FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Tornado survivor admits she's an atheist

Tornado survivor admits she's an atheist

(0:32) Moment of levity in Oklahoma after the devastating tornado, when Wolf Blitzer, concluding an interview with a woman who survived, asked if she thanked the Lord for a decision she made that saved her life.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Rilo Rilo (1643 days ago)
Me thinks she's about to meet the buckle end of the bible belt.
ReplyVote up (213)down (138)
Original comment
Me thinks she's about to meet the buckle end of the bible belt.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Rilo Rilo (1643 days ago)
Brave girl.
ReplyVote up (159)down (103)
Original comment
Brave girl.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1644 days ago)
Good job being honest, Missus. Now, please go vote, to cancel out the insane votes of your fundamentalist redneck neighbor, you know, the one that wants to shoot gay men to death for the love of Christ...or whatever...the "war is peace" one, that can't stand to have his rights stolen away by President Blackman, after he willingly surrendered so many of them in the name of the war on terror.
ReplyVote up (127)down (86)
Original comment
Good job being honest, Missus. Now, please go vote, to cancel out the insane votes of your fundamentalist redneck neighbor, you know, the one that wants to shoot gay men to death for the love of Christ...or whatever...the "war is peace" one, that can't stand to have his rights stolen away by President Blackman, after he willingly surrendered so many of them in the name of the war on terror.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: paul w (1643 days ago)
Yeah, thanks jesus for saving me...now, what about them kids you didn't save??????
ReplyVote up (148)down (129)
Original comment
Yeah, thanks jesus for saving me...now, what about them kids you didn't save??????
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: anon10001110101 (1644 days ago)
FAKE: google CNN faked interview with blue screen.
ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment
FAKE: google CNN faked interview with blue screen.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: jeez (1643 days ago)
The awful part is that she seems sorry for being an atheist, trying to defend her position with "not blaming anyone"...terrible
ReplyVote up (111)down (121)
Original comment
The awful part is that she seems sorry for being an atheist, trying to defend her position with "not blaming anyone"...terrible
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: God. I'm watching you. (1643 days ago)
You ungrateful bitch !!! HE JUST SAVED BOTH YOUR LIVES. You should praise him every day for the rest of your lives because next time he sends his tornado's he may not be so kind.
ReplyVote up (76)down (101)
Original comment
You ungrateful bitch !!! HE JUST SAVED BOTH YOUR LIVES. You should praise him every day for the rest of your lives because next time he sends his tornado's he may not be so kind.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1643 days ago)
there is only one Allah and Mohamed is his prophet!! DIE YOU FILTHY INFIDEL!!
ReplyVote up (85)down (110)
Original comment
there is only one Allah and Mohamed is his prophet!! DIE YOU FILTHY INFIDEL!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Joe11111111111 (1644 days ago)
It looks like it was filmed in a studio with a blue screen. or is that just me.
ReplyVote up (73)down (101)
Original comment
It looks like it was filmed in a studio with a blue screen. or is that just me.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1643 days ago)
There are two times that the camera angle changed to show just the woman close-up. That usually requires a second camera and it's doubtful to have two of them in the field so that's +1 for it being a plausible studio shot. The one feature that sort of debunks it is in the closeup shots you can see some camera drift as if the camera is handheld. Both the woman and the background move and at different speeds which show that the background is farther away than the foreground. It is possible to get this effect with a blue/green screen but difficult and probably not worth the extra effort.
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
There are two times that the camera angle changed to show just the woman close-up. That usually requires a second camera and it's doubtful to have two of them in the field so that's +1 for it being a plausible studio shot. The one feature that sort of debunks it is in the closeup shots you can see some camera drift as if the camera is handheld. Both the woman and the background move and at different speeds which show that the background is farther away than the foreground. It is possible to get this effect with a blue/green screen but difficult and probably not worth the extra effort.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (1643 days ago)
Nice description of optic flow, cengland0.
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
Nice description of optic flow, cengland0.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1643 days ago)
Didn't 'The Lord' as an all powerful and knowing God cause this disaster in the first place?
ReplyVote up (127)down (189)
Original comment
Didn't 'The Lord' as an all powerful and knowing God cause this disaster in the first place?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1643 days ago)
nope....I think that was climate change.
ReplyVote up (171)down (133)
Original comment
nope....I think that was climate change.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1643 days ago)
except apparently it isnt. (the number of tornados in tornado alley has dropped in recent years (including this year including this tornado))
ReplyVote up (123)down (132)
Original comment
except apparently it isnt. (the number of tornados in tornado alley has dropped in recent years (including this year including this tornado))
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1643 days ago)
That's what change means. Tornados are also getting stronger.
ReplyVote up (115)down (136)
Original comment
That's what change means. Tornados are also getting stronger.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1643 days ago)
except they are not, they are getting weaker and less frequent
ReplyVote up (103)down (193)
Original comment
except they are not, they are getting weaker and less frequent
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1643 days ago)
except they are not, they are getting stronger and more frequent all over the world not just tornado valey
ReplyVote up (120)down (130)
Original comment
except they are not, they are getting stronger and more frequent all over the world not just tornado valey
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1643 days ago)
well good, now go and check the noaa data for the last 60 years and it will show f5 frequency dropping and f3 to f5 frequency dropping. Btw Bill Nye does not count as an authoritive source ( quite the opposite in fact )
ReplyVote up (122)down (140)
Original comment
well good, now go and check the noaa data for the last 60 years and it will show f5 frequency dropping and f3 to f5 frequency dropping. Btw Bill Nye does not count as an authoritive source ( quite the opposite in fact )
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1643 days ago)
wait wait wait wait!! didn't you and i had a long conversation once where you kept saying that the IPCC is the root of all evil, and that climate change doesn't really exist but it's in fact a global conspiracy put in place by the reptile people at the IPCC?? noaa is direcly linked to IPCC (proof LINK noaa says that man made global warming exists. Are you seriously sending us to check out the data and graphs on the NOAA site ??? weren't you the one that said that there is no global warming and everybody who claims differently is an idiot, including NASA, NOAA etc because they're all controlled by the reptile people at the IPCC?? are you trying to make your point with data from the IPCC?? hypocrisy much? undoubtedly! do you want me to find the boreme post where we had that extremely long conversation? cause i will if you want me to.
ReplyVote up (108)down (132)
Original comment
wait wait wait wait!! didn't you and i had a long conversation once where you kept saying that the IPCC is the root of all evil, and that climate change doesn't really exist but it's in fact a global conspiracy put in place by the reptile people at the IPCC?? noaa is direcly linked to IPCC (proof LINK noaa says that man made global warming exists. Are you seriously sending us to check out the data and graphs on the NOAA site ??? weren't you the one that said that there is no global warming and everybody who claims differently is an idiot, including NASA, NOAA etc because they're all controlled by the reptile people at the IPCC?? are you trying to make your point with data from the IPCC?? hypocrisy much? undoubtedly! do you want me to find the boreme post where we had that extremely long conversation? cause i will if you want me to.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1642 days ago)
the frequency of violent tornados f3 f4 f5 as recorded by the noaa over the last 60 years is apparently showing a downward trend. How the ipcc interprets that is up to them, however you cannot use an increase in tornado frequency or strength as a sign of global warming because it is simply not happening. sorry if that interferes with your religious beliefs. btw the way do go back to my posts and try and understand the difference between cagw and agw you idiot, i will give you a clue, its the letter c.
