Neil deGrasse Tyson: America Will 'Sink Lower' Before Congress ActsOn Climate Change

On Friday, July 25, 2014 12:22:19 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:

On another front from Daily Finance.com:

The latest weekly drought monitor from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration shows much of California in an extreme or exceptional drought,
the two most severe categories. Pockets of Texas are also in exceptional
drought. "The ongoing drought in California could potentially have large and
lasting effects on fruit, vegetable, dairy and egg prices, and drought
conditions in Texas and Oklahoma could drive beef prices up even further,"
the USDA said.

Of course there have been droughts before. It is something that happens in
nature.

But the fact that carbon dioxide absorbs, and is heated by, the long-wave
infrared radiation that the Earth emits - by which process, places get cooler
at night - but is transparent to light is well known. The details of global
warming may be unsettled, but the basic process is a fact.

John Savard

On 7/24/2014 5:46 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:03:04 +0000 (UTC), Bert
wrote:

Meaningful action to protect the planet?

Presumably, this involves forcing China, India and friends to shut down.

They hardly need to be forced. China is investing more in non-carbon
energy development than all the rest of the world combined. They know
exactly where they're going to be in a few decades when their coal is
gone.

The U.S. has a hugely greater per capita carbon output than China or
India. We can get our own affairs in order and have a powerful impact
on the rest of the world at the same time.

Whoever owns the methods of energy production owns the world. And at
this rate, that's not going to be the U.S.



I agree, but it's the same with the AGW supporters. They WANT government
to control types and amounts of energy generation. Which would in effect
give government total control over it's population.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:52:25 -0400, AM wrote:

I agree, but it's the same with the AGW supporters. They WANT government
to control types and amounts of energy generation. Which would in effect
give government total control over it's population.

What is an AGW supporter?

The very purpose of governments is to act in the interest of their
citizens, ideally at the will of their citizens. If there was ever
anything that falls into the jurisdiction of government control, it's
the regulation of pollutants! In the U.S., where is there evidence of
government control over its population by controlling energy
production? We seek reasonable regulation of methods which cause
universal harm, but we don't regulate the technology, and other
regulation is largely related to protections from granted monopolies
and managing shared infrastructure.

On Friday, July 25, 2014 3:52:25 PM UTC-5, AM wrote:
On 7/24/2014 5:46 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:03:04 +0000 (UTC), Bert

wrote:



Meaningful action to protect the planet?



Presumably, this involves forcing China, India and friends to shut down.

RichA wrote:
On Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:24:03 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson predicted during an interview with
Salon published Wednesday that climate change will have to "get very
bad" before Congress feels threatened enough to advance meaningful
environmental legislation.

He's an imbecile. IF man-made global warming was real, and it's not, it
would make far more sense tackling it in 100 years when technology was up
to the task, instead of pretending spending trillions of dollars on
hair-brained "fixes" today and risking the entire world's economy.

http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg

On Friday, July 25, 2014 4:14:05 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:52:25 -0400, AM wrote:



I agree, but it's the same with the AGW supporters. They WANT government

to control types and amounts of energy generation. Which would in effect

give government total control over it's population.



What is an AGW supporter?

What's an AGW supporter? That's like asking someone who believes in cancer and believes that it is a threat to our wellbeing and does whatever is necessary to mitigate the threat of cancer, then labeling them a cancer supporter. In fact, those who dismiss cancer as a threat are actually cancer supporters, same with AGW.

On Friday, July 25, 2014 4:31:06 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote:

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:24:03 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson predicted during an interview with

Salon published Wednesday that climate change will have to "get very

bad" before Congress feels threatened enough to advance meaningful

environmental legislation.



He's an imbecile. IF man-made global warming was real, and it's not, it

would make far more sense tackling it in 100 years when technology was up

to the task, instead of pretending spending trillions of dollars on

hair-brained "fixes" today and risking the entire world's economy.



http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg

John Oliver is (one of) the greatest!

