Posted on 04/06/2015 7:06:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
First of all, it has not been established scientifically that there is such a thing as a greenhouse gas.
The whole house of cards is supported by that very wet piece of cardboard.
The reason for all the sturm and drang is the lack of scientific evidence for any of it. When it was proven, in a lab, that CFCs were destroying the ozone layer, a substitute was found that wasn’t, and the CFCs were banned. There wasn’t any argument or debate. You could replicate the results in a lab and show how it was happening in real life and we had to do something about it.
No problem. We introduced HCFCs and moved on.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the more people pound a table about a point of science, the less science there actually is.
I remember the outcry over DDT, and how it was going to kill us all. Lack of it has killed more people worldwide than the ban could have ever preserved.
I love the writer trying to invoke Hayek’s drivel about conservatism to support is own flawed philosophy.
He’s looking for enough scientific evidence to put together his fig leaf so that he can resume being invited to all the right parties again.
Last I checked, CO2 is heavier than air. So is SOX and NOX.
To defeat the greenhouse effect, you have to figure out a way to ban cloud formation, because water vapor is what keeps the planet warmer than it should.
They can’t tie fluctuations in the jet stream to anything they currently want to ban, which is California’s entire problem (if you don’t count overbuilding in the desert a problem).
I can show how fluctuations in the average surface temperature of Mars correlates closely with fluctuations in the average surface temperature of the Earth. This would suggest that the Sun has more to do with how hot and cold the planet is than anything we are doing or not doing to it.
I’m no fan of defecating in my own tee pee, and a rejection of this AGW garbage in no way suggests that keeping the planet as clean as we can isn’t a good idea.
I just think that AGW has less science behind it than phrenology does.
When Washington DC is under water.
Nothing as climate is climate and man isn’t big enough to endager the planets climate. Now could man deplete the seas or kill off all edible animals? A big no there too;-) And if anything it keeps getting cooler in Miami during the winters.
“What are examples of low carb, higher fat diets?”
Eat less bread, sugar, tortillas, chips, potatoes, rice, or any of the simple starches.
Feel free to eat eggs, cheese, butter, meat, beans, green veggies, nuts, etc. Portion control is important. The idea is to reduce your eating, but not get the cravings and weakness that comes (for me) when on a low fat diet.
After watching me, my 30 year old daughter tried it and lost 10 lbs. Several co-workers of hers have tried it and also lost weight. I don’t think of it as a “diet”, but a way to eat for the rest of my life. Since it allows stuff like meats, bacon, cheese, etc, I find no trouble sticking to it. Just eat portions that allow you to get hungry at times - but without the headaches and cravings. When I eat bread, I just try to make sure it is a small portion of bread with a higher ratio of meat & fat.
At my physical last month, my blood sugar was down, cholesterol stable (and moderate), my weight was down, I’m wearing 30” jeans instead of 34”, etc. The government says eating like that ought to make me explode into a ball of cholesterol.
And how much of this increase can be attributed to better instrumentation versus actual hotter temps?
concur - I was referring to the impact of all emf.
Thanks.
I used the term “diet” because I wasn’t sure what other term to use.
Appreciate it greatly.
There must be a scientifically valid and repeatable scientific experimental model that ties in man’s activities with the increased temperature.” (and ACCURATELY predicts present and future increases)
Yes, I think the author of the piece has the mistaken notion that the burden of proof is on hypothesis skeptics; it is not. It is the duty of the investigator to prove his or her assertion experimentally. Scientists and modelers are not given a presumption of fact for their contentions, in fact, it is quite the opposite.
And at the expense of the people, who will pay for these carbon credits. As in, energy prices will ‘necessarily skyrocket.’
My husband’s power plant is going bankrupt because they cannot pay their carbon emissions fee. They laid off 25% of the workforce, but still can’t pay it. They will just limp along until it is overdue and then declare bankruptcy.
He offered to be laid off in lieu of one of the workers that were laid off. But they wouldn’t take up a on it since he is the compliance manager, at California’s largest nonnuclear power plant. They didn’t think the other employees could do the job. And who would want to? Dealing with Big Government idiocy, that gets more regulatory more complicated each year. It is all designed to bankrupt power plants and keep the masses shivering.
No, he just says that all of the glaciers are melting and it’s apparently our fault. I think he’s never heard of the Medieval Warm Period, either.
I just wanna know how we pulled the earf out of that danged Ice Age thing the last time without burning coal and running our A/C at full the whole time since then.
I had a guy try to convince me that air conditioners are pumping heat into the environment. Yeah, heat they took out of THIS part of the environment and put into THAT part of the environment. That heat was already here, my A/C didn’t make it.
He then told me how I’m such a dumass because I believe air conditioners are “perpetural motion machines.” Never argue with a Hysterion, it will just bring you down to their level.
Burning tax dollars causes global warming...
I think it is time to revive the term “Lysenkoism” as it describes the pseudo-science the Marxists are trying to dust off in a slightly different venue to pitch this nonsense.
It is a Coriolis Effect: There's "Right" Physics and "Left" Physics.
Yep! I like your tagline by the way.
The same way you changed your mind about your sexual identity? Because Liberal logic says whatever you believe must be believed and respected by all.
By force of Government! Now there 's the problem.
What are examples of low carb, higher fat diets?
__________________________________________________________
The Atkin’s diet, for one.
It’s a religion to the sheeperal.
It’s an excuse for the elitists.
Thanks.
I will look it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.