ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"

[FAST]

Whatever Fuji has replied with (I have him on ignore) is sure to be factually incorrect and of zero value
He lacks the intelligence to make logical arguments and when the heat gets turned up he tattle tales to the mods. Behaviour which is most often associated with teens under the age of 14.

As I told another member here regarding having fuji on ignore,...that only encourages him to insult you behind your back,...makes him feel brave.

He also does it to people he has cried enough to have them banned,...then starts his childish insulting knowing that member can't respond,...definatly says a lot about him,...

 

[fuji]

No Doubt The Fuji man has tried to discredit me.
This is laughable as he is the one who feels he could control the economy with precision using a dual currency Ponzi Scheme he cooked up. He is absolute that his plan would work despite it being explicitly forbidden under NAFTA and would be destroyed by the arbitrage players in currency markets.
He also insists on allowing China to expand its growing pollution while insisting the west must curb its emission.
Then there was his plan to have the government subsidize the production of welfare bastards by single mothers.
Finally he insists that his desire to secretly screw his best friend wife does not in any way reflect upon him as an honourable and trustworthy person.

With respect to this thread Fuji has taken an position that Climate Change is real and caused by man with 100% absolute certainty. Anyone who opposes his view is in his opinion an idiot.

While I have expressed the opinion that the scientific time line is far too short and the earths climate have always been changing well before man entered the equation.
However to ignore the possibility we may be damaging the planet would be a grave mistake.
A far more balanced and rational view.


Fuji is either a troll who likes to stir the pot until it gets too hot for him (when he tattle tales) or he is not whom he portrays himself to be.

I will let the other members here judge whos opinion is of value, however it should be crystal clear for all to see

You don't even know what a Ponzi scheme is. Immunizating currency versus a commodity certainly isn't one. You also don't understand arbitrage, it's a word you've heard but you couldn't possibly describe an arbitrage mechanism because there isn't one in this case.

Let me remind you first the mechanism: all actual physical barrels of oil exported from Canada are sold for USD at the world market price, with that price paid to the BoC, or some sovereign fund, which then pays the supplier of that oil in Canadian dollars at a pegged exchange rate, one that is updated periodically to match the floating rate, but slowly.

Now explain to us all how you think this mechanism results in the BoC borrowing USD.

What it does do is stabilize the CAD, which still will adjust long term to market conditions, but not in response to changes in the price of oil, at least not immediately. This gives exchange rate predictability to manufacturers at the cost of some lost profit opportunity to oil producers.

You can hurl all the insults you like but you discredited yourself.

 

[JohnLarue]

As I told another member here regarding having fuji on ignore,...that only encourages him to insult you behind your back,...makes him feel brave.

He also does it to people he has cried enough to have them banned,...then starts his childish insulting knowing that member can't respond,...definatly says a lot about him,...

Yes his behaviour is absolutely shameful
I suspect he is a very troubled individual in real life

 

[FAST]

Yes his behaviour is absolutely shameful
I suspect he is a very troubled individual in real life

When a member has to bring up a thread from a year ago,...definatly a sign of some issues.

 

[Bud Plug]

Gravity is also a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. If it wasn't so sad and dangerous for our children and grandchildren it would be quite funny.

Actually you make a pretty good point, albeit unintentionally.

Everyone has always agreed that objects that are dropped from above the earth (but within the earth's atmosphere) tend to drop to the ground (much like everyone agrees that thermometers provide reasonably accurate measurements of temperature, and therefore there is abundant evidence that temperatures (including average temperatures measured over periods of time) across the globe go up and down periodically (change)). However, do you know how many theories of gravity were held out as reliable by a consensus of the scientific community prior to the current theory of gravity? Answer - at least 5! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity This scientific development took about 1500 years to get to where scientific thinking about gravity is today.

The point is, the debate about climate change is about causality and the ability to predict future temperature patterns (and the effect of those patterns) - not just about observable changes in temperature. Climate study is a relatively young science without a great track record of reliability thus far.

