Global Warming Deniers Become More Desperate By the Day

Whether natural or human induced or not at all, there's one thing that's is surely going on. That's agenda. Carbon trading is already here. Personally I recently delta with that, I did not accept them for my own use in trading but donated them instead. Taxing is on the horizon. Maybe we should pay closer attention to how that will be corrupted now, or not id that is the argument, because Global Warning vs anti Global Warming seems to be getting us now where as of yet, just bickering.

a reply to: ketsuko

Words of wisdom.

a reply to: bjarneorn

The amount of scientists, that actually promote the idea that the earth is "constant" is more than just scary ...

Can you provide one link to a scientist who has ever said that?

A beezzer "Thought Experiment"


Imagine a living room in a typical house.

A chair or two, a sofa, some end tables, a coffee table, etc.

Now imagine that each piece of furniture represents a country.

Now if we imagine that global warming is real. . . . set each piece of furniture on fire. The smoke can represent the impact that "man-made" global-weather-doom has on the planet.

Pretty messy, eh?

Now imagine that we stop global-panic-weather-doom by pouring water on a chair (representing carbon credit-tax)

Is the living room still on fire?

You betcha it is!

Global-warming-climate-change-doom-weather-climate is nothing more than a sideways attempt for a one-world-government.

In order to stop all the supposed global-blah-blah, you'd need to douse all the furniture in the room. (Remember, each piece of furniture represents a country) That is, IF man-made-climate-weather-some-rain-and-sun-weather actually exists.

Oh don't anybody worry.

The Obama Administration is working for YOU !!

Get your pens and checkbooks ready.

Call your lawyer too.

Obama administration unveils controversial emissions cap on power plants

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, but here is the problem, (which I'm sure you understand) if we put half as much effort into clean ideas for power and energy, as we do in coming up with new schemes and taxes for existing energy, we couldn't make half as much money.

we=government.

you know the scariest part of all this human caused climate change/global warming or whatever they decide to call it next week BS is? the fact that it is becoming rather like a religion. or should i say two competing religions. each side has complete faith in their side. each side desperately tries to convert the other side to their point of view. each side thinks the other side is being led astray by false profits. each side trows insults and demeans those on the other side. what is next open war between the two religions? after all there can only be one true god in this debate, humans are either causing it, or it is a natural occurrence.

originally posted by: ketsuko

So the best we can do is mitigate ourselves at the local level and stop trying to create grand, global control schemes for it all. Because really, in the end, the best any of us can do is take care of ourselves, and the bigger and grander our power schemes get, the less real control there actually is as more and more corruption and push-back creeps in. The poorer people are, the more they will start burning things like wood, for example.

well put. all we can really do is the best we can in our own areas. hurting the little guy would have the effect you give. especially when so many people can barely survive as it is any increases which taxes will cause because we all know that it would all be loaded onto the end consumers driving prices up. doing things like shutting down power plants before viable and inexpensive (or at least the same cost, not more expensive) alternatives are in place and functioning well would also drive costs up. just look at cars a gas/electric hybrid is a lot more expensive than an equal sized gas car. or even the cost of replacing your old appliances with new lower power usage models. so many people even though they would just love to drive a hybrid car (and save a bit on gas too), or would love to conserve electricity by buying modern more efficient appliances, literally can not afford to do so. and likewise the same people really can not afford to pay more for gas and electricity which crap like carbon taxes would cause.


actually it would not be wood people would be burning. people would start burning COAL for heating and cooking. since coal is not only more efficient than wood for these purposes, but coal is also an extremely cheap, renewable resource. coal is what most poor people around the world in developing countries use for these purposes, because they can not afford things like electric appliances or the electricity or even gas appliances and the gas they run off of to run them. heck a lot of them wouldn't even have room in their home for something like a stove.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: rickymouse

Here's my problem with what you said although I agree with a lot of it:

We don't know or understand all the many variables that go into making our climate what it is. Any responsible scientist will tell you this. So, if we don't understand the mechanisms and how they all work together, how can we know for certain what our own contributions are and what they fully mean?

By spending a few decades doing research, making experiments and observations. We do understand many of the mechanisms and how they work together and their quantitative magnitude.

We don't know for 'certain' but we have a good idea. And you ask scientists how well they know parts of the field and how much they don't. Do we understand conventional stellar structure & evolution well now? Yes, definitely. 100 years ago? No. Do we understand all of the Big Bang and dark matter physics? No. Would astrophysicists have a good idea what we know and what we don't know? Yes.

We don't have a perfectly predictive model of human physiology accounting for everybody's individual DNA profile. So does that mean that pumping carbon monoxide into your house isn't going to be a problem? Hell no. Just because I don't have a computer program that will PREDICT if you'll croak in 11.23 minutes instead of 9.94 minutes, doesn't mean it's an freakingly idiotic thing to do.

That is really the equivalent of the non-scientific fear-uncertainty-doubt agenda being pushed against actual climate research (and not in any other field of science except where it threatens profitable entrenched commercial and political interests).

If I remember properly, somewhere in this thread the idea was introduced that "deniers" were throwing all sorts of theories at the wall to see what would stick.