ReplyVote up (120)down (124)
Original comment
the frequency of violent tornados f3 f4 f5 as recorded by the noaa over the last 60 years is apparently showing a downward trend. How the ipcc interprets that is up to them, however you cannot use an increase in tornado frequency or strength as a sign of global warming because it is simply not happening. sorry if that interferes with your religious beliefs. btw the way do go back to my posts and try and understand the difference between cagw and agw you idiot, i will give you a clue, its the letter c.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1642 days ago)
did you just call me an idiot whilst shamelessly lying??? here's what Noaa has to say about the frequency of tornadoes in the past 55 years ""To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the U.S., the total number EF1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF3 to EF5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These are the tornadoes that would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years."" LINK . This translates in "mad is an idiot liar who believes that the lizard people control the IPCC""
ReplyVote up (112)down (125)
Original comment
did you just call me an idiot whilst shamelessly lying??? here's what Noaa has to say about the frequency of tornadoes in the past 55 years ""To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the U.S., the total number EF1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF3 to EF5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These are the tornadoes that would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years."" LINK . This translates in "mad is an idiot liar who believes that the lizard people control the IPCC""
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1642 days ago)
Look at the bar chart entitlled US Annual count of violent F3+ ( f3 f4 f5 ) 1954 to 2012. by my reckoning the lowest 6 counts since 1983, 11 of lowest 12 counts since 1983 highest 3 counts in 30 years previous to 1983, 7 of 8 highest counts in 30 years previous to 1983. average counts last 30 years much lower than previous 30 years. How appalling must your ability at maths be not to be able to interpret what is really a very simple bar chart. What you have to remember is that the blurb is almost certainly written by a pr person not a scientist . that bar chart shows a definite statistically significant drop ( i guess at least 20% lower) in frequency of f3 f4 f5 tornados in the period when agw is supposed to be significant. in order to argue with anyone over stats you are going to have to really improve your maths skills or they will turn and do what i've just done to you, got it.
ReplyVote up (119)down (118)
Original comment
Look at the bar chart entitlled US Annual count of violent F3+ ( f3 f4 f5 ) 1954 to 2012. by my reckoning the lowest 6 counts since 1983, 11 of lowest 12 counts since 1983 highest 3 counts in 30 years previous to 1983, 7 of 8 highest counts in 30 years previous to 1983. average counts last 30 years much lower than previous 30 years. How appalling must your ability at maths be not to be able to interpret what is really a very simple bar chart. What you have to remember is that the blurb is almost certainly written by a pr person not a scientist . that bar chart shows a definite statistically significant drop ( i guess at least 20% lower) in frequency of f3 f4 f5 tornados in the period when agw is supposed to be significant. in order to argue with anyone over stats you are going to have to really improve your maths skills or they will turn and do what i've just done to you, got it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1642 days ago)
there is no bloody pattern there! LINK 2011 was the year with the most tornadoes! 2008 again! where the hell do you see a downward trend where there are only highs ans lows? are you just choosing to look at this graph LINK and purposely ignoring the rest of the data just to prove your point? just look at this bloody thing LINK . Besides "Global warming may well end up making them more frequent or intense, as our intuition would tell us. But it might also actually suppress them—the science just isn't clear yet." LINK . And also ""The main climate change connection is via the basic instability of the low-level air that creates the convection and thunderstorms in the first place. Warmer and moister conditions are the key for unstable air. The oceans are warmer because of climate change. The climate change effect is probably only a 5 to 10 percent effect in terms of the instability and subsequent rainfall, but it translates into up to a 33 percent effect in terms of damage. (It is highly nonlinear, for 10 percent it is 1.1 to the power of three = 1.33.) So there is a chain of events, and climate change mainly affects the first link: the basic buoyancy of the air is increased. Whether that translates into a supercell storm and one with a tornado is largely chance weather."" LINK . in addition to that ""A warming climate creates warmer temperatures in the north, so in that respect, decreasing wind shear, so it could actually lead to fewer tornadoes, according to Dixon. However, another factor suggests that climate change will do the exact opposite. Convective available potential energy, or CAPE--essentially the amount of energy that's available to for storms--is determined by moisture and temperature differences between the ground and higher regions of the atmosphere. "The CAPE increases with time in a globally warmed world, mainly because the temperature near the ground and lower parts of the atmosphere increases and becomes more humid," Trapp says. "In a globally warmed future world, that thunderstorm should be more intense." Because of these conflicting factors, "what we don’t know is how this necessarily affects tornado intensity and frequency," Trapp says. "" LINK . So in conclusion, your obsession with this LINK , even if it were to say that there's a downward trend (which it doesn't) is not proof of ANYTHING! Now i could choose to listen to NASA and NOAA telling me that there is man made climate change, or i could choose to listen to mad, the boreme commentator who thinks that there's a global conspiracy about climate change, promoted by the IPCC and controlled by the lizard people. hmmm... who should i believe... hmmm... this is a tough one!
ReplyVote up (130)down (175)
Original comment
there is no bloody pattern there! LINK 2011 was the year with the most tornadoes! 2008 again! where the hell do you see a downward trend where there are only highs ans lows? are you just choosing to look at this graph LINK and purposely ignoring the rest of the data just to prove your point? just look at this bloody thing LINK . Besides "Global warming may well end up making them more frequent or intense, as our intuition would tell us. But it might also actually suppress them—the science just isn't clear yet." LINK . And also ""The main climate change connection is via the basic instability of the low-level air that creates the convection and thunderstorms in the first place. Warmer and moister conditions are the key for unstable air. The oceans are warmer because of climate change. The climate change effect is probably only a 5 to 10 percent effect in terms of the instability and subsequent rainfall, but it translates into up to a 33 percent effect in terms of damage. (It is highly nonlinear, for 10 percent it is 1.1 to the power of three = 1.33.) So there is a chain of events, and climate change mainly affects the first link: the basic buoyancy of the air is increased. Whether that translates into a supercell storm and one with a tornado is largely chance weather."" LINK . in addition to that ""A warming climate creates warmer temperatures in the north, so in that respect, decreasing wind shear, so it could actually lead to fewer tornadoes, according to Dixon. However, another factor suggests that climate change will do the exact opposite. Convective available potential energy, or CAPE--essentially the amount of energy that's available to for storms--is determined by moisture and temperature differences between the ground and higher regions of the atmosphere. "The CAPE increases with time in a globally warmed world, mainly because the temperature near the ground and lower parts of the atmosphere increases and becomes more humid," Trapp says. "In a globally warmed future world, that thunderstorm should be more intense." Because of these conflicting factors, "what we don’t know is how this necessarily affects tornado intensity and frequency," Trapp says. "" LINK . So in conclusion, your obsession with this LINK , even if it were to say that there's a downward trend (which it doesn't) is not proof of ANYTHING! Now i could choose to listen to NASA and NOAA telling me that there is man made climate change, or i could choose to listen to mad, the boreme commentator who thinks that there's a global conspiracy about climate change, promoted by the IPCC and controlled by the lizard people. hmmm... who should i believe... hmmm... this is a tough one!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1641 days ago)
Do you now if you go away and try and study a little bit of maths and physics,at least to high school level, it might teach you to construct an proper argument and conclusion instead of a complete mish mash bullshit of quotes stapled together from random sites punctuated by random links, lacking any structural logic or conclusion building up to a rather tiresome, predictable and juvenile ad hominem attack. One of the tricks you learn when getting an proper education is ascertaining the relevant information to foward an argument . that obsession (as you put it ) with one bar chart is because it contains all the relevant information to prove my point, you inability to understand that is becuse you are are a mathematically and scientifically illiterate moron.
