Global Warming HOAX Unravels

a reply to: AboveBoard

Sometimes I wonder why I bother with them as well. I've stopped actively participating in the evolution threads that misrepresent science for this reason, but then I remember that these people are holding the US back from actually FIXING this problem. They are contributing to the destruction of society as we know it. And the worst part, because this is a gradual problem, they likely won't even see the effects of their complacent ignorance. Their kids will see it (consequently millennials are more likely to believe in AGW than any other generation, I wonder why that is?)

Meanwhile, the evolution debate doesn't actually have grave impacts on the future of human society. Ignorance of evolutionary theory isn't going to make the world unlivable later down the line.

a reply to: AboveBoard

That solar plant image is so sad, its actually in Spain, and the company, Abengoa is broke because invested too much in solar power and wind power turn out to be more profitable

a reply to: Indigent

The image? Not sure. But the reality of the German solar plants - I posted a link to Reuters (2012) at the end of my memes. Solar is now in viable competition with coal burning nuclear plants... Not saying its perfect, just saying its a real thing... More use of the sun is very good in the long run. It's just sitting up there beaming energy to us if we are smart enough to figure out how to collect it for our use...

Here's a second article from this year: Did German solar top nuclear for the first time?

Good day.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Some? You and I both know the real adjective there is most. Don't pretend otherwise. We've all heard the 97% of scientists agree with AGW statistic. That may not be a 100% accurate statistic, but dammit even if it is off by 30 percentiles, that is still 77% and STILL most scientists.

I've heard/read various percentages. I've also heard/read about scientists who have been ruined professionally and personally for speaking out against the status quo. I've also heard/read about the huge grants given to scientists who push the global warming scenario (but not given to scientists who dare to think otherwise). Yes, yes, indeed... I've heard/read lots of things, and not all of them can be true...

Plus BULL#! Science works with something called a margin of error. Even when you measure with a ruler you still have to account for margin of error. There is no scientific reading that will be consistent 100% of the time. That ISN'T science and if you knew anything about it you'd know better than to say what you just said.

Margin of error? Really? Then it's not proven science; it's scientific theory.

All I do is post links.

Awwww, come on, you know you do a lot more than just "post links."

You don't address any of them...

I've addressed everything you've said, with or without links. Should we just have a link posting contest? Who can post the most links to support a particular opinion? What will that prove? Not a damn thing. You can post any link you want to counter anything and everything I've said.

...nor post any of your own.

Not true: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism For the most part, I've only posted my own opinions, mostly proclaiming my ignorance on the subject, and acknowledging my own limitations... I don't know where to find a link showing my ignorance.

Don't tell me to post links, hypocrite.

Oooh... nice....

There is no winning with you... Such closed mindedness...

Yeah, that MUST be it... because I've made so many claims about knowing what I cannot know.... the obvious sign of a closed mind.

You know this how?

You're right... I don't know. I know that I haven't heard one word about doing any of those things from our dear leaders, but the summit isn't over yet. Maybe they'll prove me wrong.

a reply to: AboveBoard

I not saying you are wrong, i just found ironic the image when that company is currently bankrupt due to their investment in solar power

PS10 solar power plant

a reply to: Indigent

Ah - I found what you meant, but not on that page...it's not that the companies were bad or that solar power was a bad investment, but that their funding was cut retroactively, ending in companies with financial obligations due to having those subsidies as collateral for expansion, perhaps? Sounds like they got screwed.

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Spanish government drastically cut its subsidies for solar power and capped future increases in capacity at 500 MW per year, with effects upon the industry worldwide.

"The solar industry in 2009 has been undermined by [a] collapse in demand due to the decision by Spain," according to Henning Wicht, a solar-power analyst.[7] In 2010, the Spanish government went further, retroactively cutting subsidies for existing solar projects, aiming to save several billion euro it owed.[3][20]

According to the Photovoltaic Industry Association, several hundred photovoltaic plant operators may face bankruptcy.[21] Phil Dominy of Ernst & Young, comparing the feed-in tariff reductions in Germany and Italy, said "Spain stands out as an example of how not to do it."[22]

As a result, a Spanish association of solar power producers has announced its intention to go to court over the government’s plans to cap solar subsidies. In 2014 alternative energy group NextEra filed a complaint against Spain at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.[23]

Another victim of the 2008 global financial meltdown.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I've heard/read various percentages. I've also heard/read about scientists who have been ruined professionally and personally for speaking out against the status quo. I've also heard/read about the huge grants given to scientists who push the global warming scenario (but not given to scientists who dare to think otherwise). Yes, yes, indeed... I've heard/read lots of things, and not all of them can be true...

You've heard about all these things yet none of that disproves that most scientists agree with AGW, grants or no. Most of what you just said above is right wing rhetoric designed to muddy the waters. The people who lose their careers over denying climate change usually lose their jobs because they are frauds and tried to push fraudulent data as science. That is what happens to frauds in the scientific community despite what the right likes to claim.

