passed up by CTE alarmists for being the most over-reacting group of people in the world.
Good news for global warming alarmists. You are being
- Thread starter gonegolfing
- Start date
Ah. I guess I am missing out on the alarmists since I only tend to watch games, but not sports gossip shows. I'll have to monitor the thread, but stuff like targeting rules are a no brainer.
Gonegolfing lives in a world where scientists are witches. To each their own, I guess.
Over-reacting? There are some big issues out there, but not much is bigger than rendering the only environment available uninhabitable.
It's almost laughable to think of it as a ho-hum issue like concussions.
Comparing something which will ultimately impact 100% of the people on the planet, to something that impacts 0.0001% of the population which happens to participate in high-impact sports, is indeed laughable.
Were you molested by your high school chemistry teacher or something?
You people make my laugh... there is literally nothing we, as humans, can do to ruin the Earth.
He said 'uninhabitable', not 'ruining' or 'destroying' Earth.
And the main caveat is that the whole planet won't likely become 'uninhabitable', but major regions may be, leaving far less of it for 7 to 9 billion people to try and eke out a living on.
Survival may be fairly difficult in low-lying areas that become inundated by 1m or more sea level rise, but if you think you can live a meter or two underwater, go for it.
The laughable thing is that science agrees that both are taking place. That's the really astounding thing. And gonegolfing plays the witch card instead.
Ruin it in a sense that it will stop orbiting the Sun, you're correct. Ruin it in a sense that your children can visit the Maldives, you're wrong.
Yep, it may be a dead hunk of rock hurtling around the sun, but it won't be ruined.
Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not a right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this, says British scientist and journalist Matt Ridley.
Even polar bears are thriving so far. It's worth noting that the three years with the lowest polar bear cub survival in the western Hudson Bay (1974, 1984 and 1992) were the years when the sea ice was too thick for ringed seals to appear in good numbers in spring. Bears need broken ice.
Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting wood for coal in power stations -- all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change -- have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities.
So we are doing real harm now to impede a change that will produce net benefits for 70 years.
- See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23746#sthash.bvNGw16G.dpuf
- The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity.
- It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths.
- Overall, Tol finds that climate change in the past century improved human welfare.
- He calculates the improvement has been 1.4 percent of global economic output, rising to 1.5 percent by 2025.
- For some people, this means the difference between survival and starvation.
Even polar bears are thriving so far. It's worth noting that the three years with the lowest polar bear cub survival in the western Hudson Bay (1974, 1984 and 1992) were the years when the sea ice was too thick for ringed seals to appear in good numbers in spring. Bears need broken ice.
Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting wood for coal in power stations -- all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change -- have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities.
So we are doing real harm now to impede a change that will produce net benefits for 70 years.
- See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23746#sthash.bvNGw16G.dpuf
That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever seen. The article in your link itself links to an op-ed in The Spectator with zero scientific evidence to support his claims.
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a non-profit American think tank[3] whose goals are to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control. Topics addressed include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, education and environmental regulation.
The NCPA was founded in February 1983[4] by British businessman Antony Fisher[5] together with Dallas businessmen Russell Perry (CEO of Republic Financial Services),[6] Wayne Calloway (CEO of Frito-Lay), John F. Stephens (CEO of Employers Insurance of Texas),[7] and Jere W. Thompson (CEO of the Southland Corporation).
Contents
History
Its first offices were at the University of Dallas. Today the organisation has offices in Dallas and Washington, D.C.
The NCPA's founding president is libertarian economist John C. Goodman. In June 2014, the NCPA board and Goodman accused each other of misconduct and Goodman left the organization.[8] Leadership of the NCPA includes:
In 2005, the NCPA dismissed Bruce Bartlett, a Republican commentator, after he submitted a copy of the manuscript of his book, "The Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy".[11]
Issues
Media attention has focused on the NCPA (for example, U.S. News & World Report,[12] Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel,[13] Orange County Register[14]) for recommending pension reform legislation including automatic enrollment into companies' 401(k) plans.
The NCPA was a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, an organization created by the now-defunct non-profit group Consumer Alert that described itself as "an alliance of some two dozen non-profit public policy groups concerned about the implications of the Kyoto Protocol for consumers," and which was generally skeptical of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.[15] NCPA has also attempted to debunk peak oil claims.[citation needed]
Funding
NCPA's revenues for the fiscal year ending 9/30/10 were $4,222,403 against expenses of $5,888,951; for the fiscal year ending 9/30/09 were $4,222,403 against expenses of $7,569,793; for the fiscal year ending 9/30/08 they were revenues of $6,603,905 against expenses of $4,898,261.[16] As of November 2013, the organizations's web site reported that for 2011 its funding breakdown was 52% from foundations, 21% from individuals and 22% from corporations.[17]
According to an article in The Guardian newspaper, in 2008 the NCPA received USD 75,000 from ExxonMobil.[18] ExxonMobil's public policy giving report for 2012 shows no donations to the NCPA.[19]
According to Greenpeace, the NCPA received at least $570,000 from Koch Industries in the eleven-year period ending in 2008.[20]
In 1992, the New York Times reported that the NCPA was partially funded by the insurance industry.[21]
Ideology
The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by the People for the American Way, a politically liberal advocacy organization. [22]
Sounds pretty fair and balanced!
