[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This strikes me as pretty hard-hitting argumentation.

Personally, I start from the point that “Anthropogenic Global Warming” is an invention of a “liberal” politician and not a scientist. AGW just happens to serve as an excuse for “liberal” politicians to do exactly what they want to do.

It also is a fact that strategic bombing against Germany was not all that effective in any other way than in reducing Germany’s fuel supply. And therefore a political attack on the use of carbon fuels is quite similar to an effective bombing attack against the country.

[Oldexpat]

When the elites give up their private jets and close down their mega mansions then I’ll take some note.

[JBW1949]

He can convince me that he truly believes in what he says by giving up his luxury homes, his jet rides, his cars and go live in a cave and eat raw meat that he caught with his bare hands...

Otherwise, he is full of it...

Just my opinion....

[PGR88]

Personally, I would find it compelling if science settled on one climate model (not dozens) and reported that it was accurate (enough), based on temperature observations, for the next five years.

Sure, Scott - they can do that. It will only cost $50 million. And guess what, when this "blue ribbon panel" is done - you will find that, mirabile dictu, they all agree that we have climate change!

[Gay State Conservative]

I drive a car that's rated at 45MPG (highway) and does,in fact,get 53MPG.I keep my thermostat at 68 in winter and 75 in summer.My condo is much,much,*much* smaller than his 25,000 sq foot mansion.When I fly,I fly coach...thus I'm responsible for a much smaller portion of the pollution than those who fly first class (or by private jet).

Translation....my carbon footprint is very probably one fiftieth...maybe even one one hundredth...of his.

[A_Former_Democrat]

How about some REAL LEGITIMATE KNOWLEGABLE SCIENTISTS “convince me” ?

How about some REAL and HONEST people “convince me” this isn’t a world redistribution of wealth scheme by the totalitarian global ‘elites”?

Rather than some super egotistical child who thinks the world revolves around him and who shoots his mouth off SOLEY for LOOKITMEE publicity, and Hypocrite with his mansions and private jet setting?

THEN and ONLY then, might I be convinced. But some little snot nosed bastard who thinks by faking someone else’s character on screen somehow credentials him on #FakeScience, then no. I’d never be “convinced” by that juvenile POS

[Gay State Conservative]

And a question for Lenny....research shows that Central Park (in Manhattan) was covered by a glacier about 1,000 feet thick as recently as about 10,000 years ago.

What happened to that ice? Air conditioners? VW diesel engines? Private LearJets? Four hundred foot yachts (like yours)?

[outofsalt]

"It also is a fact that strategic bombing against Germany was not all that effective in any other way than in reducing Germany’s fuel supply."

The strategic bombing of Germany's industrial and urban centers was conducted to counter the rockets being fire into Britain. It was carried out to disrupt production and, "de-house" the population centers which were supplying the Nazi's. It forced Germany to defend it's territory and limited their capacity to attack, thus hastening the surrender.

As to the article, Models of the economy and climate change are hoaxes riddled with falsified premises and data. The media, however, is pushing the agenda full tilt.

[Tucker39]

DeCaprio would be well on the way to covincing me if he sold his yacht(s) and jet(s) and several of his homes, and comported himself as someone who SERIOUSLY believes that we are in a climate crisis. He’s behaving as a total fraud, so far.

[unread]

Funny how all those Hollywood types want US to be commies and live in mud huts while THEY live high on the hog....

I guess they don't call it Caliphony for nothing...

[Leep]

[rockrr]

Excellent!

I've often asserted (much to the consternation of my leftie opponents) that I would be willing to change my opinion or attitude on a topic of they could persuade me thorough a convincing argument. The left's inability to differentiate between real and serious represents a major impediment to a persuasive argument.

The "arguments" that they tend to offer up are chaotic messes of conjecture laced with emotion and spiced with junk facts - just to suggest the appearance of knowledge. To quote the great Ronald Reagan, "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Not knowing never seems to deter lefties, as they are never reluctant to resort to bullcrap in place of facts. They believe that a sensational sounding factoid, delivered with impassioned scorn, is the ultimate debate strategy. "But my challenge", I remind them, "is to persuade me. You've failed so far because your argument is muddy, contradictory, and frankly phony."

Drives them crazy every time.

[DugwayDuke]

So far no one has proposed a solution to climate change. If you believe climate change, then you also have to believe solutions will require real sacrifice. LED bulbs won’t do it.

If you want me to believe that you believe in climate change, lay down an objective, ie, no more than 1.5 degrees F increase by year xxxx. Then layout a program that will achieve that objective along with the costs.

So far the only programs described will cost trillions and will only limit temperatures to about a fourth of the objectives. One can only assume that these programs are not serious since they do not achieve serious results.

Bottom line. If carbon is the problem, then you must limit carbon to pre-industrial age amounts, say 1900. But, then, populations have increased so, per capita, that moves the date back into the early 1800s. Now lay out a program that limits energy consumption to the total carbon emissions of the early 1800s. Now explain to the people why they have to reduce their standards of living to those levels.

[JusPasenThru]

Bkmd

[AndyTheBear]

By the way, my educational background is in economics and business. And for years, my corporate jobs involved making complex financial projections about budgets. In other words, I was perpetuating financial fraud within the company, by order of my boss. He told me to pretend my financial projections were real, and I did. But they were not real. My predictions were in line with whatever my boss told me they would be. I “tuned” my assumptions until I got my boss’s answer.