Margin of error? Really? Then it's not proven science; it's scientific theory.

...Um... Really? REALLY? You are going to go there? Man I feel like I'm in an evolution debate after all... "It's only a theory..." Did you fail grade school science or something? Or were you sick the day they went over the definition of a scientific theory?
What is a Scientific Theory?

Science doesn't GET any more credible than a scientific theory.

I've addressed everything you've said, with or without links. Should we just have a link posting contest? Who can post the most links to support a particular opinion? What will that prove? Not a damn thing. You can post any link you want to counter anything and everything I've said.

No, you post links to show that you aren't making up your opinion right there on the spot. That other people than yourself (who have more credibility of course) also feel the same as you or that data that you are claiming is showing something is really showing something. I learned about sourcing your work in school too. They seemed to be pretty hot about it.

Not true: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism For the most part, I've only posted my own opinions, mostly proclaiming my ignorance on the subject, and acknowledging my own limitations... I don't know where to find a link showing my ignorance.

Ok. One post, but you've posted more than just opinions. You've made QUITE a few claims as truth without links. Also if you are going to default to a position of ignorance, then it behooves you not to call someone with better information than yourself wrong. You should go educate yourself then come back to the discussion. Ignorance of your position is no excuse for denial.

Yeah, that MUST be it... because I've made so many claims about knowing what I cannot know.... the obvious sign of a closed mind.

Close minded is also refusing to accept obvious evidence in front of your face telling you something.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Of course you won't post sources. Getting you to post sources is like pulling teeth, then you blame me for calling you to task for it.

I'm so sorry... as I've said... I have absolutely no idea where to find sources that confirm that I don't know if manmade global warming is true or not!!! But, again, if you have some, please share. I'd be fascinated to find a website devoted to what I do or do not know!!!

Unless, of course, you're speaking to my reference of re-entering the Maunder Minimum. In which case, I'm really bemused... You said you know global warming is a fact, but you don't know about the Maunder Minimum? Nor that scientists are claiming we've re-entered the Maunder Minimum. How can that be?

Or, maybe, your demand for links isn't about educating yourself, and my stubborness in refusing to jump through your hoops is because I understand that and refuse to play your game. You have already stated that you "know." Okay. You obviously don't need any links I can provide, do you?

So I'm just going to not believe you.

Wait... so because I can't find a link that proves I don't know you're going to believe that I really do know what I think I don't know??? Damn... I'm good!

Easy enough for me. I have my hands full putting together my own half of the argument, let alone providing the sources for YOUR half of the argument.

Okay.

a reply to: Metallicus

The global warming being pushed on us by global governments is a science fraud. The satellite data purported to show a warming "trend" over the last hundred years has been fraudulently altered to show a warming trend where none exists.

The Anti-AGW being pushed on us by massive Oil & Gas companies is a corporate fraud. The Satellite date does show a warming "trend" over the last hundred years and GHG's have been rising since the start of the Industrial Age.

What the data really show are an obvious cooling trend over the last hundred years (see below). But because this cooling trend doesn't fit the globalist agenda of enslaving the population under a system of absolute behavioral control, the data had to be altered to fit the government narrative of global warming / climate change.

What the data really shows (over and over again) is that an obvious warming trend is occurring, but because this warming trend doesn't fit the Oil & Gas agenda of enslaving the population under a system of absolute dependence on their product, they spend millions to convince the uneducated masses that global warming is a hoax.

I used to casually believe the global warming narrative, but when I took a closer look at the data and motivations of those pushing the global warming agenda, it became obvious to me that global warming is a massive scientific hoax being perpetrated for political reasons.

As a Republican, I used to firmly believe the anti-AGW narrative, but when I took a closer look at the date and motivations of those pushing this global cooling agenda, it became obvious to me that global cooling is a massive Oil & Gas corporate hoax being perpetrated for financial reasons.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I'm so sorry... as I've said... I have absolutely no idea where to find sources that confirm that I don't know if manmade global warming is true or not!!! But, again, if you have some, please share. I'd be fascinated to find a website devoted to what I do or do not know!!!

Then your opinion is one formed of ignorance not facts. Come back to me when you've read up on the science.

Unless, of course, you're speaking to my reference of re-entering the Maunder Minimum. In which case, I'm really bemused... You said you know global warming is a fact, but you don't know about the Maunder Minimum? Nor that scientists are claiming we've re-entered the Maunder Minimum. How can that be?

I SAID post sources for your claims. I also said I have no desire to believe anything that you don't source. I never said I'm unaware of anything you haven't sourced. You've already tried this argument on me before in that abortion thread.

Or, maybe, your demand for links isn't about educating yourself, and my stubborness in refusing to jump through your hoops is because I understand that and refuse to play your game. You have already stated that you "know." Okay. You obviously don't need any links I can provide, do you?