And the "scientist" quoted in the article:
Political and scientific views
Role of government regulation
In a 2006 edition of the on-line magazine Edge - the third culture, Ridley wrote a response to the question "What's your dangerous idea?" which was entitled "Government is the problem not the solution",[40] in which he describes his attitude to government regulation: "In every age and at every time there have been people who say we need more regulation, more government. Sometimes, they say we need it to protect exchange from corruption, to set the standards and police the rules, in which case they have a point, though often they exaggerate it... The dangerous idea we all need to learn is that the more we limit the growth of government, the better off we will all be."
In 2007 the environmentalist George Monbiot wrote an article in The Guardian connecting Ridley's libertarian economic philosophy and the £27 billion failure of Northern Rock.[41] On 1 June 2010 Monbiot followed up his previous article in the context of Matt Ridley's book The Rational Optimist, which had just been published. Monbiot took the view that Ridley had failed to learn from the collapse of Northern Rock.[42]
Ridley has responded to Monbiot on his website, stating "George Monbiot’s recent attack on me in the Guardian is misleading. I do not hate the state. In fact, my views are much more balanced than Monbiot's selective quotations imply." [43] On 19 June 2010 Monbiot countered with another article on the Guardian website, further questioning Ridley's claims and his response.[44]
In November 2010, the Wall Street Journal published a lengthy exchange between Ridley and the Microsoft founder Bill Gates on topics discussed in Ridley's book The Rational Optimist.[45][46] Gates said that "What Mr. Ridley fails to see is that worrying about the worst case—being pessimistic, to a degree—can actually help to drive a solution"; Ridley said "I am certainly not saying, 'Don't worry, be happy.' Rather, I'm saying, 'Don't despair, be ambitious.'"
Ridley recently summarised his own views on his political philosophy during the 2011 Hayek Lecture: "[T]hat the individual is not – and had not been for 120,000 years – able to support his lifestyle; that the key feature of trade is that it enables us to work for each other not just for ourselves; that there is nothing so anti-social (or impoverishing) as the pursuit of self sufficiency; and that authoritarian, top-down rule is not the source of order or progress."[47]
In an email exchange, Ridley responded to the environmental activist Mark Lynas' repeated charges of a right-wing agenda with the following reply:
On the topic of labels, you repeatedly call me a member of "the right". Again, on what grounds? I am not a reactionary in the sense of not wanting social change: I make this abundantly clear throughout my book. I am not a hierarchy lover in the sense of trusting the central authority of the state: quite the opposite. I am not a conservative who defends large monopolies, public or private: I celebrate the way competition causes creative destruction that benefits the consumer against the interest of entrenched producers. I do not preach what the rich want to hear — the rich want to hear the gospel of Monbiot, that technological change is bad, that the hoi polloi should stop clogging up airports, that expensive home-grown organic food is the way to go, that big business and big civil service should be in charge. So in what sense am I on the right? I am a social and economic liberal: I believe that economic liberty leads to greater opportunities for the poor to become less poor, which is why I am in favour of it. Market liberalism and social liberalism go hand in hand in my view.[48]
Ridley argues that the capacity of humans for change and social progress is underestimated, and denies what he sees as overly pessimistic views of global climate change[49] and Western birthrate decline.