ReplyVote up (100)down (125)
Original comment
Do you now if you go away and try and study a little bit of maths and physics,at least to high school level, it might teach you to construct an proper argument and conclusion instead of a complete mish mash bullshit of quotes stapled together from random sites punctuated by random links, lacking any structural logic or conclusion building up to a rather tiresome, predictable and juvenile ad hominem attack. One of the tricks you learn when getting an proper education is ascertaining the relevant information to foward an argument . that obsession (as you put it ) with one bar chart is because it contains all the relevant information to prove my point, you inability to understand that is becuse you are are a mathematically and scientifically illiterate moron.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1641 days ago)
yeah right :)) you win :)) you focusing on one chart out of many to prove your point is like me saying my red car is black because the tires are black :)) ridiculous :)) i just proved to you that any rise or fall in the number of recorded tornadoes is not proof of anything, especially not proof of the claim that the lizard people are controlling the IPCC to falsely convince us that there is no man made global warming , and you went and ranted insults about my mathematics and physics, as if you know a bit and i don't :)) mad, the self proclaimed internet scientist of boreme, on he's quest to expose the lizard people! yeah buddy, you got me on that one :)) i give up :))
ReplyVote up (112)down (172)
Original comment
yeah right :)) you win :)) you focusing on one chart out of many to prove your point is like me saying my red car is black because the tires are black :)) ridiculous :)) i just proved to you that any rise or fall in the number of recorded tornadoes is not proof of anything, especially not proof of the claim that the lizard people are controlling the IPCC to falsely convince us that there is no man made global warming , and you went and ranted insults about my mathematics and physics, as if you know a bit and i don't :)) mad, the self proclaimed internet scientist of boreme, on he's quest to expose the lizard people! yeah buddy, you got me on that one :)) i give up :))
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1641 days ago)
correction: remove the NO from "" to falsely convince us that there is no man made global warming"" .I meant to say: to falsely convince us that there IS man made global warming. Sorry about that mister internet scientist :)
ReplyVote up (119)down (120)
Original comment
correction: remove the NO from "" to falsely convince us that there is no man made global warming"" .I meant to say: to falsely convince us that there IS man made global warming. Sorry about that mister internet scientist :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1640 days ago)
Ive been looking through my posts, and yes i admit i did point out your seeming total lack of knowledge of how the scientific method works, but also looking at what i have said and what you assume i have said are two completely different things and i fell i should add that you also seem to have a complete lack of basic english comprehension as well. Is there really no beginning to your talents ?
ReplyVote up (103)down (108)
Original comment
Ive been looking through my posts, and yes i admit i did point out your seeming total lack of knowledge of how the scientific method works, but also looking at what i have said and what you assume i have said are two completely different things and i fell i should add that you also seem to have a complete lack of basic english comprehension as well. Is there really no beginning to your talents ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1640 days ago)
I have to agree with your assessment of his english comprehension. We can be discussing how widgets are made and he will post a link to why people eat waffles and somehow thinks that proves me wrong.
ReplyVote up (98)down (119)
Original comment
I have to agree with your assessment of his english comprehension. We can be discussing how widgets are made and he will post a link to why people eat waffles and somehow thinks that proves me wrong.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1640 days ago)
LOL the trolls of boreme united against me, what an honor :)) Cengland0 thinks the banks are saints and Mad thinks that lizard people rule the world, 2 beliefs that don't go together, but i guess that the 2 of you have to unite under the principle "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" .I have proved you wrong numerous times, and all the 2 of you can do is resort to insults and ganging up :)) pathetic! both of you :)) PS: mad never denied that he thinks that the lizard people run the world. Pathetic attempt to pat each other on the back, derived from powerless frustration caused by the fact that both of you live in a fairy tale world, where the lizard people run the world (in the case of mad) and the banking system and political system work flawlessly like machines (in the case of cengland0). Pathetic, both of you! i'll let the other readers decide who's right or wrong. The only advice i can give the 2 of you is to stop doing LSD :)) cause it's obvious that you're both hallucinating :))
ReplyVote up (100)down (115)
Original comment
LOL the trolls of boreme united against me, what an honor :)) Cengland0 thinks the banks are saints and Mad thinks that lizard people rule the world, 2 beliefs that don't go together, but i guess that the 2 of you have to unite under the principle "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" .I have proved you wrong numerous times, and all the 2 of you can do is resort to insults and ganging up :)) pathetic! both of you :)) PS: mad never denied that he thinks that the lizard people run the world. Pathetic attempt to pat each other on the back, derived from powerless frustration caused by the fact that both of you live in a fairy tale world, where the lizard people run the world (in the case of mad) and the banking system and political system work flawlessly like machines (in the case of cengland0). Pathetic, both of you! i'll let the other readers decide who's right or wrong. The only advice i can give the 2 of you is to stop doing LSD :)) cause it's obvious that you're both hallucinating :))
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1640 days ago)
go on and spit that dummy will you , well seeing as you seem to spend all your time on here (judging by the sheer volume of comments), it suggests that the fantasy world is far more applicable to you. Maybe you should get out more, and maybe take walter with you he needs to get out too.
ReplyVote up (94)down (103)
Original comment
go on and spit that dummy will you , well seeing as you seem to spend all your time on here (judging by the sheer volume of comments), it suggests that the fantasy world is far more applicable to you. Maybe you should get out more, and maybe take walter with you he needs to get out too.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1640 days ago)
you're acting like a sore loser. I enjoyed owning you in the beginning, but lately not so much because it's too easy. Man up and stop acting like a little child every time you get owned! it would be a lot harder to get owned if you would have the truth on your side, so you better reevaluate your beliefs. The lizard people send their regards.
