz. that burning fossil fuels is the cause. If you’re interested in my synopsis, then you can go read through my comments history. This isn’t the thread to do that in. We are getting off track of Trump.

Who are "they"? And what exactly do they "agree" on? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? I strongly suspect that the number who agree is closer to 100%. That CO2 is the ONLY factor in climate change? That we have accurate models to predict climate change? That is a completely different topic.
It certainly looks like you have been been bashing a strawman while "explaining" science.

That CO2 is the ONLY factor in climate change? That we have accurate models to predict climate change? — Nobeernolife

Also, methane. We don’t need proven models to predict climate change. It’s already a problem.

Also, methane.
LOL, yeah. Read the UN report on cow farts. When did that drop off the radar?

We don’t need proven models to predict climate change.
So you agree that we do NOT have accurate models. But all the political demands are based on models, are they not?

It’s already a problem.
There are plenty of problems in the world, and different ways to address them. Non sequitur.

Read the UN report on cow farts. — Nobeernolife

Melting glaciers also release methane.

So you agree that we do NOT have accurate models. — Nobeernolife

No. How am I to know if a model projecting out into the future is accurate until I get to the future? That’s silly.

You’re almost religious in your denial of common sense and fervor for Trump.

I do not know that he (or in fact anybody) "denies climate change". — Nobeernolife

This assertion suggests you have no idea what you're talking about.

No. How am I to know if a model projecting out into the future is accurate until I get to the future? That’s silly.
All the previous models have been wrong. Currently, there are a number of different models.... clearly all of them minus one have to be wrong. What was that about common sense again?
You mentioned the scientific method. Testing a hypothesis against reality is not part of that?

You’re almost religious in your denial of common sense and fervor for Trump.
I clarified my position about Trump; where do you see "fervor" there?

All the previous models have been wrong. — Nobeernolife

Correction: they have been inaccurate, to varying degrees. The point is that this doesn't imply anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, it just means that we can't predict it accurately. Inaccuracy is not rational grounds to reject the general consensus view that the world is warming, that CO2 emissions is contributing to it, and that if currrent trends continue, there will be disastrous consequences. The inaccuracy only implies we can't know exactly when.

Thanks for writing without hysteria and name-calling!

Correction: they have been inaccurate, to varying degrees. The point is that this doesn't imply anthropogenic global warming is a hoax it just means that we can't predict it accurately.
Well, how inaccurate does a model have to be, before you call it simply wrong?

the general consensus view that the world is warming, that CO2 emissions is contributing to it,
Fair enough, from all I know that seems correct.

and that if currrent trends continue, there will be disastrous consequences.
Wow, hold the horses. Are you sure there is general consensus about THAT? I.e. Dr. Patrick Moore, an earth scientists himself, thinks that we are in a carbon starved period, and a little warmer and thus greener planet would be a good thing. Can quote a source about this "general agreement" about "disastrous consequences"?

I simply said I agree with his basic policy platform: 1) Stop out-of-control globalism, put your nation ahead of global institutions, 2) Protect the borders, 3) Stop stupid foreign wars. — Nobeernolife

The problem here is that 1) and 3) are incompatible. You must respect the fact that globalism has already occurred, so it is too late to prevent it. The only recourse is an attempt to reverse it. The attempt to reverse it will create strife, and "stupid foreign wars" where there were none before (starting with trade wars, the most stupid type of war of all). The natural tendency for rational human beings is to socialize and cooperate, respectfully allowing for flex in the frontiers of ownership, as this is beneficial to all parties. Rigid walls are detrimental in an evolving world.

In other words, the irrationality of proceeding with 1), which is nothing other than an attempt to reverse the rational development and evolution of human existence, is actually an act of starting stupid foreign wars, directly contradicting 3).

Thanks for writing without TDS hysteria.

The problem here is that 1) and 3) are incompatible.
I strongly disagree. In fact, globalist ideology is the cause for the many of the conflicts we are seeing.

You must respect the fact that globalism has already occurred, so it is too late to prevent it. The only recourse is an attempt to reverse it.
Not a "fact". Globalism is an ideology (i.e. read the books by Soros and Barnett), and the question is how far to pursue it.

The attempt to reverse it will create strife, and "stupid foreign wars" where there were none before (starting with trade wars, the most stupid type of war of all).
I strongly disagree on all points here. In fact, globalism is the root cause of many of the conflicts we see today. And "trade war" is a question of definition. I.e. you could argue that we have been in a trade war with China since its entry into the WTO.

The natural tendency for rational human beings is to socialize and cooperate, respectfully allowing for flex in the frontiers of ownership, as this is beneficial to all parties. Rigid walls are detrimental in an evolving world.
Not sure what you mean by "rigid walls". I am talking about the preservation of nation states, which are the foundation for democracy. As opposed to oblique globalist organizations accountable to no one.

In other words, the irrationality of proceeding with 1), which is nothing other than an attempt to reverse the rational development and evolution of human existence, is actually an act of starting stupid foreign wars, directly contradicting 3).
No, to the contrary. The endless proxy wars conducted by the globalists (e.g. Clintons destruction of Libya and Syria) are testimony to that.

and that if currrent trends continue, there will be disastrous consequences.]/i\

Wow, hold the horses. Are you sure there is general consensus about THAT? I.e. Dr. Patrick Moore, an earth scientists himself, thinks that we are in a carbon starved period, and a little warmer and thus greener planet would be a good thing. Can quote a source about this "general agreement" about "disastrous consequences"? — Nobeernolife

Patrick Moore is not a CLIMATE scientist. This study provides the basis for my claim about the consensus of climate scientists. It also discusses a prior study (Tol) that concluded there was not much consensus

"Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science."