If someone had ever postulated - "My theory is that Americans are responsible for a significant part of the effects of gravity, and my prediction is that, as a result of this American activity, gravitational pull will increase until the moon is drawn into to the Earth, causing complete cataclysm! Therefore Americans must pay dearly for the cost of offsetting their behaviour" - you could bet that Americans would demand incontrovertible proof of such a claim before they'd be willing to fork over the demand.

So, if you really want to understand the Trump reference, what he was claiming is that the theory that Americans are causing and/or are uniquely responsible for climate change and/or that climate change will lead to cataclysmic consequences is a hoax invented by the Chinese for competitive advantage.

 

[fuji]

Yes his behaviour is absolutely shameful
I suspect he is a very troubled individual in real life

When a member has to bring up a thread from a year ago,...definatly a sign of some issues.

The usual suspects fail to respond rationally and as always fall back on sputtering insults.

 

[FAST]

The usual suspects fail to respond rationally and as always fall back on sputtering insults.

Actually,...both of posts were rational,...stating that you are not,...

 

[toguy5252]

So, if you really want to understand the Trump reference, what he was claiming is that the theory that Americans are causing and/or are uniquely responsible for climate change and/or that climate change will lead to cataclysmic consequences is a hoax invented by the Chinese for competitive advantage.

I will ignore the earlier silliness in your post. It is a common ploy in attempting to refute science to simply misstate the underlying premise. No one has suggested that Americans are causing and/or uniquely responsible for climate change. The release of carbon into the atmosphere is measurable and the US is among the largest releasers. It therefore make sens that if the US was to reduce its carbon emissions that would have a positive effect. The arguments against climate change and man's contribution are for the most part based on wrong assumptions and phone purported science which in most cases can be traced back to so-called scientists and think tanks etc funded by coal and carbon based companies and industries.

 

[Bud Plug]

I will ignore the earlier silliness in your post. It is a common ploy in attempting to refute science to simply misstate the underlying premise. No one has suggested that Americans are causing and/or uniquely responsible for climate change. The release of carbon into the atmosphere is measurable and the US is among the largest releasers. It therefore make sens that if the US was to reduce its carbon emissions that would have a positive effect. The arguments against climate change and man's contribution are for the most part based on wrong assumptions and phone purported science which in most cases can be traced back to so-called scientists and think tanks etc funded by coal and carbon based companies and industries.

Your post was simply unintelligible and wildly off point. Somewhere in your meandering you seem to agree with the notion that America is being blamed as a chief contributor to global warming, yet in some poorly articulated way, you're also taking umbrage with that? I really shouldn't guess at what you meant, but that's what it would take to respond to you. In any event, I can see that my extension of your analogy was totally wasted on you.

However, to be less stylish and more direct, no one is denying the evidence of temperature changes around the world, just like no one is denying the existence of some force that draws objects to the earth. The debate is about what is causing observed temperature changes, what predictions can be derived from models of purported variables, and what if anything can be done by humans to affect these modelled outcomes. As a result, the premise of your comment was a complete red herring.

 

[toguy5252]

Your post was simply unintelligible and wildly off point. Somewhere in your meandering you seem to agree with the notion that America is being blamed as a chief contributor to global warming, yet in some poorly articulated way, you're also taking umbrage with that? I really shouldn't guess at what you meant, but that's what it would take to respond to you. In any event, I can see that my extension of your analogy was totally wasted on you.

However, to be less stylish and more direct, no one is denying the evidence of temperature changes around the world, just like no one is denying the existence of some force that draws objects to the earth. The debate is about what is causing observed temperature changes, what predictions can be derived from models of purported variables, and what if anything can be done by humans to affect these modelled outcomes. As a result, the premise of your comment was a complete red herring.

LOL. Read the post. In any event there is NO doubt that man contribute s to global warming. None. The earth is warming. The US is a contributor to that warming. Although the science itself is complicated the basic facts are not.

 

[fuji]

Your post was simply unintelligible and wildly off point. Somewhere in your meandering you seem to agree with the notion that America is being blamed as a chief contributor to global warming, yet in some poorly articulated way, you're also taking umbrage with that? I really shouldn't guess at what you meant, but that's what it would take to respond to you. In any event, I can see that my extension of your analogy was totally wasted on you.

