A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics

a reply to: Phage

Phage

I believe that you are a reasonable person (judging by your past posts).

Regardless of the "science" , and we know that "scientists" are now grant whores who will produce whatever result is needed to support activist lobbying....

Try to think like human being. It has always been that scam artists say one thing but their ctions are what should be watched.

The Theory of Global Warming has cost us billions, and is expected to cost trillions. Activists have been advertising and advertising and lobbying like crazy, claiming to have science on their side.

But can you think of one scheme that would reduce the emission of CO2 that has been proposed that actually had a positive environmental effect, instead of being nothing more than a passing of passing money around with certain people pocketing part of the proceeds allong the way?


Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: abracadabra203

Please prove that other greenhouse gases like water and methane are not more important than a gas that comprises less than 0.04 % of the atmosphere, of which humans only contribute a percentage.

Is it possible, just possible mind, that the earth has shifted slightly on its axis so that the northern hemisphere is now tilted slightly closer to the sun. The Eskimos sure think so. And it is a fact that global warming is really only affecting the northern hemisphere.

Isn't GLOBAL warming supposed to effect the entire globe.

Has it occurred to you that people who don't believe in global warming, are not motivated by a desire to continue to pollute the earth but by a desire not to get scammed and cheated of dollars that can actually be used to reduce pollution?

Tired of Control Freaks

Look, my intention is not to argue who's right or wrong about this and that. The point of my post was to highlight the fact that we have an incredible amount of scientifically testable and repeatable evidence that shows that the industrial industry started poring incredible amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and as the CO2 levels rise, so has average global temperatures. Now we're starting to notice the effect is has on our oceans quicker than we anticipated.

I'm not arguing that CO2 is the ONLY gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. It's known that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas, yes. But it is also known that CO2 in high enough quantities also traps in heat. Hence it being called a "greenhouse gas" as well. Also, about CO2 being only .04% of the atmosphere, you need to consider how fragile our ecosystem is. Just because something is .04% of the whole doesn't mean, just by numbers, that a .01% increase won't have a dramatic effect. Again, you need to do some more research before presenting your personal opinions as facts.

I don't understand your argument about climate change not being global. Do you have a specific reason to believe that? Anything you can cite to back up that claim? Every peer-reviewed article I read about climate change cites statistics on a global scale... so I'm not quite too sure what you're alluding to.

You're claim about Earth's tilt... do you have peer-reviewed sources that proves that that has an effect, or is it just conjecture? Again, to prove your opinion, it would be best to do so with reputable sources, odds are you aren't more intelligent than scientists in this field that do this stuff for a living, so personal opinions won't win a scientifically based discussion.

I'm not saying we all need to be sheep and believe everything "the man" tells us, but if you do your own research with a logical and open approach, you just might find that all these scientists around the world aren't making this stuff up. And in any case, wouldn't it be best for mother nature for us to clean up after ourselves regardless?

Your last argument; are you saying that climate change is supposedly a (monetary) scam? How are people getting "cheated of dollars that can actually be used to reduce pollution"? Isn't that what we should be spending money on regardless? If we clean up pollution, and we include CO2 as a polluting gas, that will have a beneficial effect on climate change, will it not? Was that meant to be an claim for or against supporting climate change? I'm sorry, I just don't understand the point you're trying to make there.

I'm curious as to why you don't want to believe all of the evidence in front of all of us? Do you just not like scientists? They're all just people like you and I, and definitely not all the same. Most scientists I've met have been absolutely genuine, nice people that just want to do what's best for the Earth and Humanity.

a reply to: abracadabra203

Because I am old enough and wise enough to disregard words and instead to examine actions and results to see someone' s true intent.

CO2 is not a pollutant and never ever will be. On this planet, CO2 is one of the building blocks of life.The planet is greener because of CO2, crops grown because of CO2.

Scientists are like everyone else and here is a big shocker, so are Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Sugar etc. execs.

When someone, say like Maurice Strong, requests land in Rio for a nature preserve, and then uses it to build a resort for his son to manage. I definately have reservations about his motives.