Both kinds of projections are about what pays. Large investment firms can and do make money by manipulating the market. Suppose they tell you stock XYZ which is trading at 50 dollars a share is projected to reach 75 dollars, it might well be because they have just bought some themselves at 50 dollars and want to sell it at 60 dollars. If giving their projection does not move the market up fast enough they may start selling batches of XYZ at cheaper prices to drive it up to a new high of 53, in order to get retail investors excited about it "going up" in the direction of the phony projection. Of course they then can sell at 60 and then short the market hard in order to drive the price down to 45 where they can cover their shorts.

Climate change is simpler. If one wants get paid, they merely need to predict the gloom that the leftwing politicians can use to sell their policies--although the scam may be drying up as the leftwing politicians are losing power over the purse strings of funding. To gain credibility with the public they can't use large sums of money to start a trend in the market, but they can and do massage the data on occasion....but sadly for them they got caught and now the public doesn't trust them....and if the public wants to invest their own money, they would be wise not to trust the projections of the big investment firms and learn to do their own research.

[Organic Panic]

AGW is not packaged as a scam. It is packaged as the Catholic religion pre-Luther. Pope Gore I sells indulgences and leads bishops like Leo. An army of priests disguised as scientists and missionaries as politicians. All set up to spread the faith. And make a lot of money.

Leo is so scared of sea level rise he spends time on a luxury mega yacht. Poor guy. Maybe if he moved to Kansas and lived EXACTLY how he expects us paeons to live that would help. No buying carbon indulgences from Al Gore

[Texas Eagle]

You probably know that actor Leonardo DiCaprio is a climate activist,

He's not a climate activist. He's a climate actor-vist.

He just acts like he cares for the environment as he flits around the world on his private jet spewing harmful pollutants into the atmosphere.

[Bob434]

Here- I’ll convince you it is a LIE that man is causing climate change- very quickly- numbers don’t lie

CO2 in the atmosphere as a direct result of man amounts to just 0.00136% of the atmosphere- There is nowhere near enough CO2 to cause climate change- nowhere near- Period

Ask leo to explain how just 0.00136% of the atmosphere can possibly capture enough heat to cause global climate change-

The math is as follows:

CO2 and greenhouse gases add up to 0.04% of the atmosphere- man is responsible for just 3.4% of that 0.04% meaning that CO2 as a direct result of man takes up just 0.00136% of the atmosphere

3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136%

Sorry folks- The CO2 by man is nowhere near the amount needed to trap heat and cause global climate change-

There is no thick blanket of CO2 surrounding the globe trapping heat-

To drive this point home- Take an 8x11 sheet of paper- drop a pencil tip on the sheet so that it makes a dot- There is your CO2 volume in relation to the atmosphere-

Leo is a liar- either that or he is ignorant and has been deceived-

[Kickass Conservative]

Manmade Glo-BULL Warming and Cli-MIGHT Change may or may not be occurring. The former is questionable and the latter has been happening since the Earth formed Billions of years ago.

The thing is, it doesn’t matter unless there is some 100% effective resolution that Mankind can implement to prevent one or both scenarios from taking place.

Just to be clear, there isn’t. If Man is causing these calamities, the only solution is to eliminate Man from the equation and see if things suddenly return to what Leftists think is the norm.

Yes, any sane person knows that cannot and will not happen, so President Trump and anyone Posting on Free Republic have been proven right once again.

[Bob434]

Ask Leo how much air by volume that 0.00136% of the atmosphere heats up- then compare his answer (provided he can) to the weight of the atmosphere which stand around 6 quadrillion tons

If he has any shame at all he will decline to answer because the answer would show how silly it is to keep claiming the earth is warming because of man (And remind leo, or inform him, that the small amount of heat that gets trapped then released again quickly reaches equilibrium because it gets massively overwhelmed by the cooler surrounding massive 6 quadrillion ton atmosphere

[Bob434]

[[There is a process to measure a gas’s absorption ability called atomic absorption spectrometry. Suspicious of the entire global warming hysteria, atmospheric physicist James A. Peden put carbon dioxide through just such an analysis. Based on where and how much of the sun’s total radiation output, which consists of light and other wavelengths not visible to human eyes, Peden estimates that carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere takes in no more than 8 percent of the sun’s total radiation.

It’s the same percentage for heat radiated back from Earth. “Man-made CO2 doesn’t appear physically capable of absorbing much more than two-thousandths of the radiated heat passing upward through the atmosphere,”]]

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/01/man-made-co2-cant-cause-global-warming-it-doesnt-have-the-mojo/

[[OSU Stadium holds 100,000 Buckeye Fans and atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm. If every Buckeye Fan represents one atmospheric molecule, then 40 Buckeye Fans would represent atmospheric CO2. Man however is not responsible for all the atmospheric CO2, and is responsible for at most 15 of those 40 molecules of CO2. Man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is the equivalent of 15 Buckeye Fans in OSU Stadium.

CO2 is 0.00004 or 0.04% of the atmosphere. Is it plausible that “activating” 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere can actually result in a material temperature change?

Does it seem plausible that “thermalizing” 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can make a material difference upon the remaining 2,499? Especially when its energy if consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius?]]

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/how-to-discuss-global-warming-with-a-liberal-the-smoking-gun-files/