Climate change
Matt Ridley has argued for a "lukewarm" view of climate change and against renewable energy policies that he considers damaging to the economy as well as the environment. In a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2013 he wrote:
I have written about climate change and energy policy for more than 25 years. I have come to the conclusion that current energy and climate policy is probably more dangerous, both economically and ecologically, than climate change itself. This is not the same as arguing that climate has not changed or that mankind is not partly responsible. That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept. What I do not accept is that the change is or will be damaging, or that current policy would prevent it.[50]
Ridley has consistently argued that the evidence suggests that carbon dioxide emissions are currently doing more good than harm, largely because of the CO2 fertilisation effect, which boosts crop growth and the growth of forests and wild vegetation, and that the best evidence suggests this will continue to be the case for many decades. In 2015 he wrote about a report by the independent scientist Indur Goklany as follows:
As Goklany demonstrates, the assessments used by policy makers have overestimated warming so far, underestimated the direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change, and underestimated the human capacity to adapt.[51]
In 2014, a Wall Street Journal op-ed written by Ridley was sharply challenged by Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University's Earth Institute. Sachs termed "absurd" Ridley's characterization of a paper in Science magazine by two scientists Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung. Sachs cited the data from the Science article to rebut Ridley's contentions, and stated that the "paper's conclusions are the very opposite of Ridley's".[52][53] Ridley replied that 'it is ludicrous, nasty and false to accuse me of lying or "totally misrepresenting the science..I have asked Mr. Sachs to withdraw the charges more than once now on Twitter. He has refused to do so, though he has been tweeting freely during the time." '[54]
Shale gas
Matt Ridley was one of the earliest commentators to spot the significance of the shale gas revolution. In his 2011 report, The Shale Gas Shock, for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, he wrote that:
shale gas will undoubtedly prove to be a significant new force in the world energy scene, with far-reaching consequences.[55]
Ridley is a forthright proponent of fracking.[56] However he has been found to have breached the Parliamentary Code of Conduct by the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards for failing to disclose in debates on the subject personal interests worth at least £50,000 in Weir Group,[57] which has been described as, 'the world's largest provider of special equipment used in the process' of fracking.[58]
Political and scientific views
Role of government regulation
In a 2006 edition of the on-line magazine Edge - the third culture, Ridley wrote a response to the question "What's your dangerous idea?" which was entitled "Government is the problem not the solution",[40] in which he describes his attitude to government regulation: "In every age and at every time there have been people who say we need more regulation, more government. Sometimes, they say we need it to protect exchange from corruption, to set the standards and police the rules, in which case they have a point, though often they exaggerate it... The dangerous idea we all need to learn is that the more we limit the growth of government, the better off we will all be."
In 2007 the environmentalist George Monbiot wrote an article in The Guardian connecting Ridley's libertarian economic philosophy and the £27 billion failure of Northern Rock.[41] On 1 June 2010 Monbiot followed up his previous article in the context of Matt Ridley's book The Rational Optimist, which had just been published. Monbiot took the view that Ridley had failed to learn from the collapse of Northern Rock.[42]
Ridley has responded to Monbiot on his website, stating "George Monbiot’s recent attack on me in the Guardian is misleading. I do not hate the state. In fact, my views are much more balanced than Monbiot's selective quotations imply." [43] On 19 June 2010 Monbiot countered with another article on the Guardian website, further questioning Ridley's claims and his response.[44]
In November 2010, the Wall Street Journal published a lengthy exchange between Ridley and the Microsoft founder Bill Gates on topics discussed in Ridley's book The Rational Optimist.[45][46] Gates said that "What Mr. Ridley fails to see is that worrying about the worst case—being pessimistic, to a degree—can actually help to drive a solution"; Ridley said "I am certainly not saying, 'Don't worry, be happy.' Rather, I'm saying, 'Don't despair, be ambitious.'"
Ridley recently summarised his own views on his political philosophy during the 2011 Hayek Lecture: "[T]hat the individual is not – and had not been for 120,000 years – able to support his lifestyle; that the key feature of trade is that it enables us to work for each other not just for ourselves; that there is nothing so anti-social (or impoverishing) as the pursuit of self sufficiency; and that authoritarian, top-down rule is not the source of order or progress."[47]
In an email exchange, Ridley responded to the environmental activist Mark Lynas' repeated charges of a right-wing agenda with the following reply:
On the topic of labels, you repeatedly call me a member of "the right". Again, on what grounds? I am not a reactionary in the sense of not wanting social change: I make this abundantly clear throughout my book. I am not a hierarchy lover in the sense of trusting the central authority of the state: quite the opposite. I am not a conservative who defends large monopolies, public or private: I celebrate the way competition causes creative destruction that benefits the consumer against the interest of entrenched producers. I do not preach what the rich want to hear — the rich want to hear the gospel of Monbiot, that technological change is bad, that the hoi polloi should stop clogging up airports, that expensive home-grown organic food is the way to go, that big business and big civil service should be in charge. So in what sense am I on the right? I am a social and economic liberal: I believe that economic liberty leads to greater opportunities for the poor to become less poor, which is why I am in favour of it. Market liberalism and social liberalism go hand in hand in my view.[48]
Ridley argues that the capacity of humans for change and social progress is underestimated, and denies what he sees as overly pessimistic views of global climate change[49] and Western birthrate decline.