I'm sorry. I guess it is unreasonable to extend a reasonable basis of intellectual discourse and that it be maintained by both parties. I guess you are right, we should just have a shouting match and the loudest person or the person who doesn't get frustrated and leaves first wins right?

PS: I'm really curious why you don't want to investigate the OBVIOUS link between the oil companies paying "scientists" to deny AGW to protect their profits? Or that they are literally using the same tactics used to cover up the link between smoking and cancer? I mean these are REAL conspiracies. Not this fake "is AGW real or not" discussion.

Look, I truly believe that climate change is being exaggerated in order to make profits, no doubt in my mind.

On the other hand, there is no way in hell that humans are not having an impact on the climate of the earth.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Okay. Wow. Links? Really? Links???

You and I both know that you aren't stupid and you aren't up to your neck in concrete and you are quite capable of -- and responsible for -- doing your own due diligence, no matter what position I (or anyone) states or provides links for. You also know that I can and will provide links -- plenty of links! -- when appropriate, and that I have -- plenty of times!

But you really didn't need links. Nothing I stated is brand new information that you're hearing for the first time, so you certainly didn't need any links to prove that someone somewhere made this, that or the other claim. And the only truth I'm stating is that I DON'T KNOW what the truth is, and there are no links for that.

And now I'm done. We're talking in circles (at best) and I can't do this anymore. I'm getting more and more disgusted with myself the longer it goes on; but right now, I seriously don't know how to do better, so I'll just stop now. I don't know what this is really about, but it's pretty darn pathetic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

millennials are more likely to believe in AGW than any other generation, I wonder why that is?

Because young people are gullible and more likely to be influenced by the establishment. I didn't realize that the Government and the U.N. were the real enemy until I got older.

a reply to: Rezlooper

I don't care about Oil and Gas profits, but it is completely obvious to me that this entire climate change issue is going to be used by the globalists to enslave the world population and create a central authority that supersedes sovereignty. I find that much more frightening than some rich a-hole losing some beachfront property.

a reply to: Boadicea

And now I'm done. We're talking in circles (at best) and I can't do this anymore. I'm getting more and more disgusted with myself the longer it goes on; but right now, I seriously don't know how to do better, so I'll just stop now. I don't know what this is really about, but it's pretty darn pathetic.

dont you see thats exactly the tactic thats used

Obfuscate, deny , and try and talk in circles or misdirect in order to make the conversation DIFFERENT than the subject in order to completely shut down the discussion.

Its a common method I see all the time here on ATS, especially in reference to one or two current posters on this thread

originally posted by: roncoallstar
Look, I truly believe that climate change is being exaggerated in order to make profits, no doubt in my mind.

On the other hand, there is no way in hell that humans are not having an impact on the climate of the earth.

youre right and I dont think anyone is arguing that

There is PLENTY we can do to clean up our planet and try to do things that arent so harmful to the environment

The difference between the two, is that ONE is legit and the other like were seeing now, amounts to extortion by politicians and global elites of the world who will make billions on it.

If something is legit then it should stand on its own merit, not thrust own our throats and MANDATED

Not to mention the calls for anyone who questions it to be punished criminally....

Red flags all over the place

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Boadicea

And now I'm done. We're talking in circles (at best) and I can't do this anymore. I'm getting more and more disgusted with myself the longer it goes on; but right now, I seriously don't know how to do better, so I'll just stop now. I don't know what this is really about, but it's pretty darn pathetic.

dont you see thats exactly the tactic thats used

Obfuscate, deny , and try and talk in circles or misdirect in order to make the conversation DIFFERENT than the subject in order to completely shut down the discussion.

Its a common method I see all the time here on ATS, especially in reference to one or two current posters on this thread

No, I confess I didn't see it. At least not in that perspective. And I guess I wanted to give more credit than that... but whether intended or not, it sure has the same end result.

Thanks for pointing it out. In the end our words will have to stand on their own merits. I'm glad you added those to the mix.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

There is PLENTY we can do to clean up our planet and try to do things that arent so harmful to the environment

The difference between the two, is that ONE is legit and the other like were seeing now, amounts to extortion by politicians and global elites of the world who will make billions on it.

Exactly -- thank you!!!

I have no idea what if any impact mankind is having on the changing climate patterns... but I do know there is much local and regional pollution happening that needs to be addressed, and that there is much we can and should be doing to address it. It also seems to me that doing so would play likewise have an impact on any manmade global warming.

a reply to: Metallicus

My post history on global warming speaks for itself, but your source and the author of that source are a complete joke. I am strongly asking those who used that source to direct their views to dismiss this diatribe. The article is poorly written and inaccurate.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

millennials are more likely to believe in AGW than any other generation, I wonder why that is?

Because young people are gullible and more likely to be influenced by the establishment. I didn't realize that the Government and the U.N. were the real enemy until I got older.

Or maybe because they actually study the science and know it is real?