When focus is taken away from actual pollutants to pretend pollutants, I wonder why?

The hallmarks of the Big Lie are all present.

We have scientists who refuse to publish raw data. Mann's hockey stick graph has been thoroughly discredited. Hadley pretends that he just didn't keep good records.

Do you not think that if someone is going to ask the world's people to totally change society on a dime and to pay up to a trillion dollars on a theory, don't you think it is encumbent upon these scientists to throw open their books and also others to see the raw unadjusted data?

The Big Lie is dependent on everyone singing from the same songbook and shutting up anyone who disagrees.

Do you really think it is fair to declare a "consensus" implies settled science. That pretending that some association to whom thousands of scientists belong have the right to "speak" for every single member.

All of the aspects of the Big Lie are present.

1. Tell a lie so frightenly huge that no one will believe that anyone could lie about such a thing.
2. Tell the public that sacrifice is required to "save the children"
3. Never ever admit that any opponent may have a single point in their favor
4. Make up an enemy and make so evil and huge that you are portraying your side as David vs Goliath. Identify a responsible party that is motivated solely by money and would willingly watch the earth burn to get a buck (Big Oil are the ones behind any opposition)
5. Silence anyone who disagrees with you. Name them an enemy of the state. Destroy their credibility and their careers (I will let you google the scientists who are publicly expressing their fears yourself. There is a debate here on RICO)
6. Sit back and watch the money roll in.

I have asked and I have challenged but no one has answered. What scheme has been put in place to combat global warming that actually did any good. What scheme did more then spread the money from hand to hand, with some of it sticking to each hand it touches.

Stop trying to demonstrate how "smart" you are and how much better you understand the science and start thinking about how you would identify the "Big Lie" so that you would not get fooled again.

REad Hitler's description of the "Big Lie" and see how all this fits.

I spent about 10 years identifying the "Big Lie" when it came to Tobacco. For the first 6 years or so, I was absolutely shocked at what I found. So schocked that I simply could not accept what my mind was telling me was the truth. I had to contack individual researchers personally to see what they had to say.

It was an education, I tell you what! But once that self-education was complete, I learned that I can no longer be fooled by the Big Lie.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The Theory of Global Warming has cost us billions.

Not me it hasn't. Maybe a few bucks here and there. Spare change.
Wars cost a hell of a lot more and don't seem to accomplish much.

But can you think of one scheme that would reduce the emission of CO2 that has been proposed that actually had a positive environmental effect, instead of being nothing more than a passing of passing money around with certain people pocketing part of the proceeds allong the way?

Have you seen the new EPA requirements? Are you familiar with carbon sequestration?

I'm not sure what you mean by "passing money around"." Or do you have a problem with the idea that someone smart enough might come up with technology that reduces atmospheric carbon levels while turning a profit? You have a problem with profit? What are you? A commie?

I have a problem with profit, obscene profit that costs the third world everything and a few rich westerners get obscene amounts of money.

this thread is about scientists lying and corrupting science

Stuff your carbon sequestration and realize there are scientist who are criminals and pervert science

a reply to: Raggedyman

I have a problem with profit, obscene profit that costs the third world everything and a few rich westerners get obscene amounts of money.

While some corporations do indeed make obscene profits, it is not those which are working on technologies for the reduction of carbon emissions.

this thread is about scientists lying and corrupting science

Indeed, it is. Those who are on the payroll of those who are making obscene profits based on the continuing and increased use of fossil fuels.

Stuff your carbon sequestration and realize there are scientist who are criminals and pervert science

Did I say there are not?

a reply to: Phage

Why are you talking about carbon sequestion?

I asked you to think about 1 scheme in the last 30 years that was going to save the world from global warming but ended up every one of those schemes (cap and trade), biofuels etc were nothing but money schemes and did nothing to save us global warming.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman

I have a problem with profit, obscene profit that costs the third world everything and a few rich westerners get obscene amounts of money.

