My point is that the oil (energy) companies have more money and control than any group of scientists and researchers. What was your point?
My point was that the issue of CO2 causing global warming has always been about redistributing wealth; a tax on rich countries if you will. If it turns out global warming is caused by natural forces then these carbon purchase schemes will be exposed for what they truly are, a money grab.
I understand the argument about big energy companies spending money to discredit the theories. That was not part of my post as it does not figure into this debate.
IP: Logged
09:24 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
My point was that the issue of CO2 causing global warming has always been about redistributing wealth; a tax on rich countries if you will. If it turns out global warming is caused by natural forces then these carbon purchase schemes will be exposed for what they truly are, a money grab.
I could see missile manufacturing get a sudden increase in funding.
My point was that the issue of CO2 causing global warming has always been about redistributing wealth; a tax on rich countries if you will. If it turns out global warming is caused by natural forces then these carbon purchase schemes will be exposed for what they truly are, a money grab.
It turns out that it isn't caused by mere natural forces according to the Science.
quote
The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming. Many media outlets have reported that this is an increase from the 90 percent certainty in the fourth IPCC report, but actually the change is much more significant than that. In fact, if you look closely, the IPCC says that humans have most likely caused all of the global warming over the past 60 years.
A money grab? Heaven forbid countries should help pay to mitigate the harm they do to the environment.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 09-30-2013).]
IP: Logged
09:31 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37819 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
In his editorial, Roy Spencer bounced between the second and fourth stages of global warming denial, also claiming that solving the problem is too expensive and will hurt the poor. In reality the opposite is true.
Spencer specifically attacked renewable energy like wind power as being too expensive. In reality, wind power is already cheaper than coal, even without considering the added climate damage costs from coal carbon emissions. When including those very real costs, solar power is also already cheaper than coal. Additionally, the poorest countries are generally the most vulnerable to climate change. Listening to Spencer and continuing to cause rapid climate change is what will really hurt the poor. Stage 5: It's too Late
Stage 5 global warming denial involves arguing that it's too late to solve the problem, so we shouldn't bother trying (though few climate contrarians have reached this level). Unfortunately this stage can be self-fulfilling. If we wait too long to address the problem, we may end up committing ourselves to catastrophic climate change.
The good news is that we still have time to avoid a catastrophic outcome. The more emissions reductions we can achieve, the less the impacts of climate change will be. The challenge lies in achieving those greenhouse gas emissions reductions when Rupert Murdoch's media empire and other news outlets are spreading climate misinformation and denial.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 09-30-2013).]
Because they can't change real research and data from so many sources. See the tobacco industry from years back.
Well your mind is firmly set. Does it matter that the evidence shows no growth in global temperatures in the last 15 years despite a growth in CO2? Or is that just an inconvenient truth?
For my part I will make sure my elected representatives know that I do not support any carbon tax or trading scheme or any other such business.
IP: Logged
11:01 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Oh Bear you're it's funny when you accuse others of what you consistently do. WAKE UP!
Pot meet Kettle?
And BTW I agree that article was biased for sure. I posted it with the link as it was an obvious opinion piece.
WRONG. No pot, no kettle. I post either published papers or articles that refer to papers. You posted an editorial, and are evidently not smart enough to know the difference.
IP: Logged
11:09 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
WRONG. No pot, no kettle. I post either published papers or articles that refer to papers. You posted an editorial, and are evidently not smart enough to know the difference.
I didn't realize there were new ground rules for posting on a internet forum?
Would you like me to refer back though your posts and show the times you have cited articles, editorials, opinions and blogs?
And sorry but you prove time and time again you are the one that only listens to the propaganda by just regurgitating the right wing blogs and media sites. Don't try and tell us now that you are going through the scientific papers themselves.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 09-30-2013).]
Well your mind is firmly set. Does it matter that the evidence shows no growth in global temperatures in the last 15 years despite a growth in CO2? Or is that just an inconvenient truth?
For my part I will make sure my elected representatives know that I do not support any carbon tax or trading scheme or any other such business.
My mind is never set on many subjects it's always open to facts (and sometimes the occasional convincing debate). I could refer you to the latest IPCC report and many other scientific findings that answer your question about growth in Temp vs Co2 but then I suspect you are the one who has their mind made up.
Carbon tax? I've been hearing about that boogieman for years and how it's going to ruin everything, where is it? (sound like a familiar arguement?)
Please tell your elected representative that you don't want to pay for anything that you don't believe you should, I'm sure they never tire of hearing it.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 09-30-2013).]
They wouldn't need to. The warming scientists have been changing the data all by themselves.
Sounds like there's a conspiracy afoot!
Those rich scientists and researchers in collusion with the third world countries are fooling the most powerful nations in the world to redistribute their wealth.
IP: Logged
11:40 AM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
Originally posted by Hudini: My point was that the issue of CO2 causing global warming has always been about redistributing wealth; a tax on rich countries if you will. If it turns out global warming is caused by natural forces then these carbon purchase schemes will be exposed for what they truly are, a money grab.