I nearly gasped at the brazenness of that charge. The "Climate Fundamentalists" have tried global cooling, global warming, and climate change. They have blamed whatever they call it for excess snow, insufficient snow, high temperatures, low temperatures, oh, what's the use. "Deniers" appear rock steady in comparison to "Climate Fundamentalists."

I have heard often that X % of scientists believe such and such, as if scientific truths were discovered by opinion poll. But live by the poll, die by the poll.

How many scientists believe the following:

1.) We are in a significant warming period.
2.) The increase in temperature was caused mostly by man's activities, and not by the mere fact there are more of us.
3.) The warming will result in net damage to the planet. (There are expected to be some plus and some minuses.) AND,
4.) It will be cheaper to solve the problem now, than deal with it when it arrives.

If you got 20% to agree with all of those, I'd be astonished.

Not only is there no scientific agreement for global warming, the opinion is changing to the position that there isn't global warming. "Climate Fundamentalists" are political animals.

I have a close friend who is a meteorologist for NASA

He says that global warming is in no way man made, rather it is part of the regular cycle of the earth

He also says we can no more stop it or start it by what we do on the planet

I remember in the 1970's when all the scientists were warning us that an ice age was coming if we didn't stop using hydrocarbens. They blamed global cooling on what people were doing.

Sorry the science changes regularly, just because a scientist says it doesn't mean it is true.

Scientists have basically all agreed in my lifetime that I recall:
1st - man made global cooling
2nd - man made global warming

1st - coffee is bad for you
2nd - coffee is good for you

1st - salt causes heart attacks
2nd - too little salt in the diet causes heart attacks

1st - eggs are bad for you
2nd - eggs are good for you

1st - all fat is bad
2nd - we need fat to control hunger and for the nervous system to work properly

1st - all alcohol is bad
2nd - beer is good for clearing kidney stones
3rd - a glass of red wine per day is good for the heart

I could go on and on and on

Just because "scientists" agree, doesn't make it so, scientists seem to have become the new God whose every utterance is to be followed and worshiped as the truth forever and ever.

What happened to all the greenies who went along with the global cooling and coming ice age scare of the 1970's? There were tons of respected scientists who swore an ice age was coming and we needed to stop polluting the air which was the direct cause of global cooling and the coming ice age.

SCIENCE the NEW RELIGION

originally posted by: nomickeyshere
a reply to: FyreByrd

line up all the "scientists" who advocate global warming and list how much money in grants they are getting from the US gov.
then do the same for all the scientists that say global warming is b.s. and list how much grant money they get.mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

so...show us the numbers...and the ones that say global warming is B.S., show us what corporation supports them...and by the way, wouldn't most scientists by logical reasoning, have to be sponsored by somebody?.....you don't think they work an 8 hour day that pays the bills, then on their off time as a hobby, go do research on global warming, do you?

a reply to: grandmakdw

Science is the new religion? Woah easy there tiger.

Don't forget science is based on facts. ;-)

And yes I agree that science can contradict itself, but only when 'new' science is discovered.

You can't get 'new' religion, it's never been proved in the first place!

On topic; I thought that most agreed that climate change will happen if we were here or not? And that us over populating the planet is probably influencing/speeding it up a tad?

Seems pretty simple to me, I'm not sure what all the arguing is about.

I know......isnt global warming so crazy! Ugh I can almost hear the polar icecaps melting and hear polar bears crying out.....

Ps...isnt this the mildest Summer we've had in like, at least 5 years?

LoL where do you people come up with this stuff

Just a little more for your consideration:


The U.S. wastes up to 86% of its energy

www.ecobuddhism.org...

So how does Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s 2012 energy flow analysis compare to its analyses in recent years? Strikingly, their findings suggest that 2012 was the most energy-wasteful year in more than a decade (and the third most profligate year since LLNL began producing these studies in the 1970s). By LLNL’s historical calculations, the amount of energy wasted annually has hovered between 50-58% during the last ten years. But in 2012, their waste calculation shot up to 61%.

Why? AJ Simon, a senior researcher at LLNL who leads the energy flow studies, states that the increased waste number stems in part from updated assumptions about the end-use efficiency of vehicles and household appliances. Specifically, a pair of recent analyses of overall energy consumption in the transportation and residential sectors prompted LLNL to adopt more realistic engineering estimates for 2012.

I can understanding feeling fear and helplessness in the face of global environmental devastation.

And then there is the money put into Climate Denial:


‘Conservative Donors’ pump $1 billion
a year into climate-denying groups

www.ecobuddhism.org...


For those of you who will turn around and say that "The Government" in pouring money into Climate Change Realism - it's true - it's our money and I remind you government is different then politicians. Most government scientists are largely concerned with the science of the situation (though I do recall under Bush II - they weren' t allow to publish their findings on the greenhouse effect). It is also possible, though I know many hate to acknowlege the fact, to find research outside of the US on this subject.

originally posted by: OpenEars123
a reply to: grandmakdw

Don't forget science is based on facts. ;-)

Sorry but I disagree. Science is based on THEORY with damn few facts at all. Each new theory is built on previous theories. Problem is, the reputations of these scientists is now on shaky ground that they find contrary to their funding if they call the foundation theories into question. So yeah, the PRIME criteria of science now is to protect their own asses by supporting the status quo. Find a FACT that actually contradicts a favored theory? Discard it claiming the source is not accredited (meaning not from the fold of fellow theorists).

