aquascoot wrote on Feb 1^st, 2021 at 7:57pm:



Why does the solution always put workers on third world conditions and wages ?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1^st, 2021 at 10:33pm:


Because it gives them something to bounce of of bed for.

You?

Mortdooley wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 12:04am:


"Turdging"! ... yeah, I like that description

Mort, taxes will rise, get ready for them, they will be "gottya over a barrel" taxes - tax increases on things you can't do without and are necessary for your car, home and work

The increases will likely be small, almost unnoticeable, because many millions of US citizens will be paying them

But they could end up being incremental, and each time, the gullible will say "Oh, that wasn't much of an increase"

Biden, will then bring in a standard/increased basic income for all workers, so they can afford the taxes


Employers will have to cut back on staff due to higher employee overheads. Small businesses will find it hard to stay in business. Large companies will start to take over and drive small businesses into the ground

Unemployment will rise, so Biden might abandon the time limit on payout of unemployment cheques per unemployed person, and increase the unemployment handout

The RINOS will be in agreement with all this Biden destruction, they are as bad as the Democrats - traitorous Globalists!

Mortdooley wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 12:04am:




Is that serial pervert still on TV?

Mix_Master wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 8:23am:



That's right, it's International Socialism, all western nations are adopting it. Stalin had no need to worry about it becoming international and now, Biden and the Rinos are helping it along like the Libs and Labs are doing here

Problem is, and as Morrison said yesterday, "We can't run the country on taxpayers money (stimulus) forever" - Socialism runs out of other peoples' money

"Socialism" is "Famine"

Where's the "Feast" in Biden's anti-business policies?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2021 at 10:33pm:



No I don't. There are climate skeptics out there with far more qualifications than mine.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2021 at 10:33pm:



And yet you cite NASA Consensus.. And I have even shown where those of the supposed 97% claims are in fact wrong. But you believe them implicitly. Now that makes you a dickhead.

From Cook et al 2013 with additions for the number of papers found to mach their descriptor -

1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% : 64
2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize: 922
3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it: 2910
4,No Position: 7970
5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW: 54
6,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify: 15
7,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%: 9

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html

So just 64 papers out of 11,944 reckoned that AGW was more than 50% of any warming. That's 0.5% of papers.

So let's see the claim 97% of climate papers agree. Just what do they agree on? That there is warming? That this warming is dangerous? That this warming has been shown OUTSIDE the models?

"Self-limiting, Logarithmic: For the past several weeks, TWTW has been discussing the research on the greenhouse effect done by W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer (W & H) using the HITRAN database that began in the 1960s and is well established and tested. This database of both observations and calculations is used to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere. Using the calculations of W & H, Professor of Physics, emeritus, Howard Hayden extended their findings. 

The earth is cooled by outgoing infrared radiation, which has a longer wavelength than visible light. Greenhouse gases interfere with infrared radiation by absorbing and re-emitting photons at particularly wavelengths. Expressed simply, as the concentration of a specific greenhouse gas, CO2, increases, its effectiveness diminishes. In other words, as the amount of CO2 increases, its ability to further increase temperatures decreases. This is similar to an automobile approaching maximum speed. It will not go much faster no matter how hard the driver presses on the accelerator.

In the highly influential 1979 Charney report, the committee attempted to get around this self-limiting characteristic by claiming, without physical evidence, that water vapor will greatly amplify the influence of CO2. But this amplification has not been found in over 40 years of atmospheric research. Thus, the Charney report is another example of one of the many dead-ends that scientists have speculated about greenhouse gases.

There is nothing wrong with such speculation and errors, as long as scientists involved recognize them and correct the errors. As Richard Feynman explained in his famous lectures, scientific theory starts with a guess. The important step is testing that guess against all appropriate physical evidence. 

A common analogy is that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere act as a blanket protecting the earth from cooling too rapidly. Using that analogy, one can say that adding carbon dioxide to today’s atmosphere is like adding a handkerchief on top of a warm quilt. There is some effect, but it’s not noticeable."

http://sepp.org/twtwfiles/2020/TWTW%2012-5-20.pdf
The paper is -

https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2020/12/WThermal-Radiationf.pdf?x459...

"Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause).

Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these, 63 % disagreed with their abstract ratings.

[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) (October 2014)
Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) (October 2014)
Science & Education – Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) (August 2013)"

https://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

I have only included journal articles.

Mix_Master wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2021 at 12:41pm:


its a catastrophe and a disgrace