ReplyVote up (99)down (118)
Original comment
you're acting like a sore loser. I enjoyed owning you in the beginning, but lately not so much because it's too easy. Man up and stop acting like a little child every time you get owned! it would be a lot harder to get owned if you would have the truth on your side, so you better reevaluate your beliefs. The lizard people send their regards.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1640 days ago)
so to recap, not only are you deficient in logic, maths, science, and english comprehension, you also display an unhealthy attitude to being educated as well, and all because i pointed out that a bar chart produced by the noaa on a link (rather neatly) provided by you actually illustrated quite clearly that my initial statement on the downward trend in the strength of tornados was in fact completely correct. Your ability to do links is commendable , the inabillty to understand and learn from the information thus displayed only you can rectify.
ReplyVote up (97)down (136)
Original comment
so to recap, not only are you deficient in logic, maths, science, and english comprehension, you also display an unhealthy attitude to being educated as well, and all because i pointed out that a bar chart produced by the noaa on a link (rather neatly) provided by you actually illustrated quite clearly that my initial statement on the downward trend in the strength of tornados was in fact completely correct. Your ability to do links is commendable , the inabillty to understand and learn from the information thus displayed only you can rectify.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1639 days ago)
whatever, mister self apointed boreme scientist. You mentioned the graph after comments were made about tornadoes getting stronger because of climate change. And we all know your views on that. You mentioned it as if you were trying to make a point about "not being any climate change" and i proved to you that even if it were to show a downward trend (which is not, you were probably mislead by the freak year 1974 LINK , the graph shows that it's pretty much as before, see 2011) that trend would have probably been caused by man made climate change, as i proved to you. The fact of the matter is that it is unknown yet how climate change will influence the frequency and strength of tornadoes. And i am still right about that graph, the rumor that tornadoes can't bee seen as often and as strong as we used to was started before 2011, and the impression that there have been less of them was accentuated by 1974, but now we know better. So instead of putting to question my math, physics, English and resorting to insults(like a 12 year old), you should get your facts straight. But your faith in the story that the lizard people controlling the IPCC is strong, and can't really argue with faith because faith is irrational, hence you are a irrational person.
ReplyVote up (99)down (102)
Original comment
whatever, mister self apointed boreme scientist. You mentioned the graph after comments were made about tornadoes getting stronger because of climate change. And we all know your views on that. You mentioned it as if you were trying to make a point about "not being any climate change" and i proved to you that even if it were to show a downward trend (which is not, you were probably mislead by the freak year 1974 LINK , the graph shows that it's pretty much as before, see 2011) that trend would have probably been caused by man made climate change, as i proved to you. The fact of the matter is that it is unknown yet how climate change will influence the frequency and strength of tornadoes. And i am still right about that graph, the rumor that tornadoes can't bee seen as often and as strong as we used to was started before 2011, and the impression that there have been less of them was accentuated by 1974, but now we know better. So instead of putting to question my math, physics, English and resorting to insults(like a 12 year old), you should get your facts straight. But your faith in the story that the lizard people controlling the IPCC is strong, and can't really argue with faith because faith is irrational, hence you are a irrational person.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1639 days ago)
stop bleeding on me and leave my kneecaps alone. come along patsy...... clop clop clop clop
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
stop bleeding on me and leave my kneecaps alone. come along patsy...... clop clop clop clop
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1639 days ago)
dafuq is that suppose to mean? lol. never-mind, i'm busy right now i'm in a conference call with the lizard people :) Cheers mate!
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
dafuq is that suppose to mean? lol. never-mind, i'm busy right now i'm in a conference call with the lizard people :) Cheers mate!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1638 days ago)
Obviously you have the inside track, could you explain to them while you are there, that insisting in their models that the earth is in fact a disc tends to make rational intelligent people doubt their models output
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
Obviously you have the inside track, could you explain to them while you are there, that insisting in their models that the earth is in fact a disc tends to make rational intelligent people doubt their models output
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1638 days ago)
actually, the earth is Flat! the disk theory was put out there by the lizard people to confuse the curious intelligent people that are interested in the truth such as yourself. The stars? they're just little LED lights.... actually they're LED light software, because the world around us is all a software, and we're all living in the Matrix. The more you know...
ReplyVote up (146)down (101)
Original comment
actually, the earth is Flat! the disk theory was put out there by the lizard people to confuse the curious intelligent people that are interested in the truth such as yourself. The stars? they're just little LED lights.... actually they're LED light software, because the world around us is all a software, and we're all living in the Matrix. The more you know...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1638 days ago)
well whatever, btw you never got around to asking me my position on climate change did you, you just jumped to the conclusion because i dont accept swallow everthing the alarmists cook up i must be a denier,well more fool you
ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment
well whatever, btw you never got around to asking me my position on climate change did you, you just jumped to the conclusion because i dont accept swallow everthing the alarmists cook up i must be a denier,well more fool you
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1638 days ago)
you know... if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck and looks like a duck... chances are it's a duck. But i do apologize for not asking you about what your position is on climate change. I admit that i just assumed you though climate change exists to some extent but it's not man made or influenced in any way by man. My apologies! do you think that man made climate change exists?
ReplyVote up (142)down (82)
Original comment
you know... if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck and looks like a duck... chances are it's a duck. But i do apologize for not asking you about what your position is on climate change. I admit that i just assumed you though climate change exists to some extent but it's not man made or influenced in any way by man. My apologies! do you think that man made climate change exists?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1638 days ago)
not to the extent that you think it exists im a lukewarmer and trending down, however if the data changes, i will change my position
ReplyVote up (173)down (78)
Original comment
not to the extent that you think it exists im a lukewarmer and trending down, however if the data changes, i will change my position
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1638 days ago)
had to google that to know what it means, lol. what the hell was that IPCC conspiracy all about? when dananddiana started talking about IPCC conspiracy you stood up for it. Care to explain?
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
had to google that to know what it means, lol. what the hell was that IPCC conspiracy all about? when dananddiana started talking about IPCC conspiracy you stood up for it. Care to explain?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1634 days ago)
the ipcc is biased. Rather than representing a balanced overview of the science. the conclusions in previous reports have been overwhelmingly skewed to an alarmist viewpoint, to the point of including unproven grey propaganda literature over and above that of contributing scientists.Almost all the predictions have subsequently been proved false. Most of the moderate scientists (lukewarmers) have been either frozen out of the key positions or have resigned, Its not so much a conspiracy as an example of groupthink.
ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment
the ipcc is biased. Rather than representing a balanced overview of the science. the conclusions in previous reports have been overwhelmingly skewed to an alarmist viewpoint, to the point of including unproven grey propaganda literature over and above that of contributing scientists.Almost all the predictions have subsequently been proved false. Most of the moderate scientists (lukewarmers) have been either frozen out of the key positions or have resigned, Its not so much a conspiracy as an example of groupthink.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1633 days ago)
so you're saying it's not a conspiracy but a bunch of group-thinking idiots? the lukewarmers are kind of like Galileo, telling people that the world is round, and the mainstream scientists (97% according to nasa) are the ones who still think that the world is flat? i find that hard to believe. Could you link me to some document or site that shows how those mainstream studies and predictions about climate change have been disproved by the lukewarmers? please? myself and a friend of mine from Australia would like to study your sources.
ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment
so you're saying it's not a conspiracy but a bunch of group-thinking idiots? the lukewarmers are kind of like Galileo, telling people that the world is round, and the mainstream scientists (97% according to nasa) are the ones who still think that the world is flat? i find that hard to believe. Could you link me to some document or site that shows how those mainstream studies and predictions about climate change have been disproved by the lukewarmers? please? myself and a friend of mine from Australia would like to study your sources.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1633 days ago)
there is a model for the co2 warming which treats the earth as if it is a flat disc and assumes that a weakened sun shines equally upon this disc 24 hours a day giving a static blackbody equilibrium temp of 255 degrees kelvin. from this they calculate the so called 33 or so degrees of warming...... personally i would like to see a real world model. As for the 97% im with richard tol on that one " a silly idea poorly implemented". apparently richard tol is now branded a denier......
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
there is a model for the co2 warming which treats the earth as if it is a flat disc and assumes that a weakened sun shines equally upon this disc 24 hours a day giving a static blackbody equilibrium temp of 255 degrees kelvin. from this they calculate the so called 33 or so degrees of warming...... personally i would like to see a real world model. As for the 97% im with richard tol on that one " a silly idea poorly implemented". apparently richard tol is now branded a denier......
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1633 days ago)
ok, but i would like to study your sources. You understand that i can't just take your word for it, right? i would like to study your sources and i would like to talk them over with a friend of mine. Could you link me to your sources? please? You can't just expect me to take your word for it without even an attempt of proof, right? please link me to your sources.
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
ok, but i would like to study your sources. You understand that i can't just take your word for it, right? i would like to study your sources and i would like to talk them over with a friend of mine. Could you link me to your sources? please? You can't just expect me to take your word for it without even an attempt of proof, right? please link me to your sources.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1632 days ago)
dont be obtuse , google it.
ReplyVote up (101)down (70)
Original comment
dont be obtuse , google it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1632 days ago)
all i can find is right wing propaganda, and you just made it clear that that's not where you stand. Please give me your sources. Last time we had this chat it ended the same way: you claiming something you can't back up. How do you expect me to take you seriously? sources please.
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
all i can find is right wing propaganda, and you just made it clear that that's not where you stand. Please give me your sources. Last time we had this chat it ended the same way: you claiming something you can't back up. How do you expect me to take you seriously? sources please.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1632 days ago)
so you seriously belive opcc lead author richard tol's twitter account is rightwing proganda..... well i guess there is no hope for you.
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
so you seriously belive opcc lead author richard tol's twitter account is rightwing proganda..... well i guess there is no hope for you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1632 days ago)
you could just link me to your sources instead of resorting to insults. it's a fairly simple task to perform, just go to your sites, copy the links and post them here.. but nooo, you have to take the conversation back to the stone age! i can't argue with unreasonable unrealistic irrational people, so on this BoreMe post i will only respond to you when you find the balls to actually link me to your sources. have a nice day.
ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment
you could just link me to your sources instead of resorting to insults. it's a fairly simple task to perform, just go to your sites, copy the links and post them here.. but nooo, you have to take the conversation back to the stone age! i can't argue with unreasonable unrealistic irrational people, so on this BoreMe post i will only respond to you when you find the balls to actually link me to your sources. have a nice day.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1632 days ago)
well my search "richard tol twitter" seems to pick it up. i suspect it works for others as well, but i suspect however in your case its your obvious groupthink filter kicking in, preventing you from looking at anything contrary to your narrow viewpoint. Of course i have to say im not the only person to have pointed out the obvious deficiencies in your education and reasoning skills ( guest god among others), but in order to gain knowledge you first have to admit your ignorance but i guess your arrogance wont let you...
ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
well my search "richard tol twitter" seems to pick it up. i suspect it works for others as well, but i suspect however in your case its your obvious groupthink filter kicking in, preventing you from looking at anything contrary to your narrow viewpoint. Of course i have to say im not the only person to have pointed out the obvious deficiencies in your education and reasoning skills ( guest god among others), but in order to gain knowledge you first have to admit your ignorance but i guess your arrogance wont let you...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1632 days ago)
even the simplest task is like moving mountains for you! it seems like the thing you do best is to insult so good luck with that career. i just googled what you told me to google and his twitter came up. if you expect me to read all his posts and responses about whatever the fu*k, you have a big surprise coming your way!! how about you look up his twitter account for all those links and give me the ones you THINK that support your claims! i'm not going to read this guy's posts with pictures of his breakfast! So stop being a DICK and link me to your sources?? a bloody second grader could understand what i want and how to do it. One of cengland0 ducks could understand what i want from you! keep acting like an idiot, fine by me! but know that the burden of proof lies with you, and every time you can't deliver, you lose credibility! your words mean less and less to me with each day that passes. Now put your money where your mouth is and stop acting like a punk. link US TO YOUR SOURCE!! you moron!
ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
even the simplest task is like moving mountains for you! it seems like the thing you do best is to insult so good luck with that career. i just googled what you told me to google and his twitter came up. if you expect me to read all his posts and responses about whatever the fu*k, you have a big surprise coming your way!! how about you look up his twitter account for all those links and give me the ones you THINK that support your claims! i'm not going to read this guy's posts with pictures of his breakfast! So stop being a DICK and link me to your sources?? a bloody second grader could understand what i want and how to do it. One of cengland0 ducks could understand what i want from you! keep acting like an idiot, fine by me! but know that the burden of proof lies with you, and every time you can't deliver, you lose credibility! your words mean less and less to me with each day that passes. Now put your money where your mouth is and stop acting like a punk. link US TO YOUR SOURCE!! you moron!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1632 days ago)
You post links to hundreds of sites and expect us to read all that information and then you assume it proves you're right somehow. And then when I do get around to reading what you linked to, it actually proves that you were wrong as if you didn't read it yourself before posting the links. So mad gives you details about where his information came from and you don't want to take the time to read it. Sort of hypocritical isn't it?