While some corporations do indeed make obscene profits, it is not those which are working on technologies for the reduction of carbon emissions.

this thread is about scientists lying and corrupting science

Indeed, it is. Those who are on the payroll of those who are making obscene profits based on the continuing and increased use of fossil fuels.

Stuff your carbon sequestration and realize there are scientist who are criminals and pervert science

Did I say there are not?

No I didn't say you said there were not

Just baffled why you were changing the subject of the thread, I would also bet a pound to a pence that someone's making money with the science of global warming
Either side

a reply to: Raggedyman

Just baffled why you were changing the subject of the thread

It was not I who changed the subject. I was responding to the claims of another.

I would also bet a pound to a pence that someone's making money with the science of global warming

Ah, I see. You expect climatologists to work for nothing. Do you expect that of all scientists?

a reply to: Phage

No response to my question Phage?

Here is the cost for the United States alone

www.forbes.com...

And how are global emissions going after all this funding in the last 30 years

www3.epa.gov...

That is right - not a single micron of progress

And how is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere going?

www.climatecentral.org...

hmm that is so bad. We have been funding this hysteria for 30 years and CO2 levels are rising.

So what is happening to global temperatures?

www2.ucar.edu...

So temperature has stayed flat or decreased.

Like I said - I don't concentrate on the science. Big Oil makes its money by finding oil, drilling for it and refining it and then selling it to us. They earn their money.

So what does Big Climate Change do for its money, (other than raise hysteria and fear)!

Like I said - the BIG LIE

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No response to my question Phage?

You mean this question?

But can you think of one scheme that would reduce the emission of CO2 that has been proposed that actually had a positive environmental effect

You know what a proposal is, right? Can you name any proposal about anything which has had any effect on anything? You see, proposals don't do anything. You see, your question itself was an oxymoron.

Here is the cost for the United States alone

Really? A four year old article is the best you can come up with? Hopefully more is being spent now. But in case you didn't notice, I actually did acknowledge that money is being spent on studying global warming as well as potential and actual effects, as well as mitigation measures. Remember? Here is what I said:

Not me it hasn't. Maybe a few bucks here and there. Spare change.
Wars cost a hell of a lot more and don't seem to accomplish much.

See, the thing is, the amount I've been paying in taxes hasn't really changed a whole lot in the past 20 years. But if some of it is going to science about the future rather than another stupid war, I'm all for it.

And how are global emissions going after all this funding in the last 30 years

Yeah. Too bad the EPA can't tell China what to do. But it has succeeded in reducing emissions of CO2 in the US by about 9% in the last 10 years. But China does seem to be coming around to the problem.
www3.epa.gov...

So temperature has stayed flat or decreased.

No. Not really. Here's a chart from the page you cited.
www2.ucar.edu...
Here's a quote, again, from your source:

Despite some cooler years from 2008 to 2010, the decade as a whole (2000–2009) was the nation's warmest on record, with an average temperature of 54.0°F. In contrast, the 1990s averaged 53.6°F, and the 1930s averaged 53.4°F.

Like I said - I don't concentrate on the science.

Yeah, I noticed. Stupid science. Here's a question, did someone use magic to make that strange device you are using right now?

Big Oil makes its money by finding oil, drilling for it and refining it and then selling it to us. They earn their money.

Yes they do. Obscene amounts of it. They also do their best to manipulate prices. And they want to make sure that they keep making money. Seems they're doing pretty well. What's your point? I thought you were against profit.

So what does Big Climate Change do for its money, (other than raise hysteria and fear)!

Who is "big climate change", exactly? I mean, it's pretty easy to name the players in "big oil." Know what I mean?

Or are you asking what we "get" from science? Really? Is that what you're asking? You expect instant results? In spite of the economic and political pressure against it? You're not going to see that. On the other hand, the magnitudes more spent on wars have shown dramatic improvements in just about everything, don't you think?

a reply to: Phage

Dance Phage, dance

Why are you worried about the warmest temperature on record (which means the last 180 years)?