Not all climate scientists are corrupted and I think its foolish to discredit them because of the politics associated with it. I think its a fair assessment that scientists largely became so because they believe in the scientific process, not to get rich. There are much easier ways to get rich.
Not all climate scientists are corrupted and I think its foolish to discredit them because of the politics associated with it. I think its a fair assessment that scientists largely became so because they believe in the scientific process, not to get rich. There are much easier ways to get rich.
It's also why they rarely deal in absolutes which can IMO give those who oppose them an opportunity to confuse the issue.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 09-30-2013).]
IP: Logged
11:47 AM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
Those rich scientists and researchers in collusion with the third world countries are fooling the most powerful nations in the world to redistribute their wealth.
I have given you PROOF of their data manipulation, and the matter of the scientists allegedly being rich is bunk. But you unwittingly helped me prove their point. It is precisely because the scientists are NOT rich, and rely on research grants, that they have to keep the catastrophic warming story going so they can simply ensure themselves a paycheck.
IP: Logged
11:55 AM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
I have given you PROOF of their data manipulation, and the matter of the scientists allegedly being rich is bunk. But you unwittingly helped me prove their point. It is precisely because the scientists are NOT rich, and rely on research grants, that they have to keep the catastrophic warming story going so they can simply ensure themselves a paycheck.
His point and his sarcasm went right over your head!
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 09-30-2013).]
His point and his sarcasm went rightnovef your head!
It did as usual.
The other thing is some seem to fail to realize that scientists will study the change in climate no matter what the reason is as it affects everyone on the planet. I'm sure they would be more than happy to conclude it is natural variability. I would think that if they (whomever the deniers claim is responsible) were so devious and brilliant as to come up with ways to outfox Governments out of their money to try and curb emissions they could just as easily convince Governments to pony up money to adapt instead. Or maybe what they are finding with their data is separate from any proposed solutions but of course that doesn't fit as neatly into the Conspiracy spinners mantra.
IP: Logged
01:11 PM
Mickey_Moose Member
Posts: 7580 From: Edmonton, AB, Canada Registered: May 2001
Those rich scientists and researchers in collusion with the third world countries are fooling the most powerful nations in the world to redistribute their wealth.
Just wondering if you actually read the 'latest' report?
The IPCC and the UN governing body are calling for the "rich nations" to take the lead and pay for developing countries cleanup of their emissions, simply because they have been polluting longer, while these developing economies are allowed business as usual. BTW, the UN governing body is made up of countries including the middle east, which one would tend to think that they would be pushing for more oil development as it would keep them in business – damm those evil gas companies.
Also why is it that when the IPCC was asked about the slowdown in warming, they just said that 15 years to too short of a span and then deflected attention someplace else? They said that you must use 30 years vs. 15 - WHY is that? Why not 1000 years? They want to talk about the BIG picture, so let us use big numbers, or is it simply a fact that using the 30 year data fits their model? I have no argument that 15 years is not long enough, but why are they so insistent on the 30 years?
IP: Logged
01:32 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25406 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: WHY is that? Why not 1000 years? They want to talk about the BIG picture, so let us use big numbers, or is it simply a fact that using the 30 year data fits their model? I have no argument that 15 years is not long enough, but why are they so insistent on the 30 years?
Ideally you would want a timescale that spans most natural cycles, so their influence doesn't hide any long term trends. That said,
AMO cycle: 20-30 years PDO cycle: 20-30 years El Nino / La Nina: ~15 years IPO (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation): 15-30 years Arctic Oscillation: not consistent North Atlantic Oscillation: not consistent Hale cycle: 8-14 years
Ideally you would want a timescale that spans most natural cycles, so their influence doesn't hide any long term trends. That said,
AMO cycle: 20-30 years PDO cycle: 20-30 years El Nino / La Nina: ~15 years IPO (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation): 15-30 years Arctic Oscillation: not consistent North Atlantic Oscillation: not consistent Hale cycle: 8-14 years
Define "natural" - it took several thousand years for the "ice age" to come to an end, just as it did for it to form. For that matter, has it "really" ended or are we simply still just warming? Wouldn't this be considered as being a "natural cycle" not some self imposed xx number of years?
Would any if you global warming believers like to offer me 20:1 odds on a bet that global warming will be denounced within the next 30 yrs?
Already was debunked, that is why they have changed the name to "climate change". And the OP calls us stupid. I suppose that is a step up from being called idiots like last week.
IP: Logged
02:50 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
His point and his sarcasm went rightnovef your head!
No it didn't. I am fully aware newf has no other purpose in this thread other than being a smart ass. He serves no useful purpose. So he can shoot his mouth off all he wants, his posts are useless.
IP: Logged
03:40 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
I don't think that he's a smart ass just because he doesn't agree with you, and I don't think that he posts just for that reason. He has strong opinions just like me, and just like me he is open to changing his opinions when facts warrant.
?