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
You post links to hundreds of sites and expect us to read all that information and then you assume it proves you're right somehow. And then when I do get around to reading what you linked to, it actually proves that you were wrong as if you didn't read it yourself before posting the links. So mad gives you details about where his information came from and you don't want to take the time to read it. Sort of hypocritical isn't it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1632 days ago)
it would be hypocritical if you would have been right, but you're not.. as usual. the links i post do prove my point. Most of the links i post are from official government sites , or from internationally acknowledged scientific institutions or press institutions, not all of them, but most of them. Mad told me to search for a guy's twitter account, he didn't even link me to it. And now i should just read all the cr*p that guy posted until i find a post that is remotely related to what Mad is saying? this is just a diversion tactic, he knows it, you know it and i know it! And Aren't you the one that always keeps saying "NO LINKS MEANS IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!"" every time you want to challenge someone? every time you ask me to do that, i always provide! some links you like, because they're not the best and you can attack me on some technical glitch, and some links you hate because they prove i'm right and there's little you can do about it. Aren't you the one that always says "give me links or it didn't happen" ? SO, how come when i do exactly the same thing you do... you call me a hypocrite for doing it? do you even know what "Hypocrisy" means ? Mad has to provide a link, if he can do it, he might as well tell me that GOD exists and that i'm being an ignorant for not believing in GOD since it's so easy to google GOD! what' he's asking doesn't stand. He MUST provide or he loses credibility, and not just his, but the one of all who call themselves a lukewarmer because the rest of us will have a preconceived idea about lukewarmers based on what he's saying. the thing i can assure you of is that i am going to my australian friend with this! i bet i can find all the dirt on this Tol character after i'm done! we'll see what MAD invents next after that. He's probably gonna name all the pseudo-scientists out there, one by one, and he's gonna make me look into all of them, just to give him an excuse to resort to insults. Pathetic. Tell your friend to provide his sources and stop being a Dick!
ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment
it would be hypocritical if you would have been right, but you're not.. as usual. the links i post do prove my point. Most of the links i post are from official government sites , or from internationally acknowledged scientific institutions or press institutions, not all of them, but most of them. Mad told me to search for a guy's twitter account, he didn't even link me to it. And now i should just read all the cr*p that guy posted until i find a post that is remotely related to what Mad is saying? this is just a diversion tactic, he knows it, you know it and i know it! And Aren't you the one that always keeps saying "NO LINKS MEANS IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!"" every time you want to challenge someone? every time you ask me to do that, i always provide! some links you like, because they're not the best and you can attack me on some technical glitch, and some links you hate because they prove i'm right and there's little you can do about it. Aren't you the one that always says "give me links or it didn't happen" ? SO, how come when i do exactly the same thing you do... you call me a hypocrite for doing it? do you even know what "Hypocrisy" means ? Mad has to provide a link, if he can do it, he might as well tell me that GOD exists and that i'm being an ignorant for not believing in GOD since it's so easy to google GOD! what' he's asking doesn't stand. He MUST provide or he loses credibility, and not just his, but the one of all who call themselves a lukewarmer because the rest of us will have a preconceived idea about lukewarmers based on what he's saying. the thing i can assure you of is that i am going to my australian friend with this! i bet i can find all the dirt on this Tol character after i'm done! we'll see what MAD invents next after that. He's probably gonna name all the pseudo-scientists out there, one by one, and he's gonna make me look into all of them, just to give him an excuse to resort to insults. Pathetic. Tell your friend to provide his sources and stop being a Dick!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1632 days ago)
I do request links to your comments because you cannot backup your statements. Your links are usually land on several hours of youtube videos, Wikipedia, or some other crap. The ones going to a government site usually proves my points and not your point. And you'll even post several links to unrelated information and then say you "owned me" or something similar. Then when I read it, it actually doesn't prove anything or the important details proves you were wrong but you ignored that part. I'm not going to tell Mad anything. First, he's not my friend. He just thinks you are wrong on most of your views just like I do and you somehow believe we are friends because we both disagree about most of your comments.
ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment
I do request links to your comments because you cannot backup your statements. Your links are usually land on several hours of youtube videos, Wikipedia, or some other crap. The ones going to a government site usually proves my points and not your point. And you'll even post several links to unrelated information and then say you "owned me" or something similar. Then when I read it, it actually doesn't prove anything or the important details proves you were wrong but you ignored that part. I'm not going to tell Mad anything. First, he's not my friend. He just thinks you are wrong on most of your views just like I do and you somehow believe we are friends because we both disagree about most of your comments.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1632 days ago)
well i respectfully disagree to what you just said. Most of the links i post prove my point. but i wouldn't expect you to acknowledge that. The fact remains that MAD failed to provide ANY link. All we have is his claims that can't be backed by a peer reviewed study, until he manages to provide a link, but instead of providing any such link he prefers to send me on a wild goose chase (that's funny because you're into geese) just so that he can have an excuse to insult me for not chasing the geese. It's still pathetic.
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
well i respectfully disagree to what you just said. Most of the links i post prove my point. but i wouldn't expect you to acknowledge that. The fact remains that MAD failed to provide ANY link. All we have is his claims that can't be backed by a peer reviewed study, until he manages to provide a link, but instead of providing any such link he prefers to send me on a wild goose chase (that's funny because you're into geese) just so that he can have an excuse to insult me for not chasing the geese. It's still pathetic.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1632 days ago)
here's what mad should have posted LINK . In this paper, Richard Tol THE ECONOMIST (nothing to do with climate research) is analyzing the cost of different Climate change policies following the cost benefit analysis model. here's a huge paragraph from his ECONOMICALLY inclined paper on climate change: <<<<<This paper reviews what is known and what is not known about the economic impacts of climate change. What is known suggests that climate change is a problem that requires a serious effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the impact estimates do not support drastic mitigation; instead, climate policy should emphasise adaptation. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide lies probably below $50/tC – a tax like this would stimulate energy efficiency improvements but only minor fuel switching. Higher estimates require that the discount rate is lowered below what is common, or that an uncharacteristic weight is placed on the plight of developing countries. There are three policy implications. Firstly, short-term emission reduction is justified in economic terms, but to a limited extent only. Secondly, in the long-term, deep emission cuts are not justified economically. The policy response to climate change should be dominated by adaptation, not by mitigation. Thirdly, deep emission cuts may be justified in terms of equity and justice (Broome, 1992; Lumer, 2002) – but this would have a dramatic effect on other policies (pensions, education, trade, development aid) as well. What is known is only a small part of what matters. Many climate change impacts have been identified but not estimated, and there are undoubtedly yet to be identified impacts too. Some of these impacts are clearly negative, and some clearly positive. It is impossible to say with any kind of certainty whether current impact estimates have a positive or a negative bias. Yet, countries like Canada, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden are cold but prosperous. Warming would reduce costs and lift constraints and thus accelerate economic growth, but it is hard to imagine that warming would unleash very rapid growth. At the same time, tropical countries clearly suffer from violent storms, prolonged droughts, and the presence of tropical diseases. Further warming would not be good, and subjecting more places to such conditions cannot be positive either. Although not quantified, one can more easily imagine a scenario in which warming has dramatic consequences than a scenario in which warming has large positive effects. So, at the least, the great many unknowns imply that the uncertainty is skewed to the negative; and that, if anything, current impacts estimates are positively biased. This suggests that greenhouse gas emission reduction should be more stringent than suggested by cost-benefit analysis. The policy implications are twofold. Firstly, in the short-term, more emission reduction may be economically justified than suggested by a cost-benefit analysis. Secondly and more importantly, we need to build up the technological and institutional ability to rapidly respond to climate change – be it in the form of greenhouse gas emission reduction, adaptation (including international adaptation assistance), or geoengineering. Policy should not fly blind, however. If the above diagnosis of the state of knowledge is correct, it would most of all call for a vigorous research programme. RICHARD S.J. TOL 456 Environmental Values 17.4 Although some countries propose to spend billions of dollars on emission reduction, and other countries pretend that climate change is a problem that can safely be ignored, little effort is spent on supporting these courses of action by research into whether climate change is a serious problem or not. Climate science is well-funded, but climate impact research much less so. Furthermore, the climate change impact research community is focused on incremental improvements on what is known, ignoring the big unknowns. The number of senior economists who do serious research on the impacts of climate change can be counted on two hands. This is in no proportion to the alleged seriousness of the climate change problem. Worldwide carbon dioxide emissions amounted to some 8 billion tonnes of carbon in 2007. The difference between a carbon tax of $25/tC and $50/tC is worth $200 billion – and spending a small fraction of that money would improve estimates of the social cost of carbon. Future research should focus on: • the quantification of uncertainties; • the estimation of missing impacts; • the estimation of impacts in developing countries; • the interactions between impacts of climate change; • the higher-order economic effects of the impacts of climate change; • ecosystem change and biodiversity loss and their welfare implications; • the impact of extreme climate scenarios; • violent conflict; and • the impact of climate change in the very long term. This research agenda is not limited to the discipline of economics, but economists can and should contribute to every single point. Only after answering these questions can we state with some confidence that climate change is not a dramatic problem, or justify the drastic emission reductions proposed by some policy makers.>>>> Basically what he's saying is "i can't understand how climate change works, but i pretend to understand it" and "more research should be done on climate change before we start implementing environmental measures, because this sh*t can be expensive."" It's the economic incentive all over again. I guess money does Rule. PS: notice that he is in favor of a Carbon Tax.
ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment
here's what mad should have posted LINK . In this paper, Richard Tol THE ECONOMIST (nothing to do with climate research) is analyzing the cost of different Climate change policies following the cost benefit analysis model. here's a huge paragraph from his ECONOMICALLY inclined paper on climate change: <<<<<This paper reviews what is known and what is not known about the economic impacts of climate change. What is known suggests that climate change is a problem that requires a serious effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the impact estimates do not support drastic mitigation; instead, climate policy should emphasise adaptation. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide lies probably below $50/tC – a tax like this would stimulate energy efficiency improvements but only minor fuel switching. Higher estimates require that the discount rate is lowered below what is common, or that an uncharacteristic weight is placed on the plight of developing countries. There are three policy implications. Firstly, short-term emission reduction is justified in economic terms, but to a limited extent only. Secondly, in the long-term, deep emission cuts are not justified economically. The policy response to climate change should be dominated by adaptation, not by mitigation. Thirdly, deep emission cuts may be justified in terms of equity and justice (Broome, 1992; Lumer, 2002) – but this would have a dramatic effect on other policies (pensions, education, trade, development aid) as well. What is known is only a small part of what matters. Many climate change impacts have been identified but not estimated, and there are undoubtedly yet to be identified impacts too. Some of these impacts are clearly negative, and some clearly positive. It is impossible to say with any kind of certainty whether current impact estimates have a positive or a negative bias. Yet, countries like Canada, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden are cold but prosperous. Warming would reduce costs and lift constraints and thus accelerate economic growth, but it is hard to imagine that warming would unleash very rapid growth. At the same time, tropical countries clearly suffer from violent storms, prolonged droughts, and the presence of tropical diseases. Further warming would not be good, and subjecting more places to such conditions cannot be positive either. Although not quantified, one can more easily imagine a scenario in which warming has dramatic consequences than a scenario in which warming has large positive effects. So, at the least, the great many unknowns imply that the uncertainty is skewed to the negative; and that, if anything, current impacts estimates are positively biased. This suggests that greenhouse gas emission reduction should be more stringent than suggested by cost-benefit analysis. The policy implications are twofold. Firstly, in the short-term, more emission reduction may be economically justified than suggested by a cost-benefit analysis. Secondly and more importantly, we need to build up the technological and institutional ability to rapidly respond to climate change – be it in the form of greenhouse gas emission reduction, adaptation (including international adaptation assistance), or geoengineering. Policy should not fly blind, however. If the above diagnosis of the state of knowledge is correct, it would most of all call for a vigorous research programme. RICHARD S.J. TOL 456 Environmental Values 17.4 Although some countries propose to spend billions of dollars on emission reduction, and other countries pretend that climate change is a problem that can safely be ignored, little effort is spent on supporting these courses of action by research into whether climate change is a serious problem or not. Climate science is well-funded, but climate impact research much less so. Furthermore, the climate change impact research community is focused on incremental improvements on what is known, ignoring the big unknowns. The number of senior economists who do serious research on the impacts of climate change can be counted on two hands. This is in no proportion to the alleged seriousness of the climate change problem. Worldwide carbon dioxide emissions amounted to some 8 billion tonnes of carbon in 2007. The difference between a carbon tax of $25/tC and $50/tC is worth $200 billion – and spending a small fraction of that money would improve estimates of the social cost of carbon. Future research should focus on: • the quantification of uncertainties; • the estimation of missing impacts; • the estimation of impacts in developing countries; • the interactions between impacts of climate change; • the higher-order economic effects of the impacts of climate change; • ecosystem change and biodiversity loss and their welfare implications; • the impact of extreme climate scenarios; • violent conflict; and • the impact of climate change in the very long term. This research agenda is not limited to the discipline of economics, but economists can and should contribute to every single point. Only after answering these questions can we state with some confidence that climate change is not a dramatic problem, or justify the drastic emission reductions proposed by some policy makers.>>>> Basically what he's saying is "i can't understand how climate change works, but i pretend to understand it" and "more research should be done on climate change before we start implementing environmental measures, because this sh*t can be expensive."" It's the economic incentive all over again. I guess money does Rule. PS: notice that he is in favor of a Carbon Tax.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1632 days ago)
precisely. Guest12456789 just regurgitates stuff he has picked up without first forming it into a relevant argument, in an effort to deflect you away from what was being discussed, we were discussing richard tol's demolition of the 97% study and dana nuccitelli's rather petulant and childish response in the tweets, and now we are being subjected to unprompted incoherant rants (see below). Maybe we should just leave him to it and let people reading this to make their own judgement
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
precisely. Guest12456789 just regurgitates stuff he has picked up without first forming it into a relevant argument, in an effort to deflect you away from what was being discussed, we were discussing richard tol's demolition of the 97% study and dana nuccitelli's rather petulant and childish response in the tweets, and now we are being subjected to unprompted incoherant rants (see below). Maybe we should just leave him to it and let people reading this to make their own judgement
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1632 days ago)
""we were discussing richard tol's demolition of the 97% study and dana nuccitelli's rather petulant and childish response in the tweets,"" actually, we weren't discussing that. What was happening was: I was asking you for your sources and you were failing to provide. (and you are still failing to do so) but maybe we should let people reading this to make their own judgement.