However, to be less stylish and more direct, no one is denying the evidence of temperature changes around the world, just like no one is denying the existence of some force that draws objects to the earth. The debate is about what is causing observed temperature changes, what predictions can be derived from models of purported variables, and what if anything can be done by humans to affect these modelled outcomes. As a result, the premise of your comment was a complete red herring.

If you assign responsibility to the ultimate consumers then the US is#1 by a country mile. For example, it costs emissions to operate a factory that makes bicycles, emissions to produce the materials used, and emissions to transport everything.

Assign those emissions to the ultimate consumer who buys the bicycle and the US it's that largest cause is emissions.

 

[FAST]

If you assign responsibility to the ultimate consumers then the US is#1 by a country mile. For example, it costs emissions to operate a factory that makes bicycles, emissions to produce the materials used, and emissions to transport everything.

Assign those emissions to the ultimate consumer who buys the bicycle and the US it's that largest cause is emissions.

And just were the hell do you think the rest of the world gets most of it consumer goods,...other than that 3rd world country,...of air water and soil pollution,...China,...???

 

[GPIDEAL]

First I have to compliment you on your post,...being a definite cut above the 12 year olds troll post #187,...that was completely expected,...and apologies to 12 year olds.

Down to business,...I did not question once what a peer review is,..contrary to fuji's usual lies,...."reviewed by his peers",...says it all,...I don't need a lesson on what it is.

But you did not respond to my points as to why I don't trust the magazine,...if you disagree with my points,...fine,...but at least make a comment,...otherwise your post I quoted,...is non responsive.

Point,...Do you actually think that if a contrary theory regarding global warming/climate change is presented,... that completely shoots down EVERY article that magazine has ever published on the subject as complete rubbish and lies,...it would be passed by some anonymous reviewer that works for that magazine,...???

Thank FAST, but I entered this discussion late and don't know what magazine you're talking about.

Hopefully, most scientists don't bow to political pressure & spew utter bullshit, lest they might lose respect or credibility with their peers.

If somebody could disprove every element of the AGW theory it would have to be accepted by their peers. Also, you'd think they'd be a Nobel Prize Recipient.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I'll give this a shot GPIDEAL,...I actually think you are mature enough to reply without the 1st word in your post being "you",...followed by a bunch of childish insults.

Some points.

-My take on this subject of peer review is,...-To have a magazine with individual anonymous reviewers decide what is acceptable,...without any unbiased oversight,...I have a problem.

-There has been a lot of inertial for decades now regarding man being the sole cause,...CO2,... of global warming/climate change.

-Thousands of "experts" incomes depend solely on man being responsible,...

-The UN is pushing this rationale for its own agenda,...which has NOTHING to do with the climate,...but only adds to the pressure to conform.

-To have a complete reversal,... say in the form of the actual cause being a sun cycle for example,... would be a disaster for 10's of thousands who depend on the "current" status.

-I know,...I'm saying I don't trust the current snow ball rolling down hill,...is a bit much to take,...hey,...that's MY opinion. ( it might actually melt 1st,...right

-Nobody here is in any position to actually debate the globes climate,...nobody.

-Sorry for rambling,...I'm short on time right now.

I have to reply again to this.

I don't have reason to believe that it's a conspiracy of independent scientists who need to make money off of this.

Peer review essentially provides or is supposed to provide, unbiased feedback. How the process works, or what it entails, I don't pretend to know exactly.

 

[FAST]

My opinion,...

Good posts GPIDEAL

I really don't think there is an actual conspiracy going on,...just as I have said,...but too much inertia,...and my distrust of the whole system,...especially when the UN is involved.

Think about it,...this grew from a theory that all of the interested parties agreed was without a doubt was causing global warming/climate change,...with nothing provable at the time,...then proceed on that singular track to prove the theory was correct,... while ignoring any other possibilities.

Early on,...the "facts" were that Al Gore was going swimming at the North pole in 2015 ,...and still,...who cares,...just one example.

I still think that if some scientist,...most defiantly does NOT have to be one who specializes in the climate,...was to present facts supporting for example,... that the "current" global warming/climate change is simply a product of a natural sun cycle,...he/she would have a considerable amount of push back when trying to present that concept.