I am so glad you don't mind spending your money on science but in reality you are also spending mine. Do I get a vote?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Why are you worried about the warmest temperature on record (which means the last 180 years)?

But, didn't you say this? You've changed your mind?

So temperature has stayed flat or decreased.

So, you don't like your own source anymore? I'm worried because I have some understanding of the science. I understand that we are seeing a trend.

I am so glad you don't mind spending your money on science but in reality you are also spending mine.

No. I'm not spending your money.

Do I get a vote?

Only in voting for your representative of choice (not that there's a great choice). See, the US is a republic, not a true democracy. I think that's a good thing, actually.
www.c4cg.org...

a reply to: Phage

Trends - that is a way of predicting the future. But it is a horrible way.

No I am not worried about the warmest temperature in the last 180 years. Considering that we are in an interglacial stage and have been for about 10,000 years...

And again - you just can't help it - you revert to science - OH I understand the science and therefore I am right!

Every snake oil salesman had a shill! That didn't make the snake oil of any greater medicinal value.

You have to admit that the only that has been accomplished in 30 years is the movement of money!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Trends - that is a way of predicting the future.

No. Trends just indicate what has been happening. And the trend, contrary to your claim to the contrary, is that temperatures have been rising steeply in the past 100 years. The trend is also that anthropogenic CO2 has also been rising steeply.

When observed correlations correspond what theory and models predict, that's another matter.
When trends correspond to scientific predictions, that's another matter.

No I am not worried about the warmest temperature in the last 180 years.

I know you're not.

You have to admit that the only that has been accomplished in 30 years is the movement of money!

No I don't. But, based on your statements, you have to admit that you know nothing about how the money has been spent. And, as I have said, well spent. Better on science than on stupid wars as far as I'm concerned.

Phage
The scientists are lying criminals perverting science to make money.
We know that because of what we learned at east Anglia university

If I read your statement it implies that because they are not making billions their ok.

That sounds stupid, hope I am wrong

a reply to: Raggedyman

The scientists are lying criminals perverting science to make money.

All of them? On both sides? Interesting.
I disagree. I think the majority of scientists (in climate and every other field) are doing something they love, science. I think that they are fortunate to be able to make a living doing something they love. Something they have devoted a good portion of their lives to. I've known, and know a number of scientists. It doesn't sound like you have, or do.

I also think that there are a small number of aberrations who do sell out.

If I read your statement it implies that because they are not making billions their ok.

No. That is not what I meant to say or imply.

I have and do and I am aware
That's the funny thing

I am not foolish enough to think they are all saints, seems what you imply

I could list stuff

Please don't patronize me, I qualified my statement with EAst Anglia University

You would take a big step in your own enlightenment If you just accepted that scientists are not perfect

There is so much more I could say

a reply to: Raggedyman

I am not foolish enough to think they are all saints, seems what you imply

Where did I imply that?

Please don't patronize me, I qualified my statement with EAst Anglia University

What? You seemed to find some fault with scientists at East Anglia (I presume you're talking about "climategate." I suppose you haven't followed the discussion on that very far. I suppose you don't really know much about the actual facts.) then extend it to all scientists:

The scientists are lying criminals perverting science to make money.
We know that because of what we learned at east Anglia university

www.factcheck.org...
rationalwiki.org...

You would take a big step in your own enlightenment If you just accepted that scientists are not perfect

Who said scientists are perfect?

There is so much more I could say

Would it be of any value? If so, please do.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Please don't patronize me, I qualified my statement with EAst Anglia University

You would take a big step in your own enlightenment If you just accepted that scientists are not perfect

There is so much more I could say

Are we trying to build a strawman here?

I really do not get how you guys try to write off all scientists as corrupted money whores, while completely ignoring the reality that the handful of scientists who reject AGW are being bought by big oil. This is well documented.

This is not much different than the tobacco industry who paid scientists to tell us smoking is not harmful. They faced RICO charges. The groups who lobby against AGW with bad science and political rhetotic deserve the same. The Heartland Institute is among the groups who are participating in the deception. There are a few more I can name...