Heck how many REAL scientists have been derided and basically run out of the establishment science arena only to be found out later to have been correct?

Want to find a TRUE scientist? Find one that is not dependent upon funding from the government or large commercial concern. As a for instance, do you REALLY believe any scientist making claims of the Gulf of Mexico in relation to the oil spill when they are being funded by BP?

a reply to: FyreByrd

I'm not sure your article claims that the US wastes 86% of it's energy.

First, the 61% waste in 2012 comes from the fact that Lawrence Livermore changed their measuring stick in 2012.

Second, the 86% figure comes from one physicist, Ayres, who uses an entirely different definition, not comparable to Livermore's study.

Certainly, there is a massive amount of waste. What is a reasonable amount? I might have a light going in another room, or a second computer plugged in. Certainly that's all waste.

About the only thing that's 100% efficient is an electric heater.

a reply to: FyreByrd

"wastes" is a value judgment. What price is happiness or comfort?

All of that energy was paid for by the user. None of your business.

Obviously the AGW are water melons (green on the outside, red to the core), who feel they have the right to control everything on the planet.

Why should anyone believe the AGW propaganda?

originally posted by: OpenEars123
a reply to: grandmakdw

Science is the new religion? Woah easy there tiger.

Don't forget science is based on facts. ;-)

And yes I agree that science can contradict itself, but only when 'new' science is discovered.

You can't get 'new' religion, it's never been proved in the first place!

On topic; I thought that most agreed that climate change will happen if we were here or not? And that us over populating the planet is probably influencing/speeding it up a tad?

Seems pretty simple to me, I'm not sure what all the arguing is about.

Science is based on what we know today, the "facts" are constantly and consistently changing in every discipline

What is scientific fact today is more than likely debunked tomorrow

I have seen it over and over in my lifetime

You say overpopulation causes it? I checked the figures and if each person were allotted an equal amount of land mass on the earth as their own, there would be one person for every 3 square miles

Actually the world is at the beginning of depopulation, all developed countries are steeped in depopulation, even Mexico is only .01% away from depopulating. The remaining countries with high birth rates also have exceptionally high mortality rates. Some scientists have predicted that humans will be extinct in 500 years at the current rate of world wide depopulation.

To believe in science to the extent that you believe that all scientists give everyone 100% truth and that blindly believe every "fact" science spits out is a form of religion. Faith without reason, believing what you are told and not thinking for yourself.

Climate change, a developing ice age or global warming, whatever, the climate was changing long long before man arrived and will continue to change throughout it's existence.

People my age can tell you that the air is much much much cleaner now than in the 60's and 70's
the water is pristine compared to the same time period
there are actually more trees on the earth now than 100 years ago
I know you youngins won't believe me, so check it out for yourself.
It used to be so bad in California that you could not even LA through the smog (a combination of fog and soot in the 60's and 70's)

a reply to: FyreByrd

The whole diatribe sounds like a butter-up effort for rationing.

sorry.no.sale



boycott.the.central.committee

outlaw.the.politburo

a reply to: ketsuko

We could do this ourselves, but it would take the cooperation of businesses and a lot of people would be out of work in the USA in ten years...because we have a consumer based economy, not an economy where we make what we need.

I'd pay triple the price for a toaster if it made good toast and lasted for thirty years. But right now, they quit making good toast, they turn out hard and dry, after a couple of years so you have to buy a new toaster. It doesn't matter if you buy a fifty buck toaster, they all do this. The only option is commercial toasters, and the two slicer is over three hundred bucks.

Fridges have a life expectancy of seven years now, furnaces about twelve to fifteen. It doesn't matter how good of one you get, they are all the same.

The only reason for this is so we have to buy a new one in a little while, but some of these are big dollar items and to make a good one would only cost five to ten percent more most times. This death dating of stuff has gone insane, a new furnace should last twenty five years without too many problems. But those days are gone.

It is too late to reverse climate change, but we can lessen the impact by cutting back on wasting. But some people will not even consider cutting back because it will negatively effect their livelihood. A salesman wants return customers, so they look the other way. A mechanic wants work, so they won't complain about a steady income. An oil worker will not think oil is the problem, they will look the other way because their job pays well and they will promote traveling and gas guzzling cars. It is not only the business owners.

We cannot self regulate, neither can our government, they won't do things that negatively effect the economy, they are elected by the people. A tax will just give them more money to waste.

I don't see a solution to this problem, people have got used to flying all over, and driving to the store for a half gallon of milk has become routine. People don't plan ahead so much anymore like they did when I was young.

I don't see this problem going away. The tax isn't going to do anything except fund the cleanup of the effected areas and they will rebuild in the same risky places.