Just imagine what the results of that being proven correct,...actually unimaginable.

 

[JohnLarue]

And just were the hell do you think the rest of the world gets most of it consumer goods,...other than that 3rd world country,...of air water and soil pollution,...China,...???

In addition, in Fuji 's strange world , there is no incentive for the factory , those producing the materials or the shipper to invest in reducing the emissions they create if the ultimate environmental responsibility and cost lies with the consumer
It is his double talk to gloss over his desire to have China expand their pollution and have the US pay the penalty for the pollution of the Chinese cycle company, regardless of how ambitious or unambitious China is about controlling its emissions.
A flaw agreement hiding a dirty truth.

If you create a mess, you will tend to make smaller messes going forward if you are required to pay to clean up that mess.
China has created a massive smog cloud over a big part of Asia, Fuji thinks the US consumer should pay the penalty

The ability to pass on costs to the consumer must be determined by how competitive the market is for the end product.
Not by the declaration of a Fuji

 

[JohnLarue]

LOL. Read the post. In any event there is NO doubt that man contribute s to global warming. None. The earth is warming. The US is a contributor to that warming. Although the science itself is complicated the basic facts are not.

You can not state that with 100% certainty
I suspect it may be true and worth the efforts to avoid a man made disaster,

However the earths climate has been is constantly changing for almost 5 Billion years.
Man has been on the planet what 10,000 -20,000 years?
Keeping temperature records for maybe 400-800 years?
Ice core samples can be extrapolated several hundreds of thousands of years, again a fraction of the planets history

100% certainty ??
No

However the downside to ignoring the possibility would be self inflected extinction, which would be the biggest sin mankind ever committed

 

[toguy5252]

You can not state that with 100% certainty
I suspect it may be true and worth the efforts to avoid a man made disaster,

However the earths climate has been is constantly changing for almost 5 Billion years.
Man has been on the planet what 10,000 -20,000 years?
Keeping temperature records for maybe 400-800 years?
Ice core samples can be extrapolated several hundreds of thousands of years, again a fraction of the planets history

100% certainty ??
No

However the downside to ignoring the possibility would be self inflected extinction, which would be the biggest sin mankind ever committed

That phony science is one of the favorites of the coal lobby and has been totally debunked. The fact that scientists cannot measure precisely the rate at which change is occurring does not mean it is not changing as a result of all that carbon being spewed into the atmosphere. Another standard tactic. Change cannot be measured precisely therefore global warming is not man made. Sad. Feel sorry for our children and grandchildren.

 

[fuji]

And just were the hell do you think the rest of the world gets most of it consumer goods,...other than that 3rd world country,...of air water and soil pollution,...China,...???

Sure that's correct. So now assign each country a share of the emissions equal to its consumption of goods. Yes a share of the emissions from China will be assigned to Nigeria since Nigerians certainly buy Chinese goods but Western countries will dominate the list and the USA we'll be #1 by a country mile.

 

[fuji]

In addition, in Fuji 's strange world , there is no incentive for the factory , those producing the materials or the shipper to invest in reducing the emissions they create if the ultimate environmental responsibility and cost lies with the consumer
It is his double talk to gloss over his desire to have China expand their pollution and have the US pay the penalty for the pollution of the Chinese cycle company, regardless of how ambitious or unambitious China is about controlling its emissions.
A flaw agreement hiding a dirty truth.

If you create a mess, you will tend to make smaller messes going forward if you are required to pay to clean up that mess.
China has created a massive smog cloud over a big part of Asia, Fuji thinks the US consumer should pay the penalty

The ability to pass on costs to the consumer must be determined by how competitive the market is for the end product.
Not by the declaration of a Fuji

Your inability to think is rearing its head again. The point is to institute a tax on goods proportional to the carbon emitted in their production. That will cut demand for goods produced using high pollution processes by making them expensive and advantage goods produced with low emissions processes by making them cheap.

When just California did this for cars it resulted in a shift towards more efficient vehicles in every country. Once a manufacturer is building to meet California standards it's usually cheapest just to make that same product for everyone with only relatively minor variants.

Now imagine all the G7 economies agreed to do this. The Chinese factories would retool to meet the demands of their customers.