On Friday, July 25, 2014 8:56:22 AM UTC-7, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:00:09 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:30:02 PM UTC-7, Uncarollo2 wrote:



On Thursday, July 24, 2014 3:23:31 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:







On Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:15:02 PM UTC-7, Uncarollo2 wrote:















On Thursday, July 24, 2014 3:02:32 PM UTC-5, oriel36 wrote:































































The reason this debacle occurred is due to lack of astronomers for the answer will never be that the Earth is warming or cooling,for that will always happen, but who can raise the astronomical standards above a celestial sphere cult(ure).































































Actually the world WAS very much warmer at some geologic period a long time ago, so warm in fact that the only living things were microbes. There were no mammals (humans included), and the atmosphere had a huge amount of CO2. This facilitated the growth of vast forests, which lived and died and built up a huge reservoir of carbon, in the form of coal, that we exploit today. Sort of a gift from eons ago, but a double edged sword. If we burn it all, we will simply recreate those conditions that were hostile to life back then.































































It is interesting to me that only about 100 years ago we did not have the means to fly people around the globe, but since then we have actually flown people to the Moon. Such progress in only one or two generations. And yet we still rely our daily existence on a hope and a prayer that things will go swimmingly for each of us and the human race. No worries, eh? What me?































The upper .1% caste never has anything to worry about, because it's only the lower 99.9% caste that's getting screwed.















We're all in this together. There's no upper caste and lower caste. Nothing prevents you from getting rich yourself. If you have a good idea for a product or service, you will find lots of sources for financing. Of course, if you have no ideas, then there's nothing to be done about it.







You've got to be kidding. What planet did you say you were from?







Trillionaires don't just pop into existence from a few good ideas, at least not without a great deal of spilled blood and skulduggery.







What part of global inflation do you think is perfectly natural?



Trillionaires don't make up the top 1%, which is what I was referring to, and you also were referring to. The top 1% actually don't have more than a few million in assets. And yes, a good idea can make you a million. It takes time, perseverance and ingenuity. So now, be a good boy and go back down in your basement and read your stash of Archie comic books.

Actually it's the top .1% caste that are millionaires, and only the upper .0001% that are trillionaires.

You can't tell a trillionaire what they can or can not do.

On Friday, July 25, 2014 1:52:25 PM UTC-7, AM wrote:
On 7/24/2014 5:46 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:03:04 +0000 (UTC), Bert

wrote:



Meaningful action to protect the planet?



Presumably, this involves forcing China, India and friends to shut down.



They hardly need to be forced. China is investing more in non-carbon

energy development than all the rest of the world combined. They know

exactly where they're going to be in a few decades when their coal is

gone.



The U.S. has a hugely greater per capita carbon output than China or

India. We can get our own affairs in order and have a powerful impact

on the rest of the world at the same time.



Whoever owns the methods of energy production owns the world. And at

this rate, that's not going to be the U.S.







I agree, but it's the same with the AGW supporters. They WANT government

to control types and amounts of energy generation. Which would in effect

give government total control over it's population.

Government is no longer smart enough to fix hardly anything. These dysfunctional governments have bigger fish to fry (favors to attend to).

The NWO has to cull 95% of humanity if the mainstream status quo gets its way.

On Friday, July 25, 2014 10:31:06 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote:

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:24:03 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson predicted during an interview with

Salon published Wednesday that climate change will have to "get very

bad" before Congress feels threatened enough to advance meaningful

environmental legislation.



He's an imbecile. IF man-made global warming was real, and it's not, it

would make far more sense tackling it in 100 years when technology was up

to the task, instead of pretending spending trillions of dollars on

hair-brained "fixes" today and risking the entire world's economy.



http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg

What did I tell you Collins - this is not about whether the planet warms or cools nor whether humans can control the planet's temperature as though it were a household thermostat, this is an issue which can really only be found in this forum regarding the root causes which distinguish speculation/predictions from the stable narrative provided by genuine interpretation.

All astronomers with the talent or gift of interpreting perspectives have some experience with those who do not and especially when the core of the speculation is driven by fear -

"The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill. " Galileo

I know quite well that the more people come to appreciate the motions of the Earth and their effects on terrestrial sciences,the less they are drawn into this mutually destructive debacle known once as 'global warming' but extended to the intellectually suicidal 'climate change'.

The politics of empiricism is not so much that its proponents intentionally set out to disrupt and disturb the relationship between astronomy and terrestrial sciences but rather that the politics are so crude that I wouldn't even engage in a meaningful discussion with such a low level of the use of reasoning,even if it can be called that.