Climate change
Matt Ridley has argued for a "lukewarm" view of climate change and against renewable energy policies that he considers damaging to the economy as well as the environment. In a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2013 he wrote:
I have written about climate change and energy policy for more than 25 years. I have come to the conclusion that current energy and climate policy is probably more dangerous, both economically and ecologically, than climate change itself. This is not the same as arguing that climate has not changed or that mankind is not partly responsible. That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept. What I do not accept is that the change is or will be damaging, or that current policy would prevent it.[50]
Ridley has consistently argued that the evidence suggests that carbon dioxide emissions are currently doing more good than harm, largely because of the CO2 fertilisation effect, which boosts crop growth and the growth of forests and wild vegetation, and that the best evidence suggests this will continue to be the case for many decades. In 2015 he wrote about a report by the independent scientist Indur Goklany as follows:
As Goklany demonstrates, the assessments used by policy makers have overestimated warming so far, underestimated the direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change, and underestimated the human capacity to adapt.[51]
In 2014, a Wall Street Journal op-ed written by Ridley was sharply challenged by Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University's Earth Institute. Sachs termed "absurd" Ridley's characterization of a paper in Science magazine by two scientists Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung. Sachs cited the data from the Science article to rebut Ridley's contentions, and stated that the "paper's conclusions are the very opposite of Ridley's".[52][53] Ridley replied that 'it is ludicrous, nasty and false to accuse me of lying or "totally misrepresenting the science..I have asked Mr. Sachs to withdraw the charges more than once now on Twitter. He has refused to do so, though he has been tweeting freely during the time." '[54]
Shale gas
Matt Ridley was one of the earliest commentators to spot the significance of the shale gas revolution. In his 2011 report, The Shale Gas Shock, for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, he wrote that:
shale gas will undoubtedly prove to be a significant new force in the world energy scene, with far-reaching consequences.[55]
Ridley is a forthright proponent of fracking.[56] However he has been found to have breached the Parliamentary Code of Conduct by the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards for failing to disclose in debates on the subject personal interests worth at least £50,000 in Weir Group,[57] which has been described as, 'the world's largest provider of special equipment used in the process' of fracking.[58]
Don't insult Global Warming. Look what you did. You made Ciggy post a long article with links that show it's bad for the environment. His head most likely exploded a little after saying Global Warming has benefits.
Science is great. Chemistry not so much, but it's better than physics. Why am I not surprised that those that are American hating leftists are also concerned about the dangers of football... Seriously. Have you guys had any successes in your lives? I know not athletically, but anything? Clarinet solos? Maybe you got into community college as a non-trad student? Maybe you found a job?
Please give me something to have hope that you won't be milking the gov't for my tax dollars your whole lives.
Please give me something to have hope that you won't be milking the gov't for my tax dollars your whole lives.
He posted an article with zero science behind it saying global warming has benefits. Ciggy posted articles refuting its claims. If you agree with the articles claims, like, "Even polar bears are thriving so far," then you are purposely ignoring the truth because you prefer to believe the lies.
Believing in massive amounts amount of scientific evidence makes me an American hating leftist?
I never played clarinet, state champ football, banker with an office.
Stupid is no way to go through life, son.
The NCPA has been characterized as a "right wing think tank" by the People for the American Way, a politically liberal advocacy organization.
LOL, okay. Sorry to question your faith.
LOL, okay. Sorry to question your faith.
This certainly qualifies as one of the stupidest denier retorts. Sort of identifies you as the embarrassingly dumbest of the dangerously dumb.
Says someone who clearly cannot discern the difference between 'faith' and 'science'.
global warming: if man could change the climate in the first place, why could he not change it back?
cte: man could just stop playing football
cte: man could just stop playing football
the left has faith that man could change the climate, the right knows science could never back that assertion up
The amout of dumb in this thread gives me the sad.
You ever wonder why the people who fun climate change studies only use that information to make money and never actually try to fix the "problem?"
Meanwhile, human-caused climate change and melting ice-caps has now changed the length of an Earth day due to the relocation and redistribution of the Earth's mass:
The researchers added that missing piece of information to their calculations, along with the latest tide gauge and satellite data about the amount of sea-level rise and post-glacial rebound. They found glacier melt due to climate change since the industrial revolution has caused the Earth to slow down exactly as they had predicted.
How much? Don't expect too much extra time on your hands — researchers predict that a century from now, Earth's slower rotation will make each day 1.7 milliseconds longer.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sea-level-earth-rotation-1.3361446How much? Don't expect too much extra time on your hands — researchers predict that a century from now, Earth's slower rotation will make each day 1.7 milliseconds longer.
I don't need 'faith' to understand rotational mass and inertial moments to compute things like this, I simply need an understanding of basic math and physics.
Killed rare birds of prey?.....yup, how many American Bald Eagles/other birds have been killed by the wind turbines.
Another non sequitur from the ignorant right.One of the stupidist? No
How about..... ISIS/ISIL is contained?