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
""we were discussing richard tol's demolition of the 97% study and dana nuccitelli's rather petulant and childish response in the tweets,"" actually, we weren't discussing that. What was happening was: I was asking you for your sources and you were failing to provide. (and you are still failing to do so) but maybe we should let people reading this to make their own judgement.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1631 days ago)
Perhaps BoremeEditor should create a poll on each video that asks, "guest123456789 is wrong" or "guest123456789 is right". Would love to see the results on that. I'd start voting that you're wrong even before you post anything. :)
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
Perhaps BoremeEditor should create a poll on each video that asks, "guest123456789 is wrong" or "guest123456789 is right". Would love to see the results on that. I'd start voting that you're wrong even before you post anything. :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1631 days ago)
that would be interesting because you don't know how it's gonna end. If BoreMe editor should ever create a poll to ask "cengland0 is wrong or right?" on each video, be sure that you would get 90% of votes saying that you're wrong... so no fun in that :P
ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment
that would be interesting because you don't know how it's gonna end. If BoreMe editor should ever create a poll to ask "cengland0 is wrong or right?" on each video, be sure that you would get 90% of votes saying that you're wrong... so no fun in that :P
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1631 days ago)
what are you on cary0 is always right!!how can someone who is a banker ever be wrong. and who believes all that this gov tells him the guys not wrong he's a sheeperson
ReplyVote up (101)down (58)
Original comment
what are you on cary0 is always right!!how can someone who is a banker ever be wrong. and who believes all that this gov tells him the guys not wrong he's a sheeperson
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1631 days ago)
LOL! and Mad thinks the lizard people sent me spread their lies :)
ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment
LOL! and Mad thinks the lizard people sent me spread their lies :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1631 days ago)
to*
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
to*
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1631 days ago)
lizard people you say??is that what we are?so people who think and question what we are told are sent by lizard people??im happy to be called that dont know about you. but better to be sent by a lizardperson then be a sheepperson all day long that what i know.and all this from someone posting with a nick of mad of all the nicks you could use why use mad if your not trying to tell the world something about yourself
ReplyVote up (69)down (120)
Original comment
lizard people you say??is that what we are?so people who think and question what we are told are sent by lizard people??im happy to be called that dont know about you. but better to be sent by a lizardperson then be a sheepperson all day long that what i know.and all this from someone posting with a nick of mad of all the nicks you could use why use mad if your not trying to tell the world something about yourself
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1631 days ago)
Latest comment: ok, let's not get overexcited with the bashing, especially when it was unprovoked. I realized i started it (this time) so i apologize. FYI LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
Latest comment: ok, let's not get overexcited with the bashing, especially when it was unprovoked. I realized i started it (this time) so i apologize. FYI LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1631 days ago)
would i be correct in saying we are unable to know if Global warming is a fact or not because we dont have enough records/long term studies to prove either way eg 200 yrs if that of data to prove or disprove gw???
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
would i be correct in saying we are unable to know if Global warming is a fact or not because we dont have enough records/long term studies to prove either way eg 200 yrs if that of data to prove or disprove gw???
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1632 days ago)
Ha. You could also provide him this link: LINK
ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment
Ha. You could also provide him this link: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1632 days ago)
you really have to spell it out dont you. the problem with 123456789 If i had provided a link he would of found a way to dismiss it as "right wing propaganda" etc etc. that is how groupthink works, it is self policing. The only way you can learn is to find out for youself and check the sources (which you cant do with links)
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
you really have to spell it out dont you. the problem with 123456789 If i had provided a link he would of found a way to dismiss it as "right wing propaganda" etc etc. that is how groupthink works, it is self policing. The only way you can learn is to find out for youself and check the sources (which you cant do with links)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1632 days ago)
lol! i can say the same thing about "lukewarmers": they are self policing and they always find a way to dismiss what official environmental government institutions such as NASA have to say about climate change, as skewed to an Alarmist viewpoint by the idiots at the ipcc because of group thinking. The problem with MAD is that he can never put his money where his mouth is. Of course i can check the sources with links! the studies have been published and made available to all! all you have to do is to link me to them... or... you can keep insulting me... i'm sure that you win a lot of arguments with that strategy, among your group of friends...
ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment
lol! i can say the same thing about "lukewarmers": they are self policing and they always find a way to dismiss what official environmental government institutions such as NASA have to say about climate change, as skewed to an Alarmist viewpoint by the idiots at the ipcc because of group thinking. The problem with MAD is that he can never put his money where his mouth is. Of course i can check the sources with links! the studies have been published and made available to all! all you have to do is to link me to them... or... you can keep insulting me... i'm sure that you win a lot of arguments with that strategy, among your group of friends...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1632 days ago)
lol, nice link :) now give me something relevant. which one of his posts prove the lukewarmer's points?
ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment
lol, nice link :) now give me something relevant. which one of his posts prove the lukewarmer's points?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1637 days ago)
cat got your tongue?
ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
cat got your tongue?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1639 days ago)
clueless twat
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
clueless twat
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1639 days ago)
...this "mad" character is a clueless twat is what i meant. Sorry guest123456789
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
...this "mad" character is a clueless twat is what i meant. Sorry guest123456789
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1638 days ago)
no sorry i actually meant guest 123456789
ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment
no sorry i actually meant guest 123456789
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1638 days ago)
sorry again, i meant mad. I don't believe in the lizard people.
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
sorry again, i meant mad. I don't believe in the lizard people.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1643 days ago)
...found it LINK
ReplyVote up (71)down (101)
Original comment
...found it LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Brisbane (1643 days ago)
Yeh thank you lord for making matchsticks out of dozens of houses and taking countless lives, 1, you caused it. ( your evil ) 2, you could not prevent it ( your useless ) 3 you don't exist. ( mmmmm )
ReplyVote up (53)down (118)
Original comment
Yeh thank you lord for making matchsticks out of dozens of houses and taking countless lives, 1, you caused it. ( your evil ) 2, you could not prevent it ( your useless ) 3 you don't exist. ( mmmmm )
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1644 days ago)
you got to thank the lord! do you thank the lord? thank the lord NOW!! thank the LORD GOD DAMMIT!! atheist scum... :))
ReplyVote up (106)down (180)
Original comment
you got to thank the lord! do you thank the lord? thank the lord NOW!! thank the LORD GOD DAMMIT!! atheist scum... :))
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Atheist vs Preacher
Atheist vs Preacher
8-year-old reacts to his mother telling him she is an atheist
8-year-old reacts to his mother telling him she is an atheist
God, heaven and dirt
God, heaven and dirt
What are the most atheist countries in the world?
What are the most atheist countries in the world?
The Atheist Experience - Do atheists go to Hell?
The Atheist Experience - Do atheists go to Hell?