Perhaps you object to my use of the subjective term "disastrous", so let me just put it this way: if current trends continue, there will be very costly consequences.

Not a "fact". Globalism is an ideology (i.e. read the books by Soros and Barnett), and the question is how far to pursue it. — Nobeernolife

I don't think this is correct, "globalization" is a descriptive term, describing what has already occurred, or what is ongoing. It is clearly not an "ideology", because there is demonstrably a number of different ideologies, capitalism, communism, etc., which lead to globalization. In fact most all ideologies which serve the interactions of human beings as rational social animals, lead to globalization. Globalization is the term used to refer to the effects of these ideologies. Anti-globalization may be an ideology, but it does not support rational social interactions between human beings, so it is rather an irrational ideology.

I strongly disagree on all points here. In fact, globalism is the root cause of many of the conflicts we see today. — Nobeernolife

Based on what I said above, the fact that globalization is coincident with conflicts, does not indicate that it is the cause of the conflicts. There are many ideologies involved with globalization, any rational ideology will lead to globalization, and some of them clash in the process. But this does not mean that globalization is the cause of the clash. The cause of the conflicts are the clash of the different ideologies involved in globalization, but globalization is not an ideology.

As opposed to oblique globalist organizations accountable to no one. — Nobeernolife

Because "globalization" is not properly an ideology, this term "globalist organizations" is incoherent or at best ambiguous, and lacking in any real meaning. I suggest to you, that individuals such as yourself, who for some reason do not like the natural phenomenon of globalization, have created an ideology which we could call "anti-globalization", and have also created a phantom category "globalist organizations", implying that there is a globalist ideology which has set up globalist organizations, but there are really no such things. The organizations which are referred to as "globalist" are set up for a wide variety of different reasons, from differing ideologies, for a wide variety of purposes. To class them together as if they are supported by one ideology, with one purpose, and call them "globalist" as if they have one globalist ideology, is simply a mistake, or more likely a move of deception by those supporting an anti-globalist ideology.

No, to the contrary. The endless proxy wars conducted by the globalists (e.g. Clintons destruction of Libya and Syria) are testimony to that. — Nobeernolife

See, this is very clear evidence that you have set up this category of ideology, you call "globalist", as a catch all category, and place people whose ideology you dislike within that category. In reality the people have no such "globalist" ideology, holding a variety of different ideologies instead, because there is really no such thing as an ideology called "globalism". The anti-globalists, such as yourself, have created this category, and place numerous different ideologies into the category, but there is no such ideology at all, just a vast array of ideologies which are resented by the anti-globalists.

A quick peak at the toxic Twittersphere reveals a competing narrative occurring re: Bill Barr. The Trumpist camp believes that Barr is going to clean up the DOJ, rectifying the unjust culture permeating that branch of government. The anti-Trumpist camp believes the exact opposite, that Bill Barr, at Trump’s behest, is irrevocably damaging the DOJ.

Neither side gives the other any benefit of the doubt.

Thanks for writing without TDS hysteria and name-calling. That is refreshing.

Patrick Moore is not a CLIMATE scientist. This study provides the basis for my claim about the consensus of climate scientiests. It also discusses s a prior study (Tol) that concluded there was not much consensus
Well, as you say yourself, the Tol study came to a different conclusion. Anyway, how productive is it boil down tens of thousands of different papers into a simplistics yes/no vote? Clearly, there is a continuum. Clearly, there is a human factor, but exactly how large is it, and exactly what can and should be done to mitigate it?

Perhaps you object to my use of the subjective term "disastrous", so let me just put it this way: if current trends continue, there will be very costly consequences.
That is an entirely different thing. Costly consequences is an economic term. Certainly the activists policies promoted by the climate activists are extremely costly. Bjoern Lomborg addresses this aspect, if you have not heard of him, look him up.

See, this is very clear evidence that you have set up this category of ideology, you call "globalist", as a catch all category, and place people whose ideology you dislike within that category. In reality the people have no such "globalist" ideology, holding a variety of different ideologies instead, because there is really no such thing as an ideology called "globalism". The anti-globalists, such as yourself, have created this category, and place numerous different ideologies into the category, but there is no such ideology at all, just a vast array of ideologies which are resented by the anti-globalists. — Metaphysician Undercover

Lets agree to disagree. When I talk about "globalism" I refer to the set of ideas that by and large the Western elites have bought into, and that are layed out in books such as "The Pentagons New Map" by Barnett or "George Soros on Globalization". Talking about the latter, look up all the activities that his "Open Society Foundation" is involved in, and you see everything that the Western elites love, and the people of their nations have to suffer from. You can also call it the populist vs elitist debate. Trump, like the European populist parties, takes the populist side, and neocons, neolibs, the coporate media like CNN et all take the elitist (globalist) side.
I can see on which side you are, and you can see on which side I am.

Anyway, if you oppose Trump on those grounds, I respect that. I think you are wrong, but at least you have a philosophical basis, and are not just repeating unhinged rants from the talking heads at CNN, which I see too much off....

Thanks for writing without name-calling.

Neither side gives the other any benefit of the doubt. — NOS4A2

Agree. As Scott Adams (check him out if you don´t know him) says: Two movies on the same screen.

One of the people who testified against Trump, Fiona Hill, a Soros stooge, writes for an online magazine called “The Globalist”. You can’t make this stuff up.

https://www.theglobalist.com/contributors/fiona-hill/

Will he evolve into a dictator if he gets another term? Is this forever? No. He won't last long he someone like him should proceed. Clear out some of the left.

a Soros stooge — NOS4A2

That tells me all I need to know about you, and I suspect @Nobeernolife is the same as you.

I have Ashkenazi ancestors.