Right Vs Left Conspiracies, viewed through Climate Change.

a reply to: amazing

And ?

American politics is simple to begin with.

Left versus right.

First, I strongly doubt that aliens in this context would be so heavily biased.. Surely, that's obvious..

I think it'd probably more play out like this:

That one group of humans seems to want to monetize the normal change in climate while conflating it with the environmental impact of their species.

Even if what they claimed was true, they don't seem to be doing much more than giving it lip service and collecting money.

That other group seems to want to profit just as much, but they are fighting to do it through the constructs they have already built.

Boy, they sure look a helluva lot alike and neither one are taking steps toward inventing and manufacturing products and processes for the general population, which would make an actual difference in the environmental impact of their species.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: amazing

And ?

American politics is simple to begin with.

Left versus right.

Nah..that's the news and ATS and Facebook. I bet if we were drinking coffee together...we would be talking about actual issues and not this garbage. and we'd cut straight to the chase...can we believe NASA or not and who is telling us the truth.

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: JoshuaCox

What is more likely that Big Oil and Coal and Combustion engine and power companies are putting forth propaganda so that they don't lose money or that most scientists in the world are lying to us. Seriously. What is more likely?

Its more likely that the oil and coal industries paid off a couple dozen scientists than the liberal elite paid off 90% or more of the worlds scientists.

But you won't get anywhere with this argument because the conservatives would rather assume its all a conspiracy to destroy america created by liberal elites.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think there are flaws in you motivations and payouts sections.

Assuming that global climate change is as controllable and devastating as advertised, then the motivations and payouts for the oil conglomerates make no sense. They are already obscenely wealthy. Allowing the extinction of the human race for more money would be insane. Oil companies may be greedy, but nobody kills themselves, their children, and everyone else on Earth for money.

On the other hand, proponents of global climate change haven't really offered any solutions on par with the severity of the threat they seem to perceive. Even the proponents admit that the "goals" for carbon emission reduction they suggest will not have a significant impact. The Earth's climate doesn't care how much you tax people. If money was a solution, we could just print enough to deal with the problem.

When the climate change crowd says we need a worldwide ban on all jet aircraft, military and civilian, to deal with the problem then I might believe they seriously believe what they are saying. I need something more than scary talk, I want to see some big action that will affect everyone equally. I want to see the Pope, Britain's Royal family, and US government officials riding public transportation just like the rest of us to help the ecology. I want to see a worldwide effort spearheaded by first world nations to preserve rainforests.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Basically it's the banks because they have so much debt that they've really destroyed our money. To keep the gaming going they need to enter into negative interest rates, then charge depositors for their deposits instead of giving them interest. To do that they need to ban cash so depositors cannot withdraw their cash in physical bills.

So they want electronic currency. Then they can sell your data to third parties like your insurance company that can then create a detailed risk profile coupled with your electronic medical records, thus they want universal healthcare to get all your electronic records on 1 single database they can query.

Cryptocurrencies are part of this, but to prevent people from mining new competing coins they have to limit your power consumption. Also, with new technologies like 3d printing energy can allow people to create de-centralized networks circumventing their manufacturing networks.

Basically they want to control both money and power, because in the future power will be everything.

Thus cap and trade.

originally posted by: Harpua

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: JoshuaCox

What is more likely that Big Oil and Coal and Combustion engine and power companies are putting forth propaganda so that they don't lose money or that most scientists in the world are lying to us. Seriously. What is more likely?

Its more likely that the oil and coal industries paid off a couple dozen scientists than the liberal elite paid off 90% or more of the worlds scientists.

But you won't get anywhere with this argument because the conservatives would rather assume its all a conspiracy to destroy america created by liberal elites.

What makes more sense is that evil fossil fuels are a good boogeyman for non-profits and fear mongers. The cattle industry and the agriculture to support it have far greater impacts on greenhouse gasses. Sierra Club doesn't seem to be asking for money to combat my ribeye steak though, isn't that odd?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

if they run the government and media, couldn’t they just print more money basically for free???

Most currency is electronic these days, all they have to do is put as many zeroes behind that first number as they want and they have virtually unlimited money already. Makes it a lot easier to pay people when it's all electronic and with no real world counterpart.

I think if aliens were advanced enough to come to our planet, I don't think we would have to explain climate change to them.

I'm pretty sure they all think Earth is the trailer park of the universe.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

And from this ridiculous post we can see which side you are on. You completely categorized it in a left-leaning way as to how the right views the conspiracy of climate change or global warming or global cooling or whatever you want to call it for this endeavor. That's how you characterize it is not how the right sees it at all.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: JoshuaCox

And from this ridiculous post we can see which side you are on. You completely categorized it in a left-leaning way as to how the right views the conspiracy of climate change or global warming or global cooling or whatever you want to call it for this endeavor. That's how you characterize it is not how the right sees it at all.

Jaden

I'm curious how much education you have. Global Warming isn't something that can happen rapidly. Infact, if things were getting signifcantly hotter, it would be evidence of Global Cooling. It's ok to read a book or take a class regarding energy flux.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

OP, props for the discussion.

It's an excellent topic because it really blows open just how backwards the conservative conspiracy theorists on ATS have the whole conspiracy game. I joined here 10 years ago as a super-keener on fighting the establishment, anti-sheeple-ism, all that jazz.

It was the subject of climate change more than any other though that made me realize how many self-proclaimed conspiracy theorists here have no actual clue what the establishment even is, how much they defend it, and how that makes them the worst sheeple of all. Because they aren't just "asleep" or indifferent like your traditional peons - they're active sock puppets pushing the very agenda they think they're fighting against. That takes a special kind of ignorance.

One of the first threads I ever published warned about this, and details exactly how money is indeed the real motivator behind the conspiracy: You have all gotten in bed with the enemy.

Those thoughts got a lot of nice feedback at the time - the first reply even said I was preaching to the choir here. I look back now and marvel at the irony considering how much that choir got drowned out by the angry citizens of AlexJonesabad & GlennBeckistan.

But I digress - and will add a little substance to the convo, some FACTS for your adoring fans to chew on (aka probably ignore):

1. Greenhouse gas warming was first theorized by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first proven by John Tyndall in 1859, and first predicted to have global consequences by Svante Arrhenius in 1895.

Arrhenius was a Nobel prize winner, and Fourier is one of the most famous mathematicians in human history. So someone on the skeptic side please tell us how these scientists all fit under the "globalist" conspiracy - how did Al Gore manage to pay them off (some sort of time travelling bitcoin algorithm perhaps)?

2. If anyone wants to make the case that the early science was legit, but was later discovered that CO2's Greenhouse Effect was already saturated (a common climate denier canard), Gilbert Plass debunked this by 1956. Al Gore was 8-years old at the time. Did he bribe Plass with his lunch money? Again, your move skeptics.

3. CO2 induced warming is easily proven physics. There are youtube videos of children demonstrating it for science fairs. Other sources like the BBC and the Mythbusters have reproduced it as well:



So what's the naysayer's answer to that? Let me guess: "fake news!", "leftist schoolchildren! grr grumble grumble".

4. Finally, one of the all time best ATS moments that really hammers the OP home: there were once 2 threads running parallel here on two different forums. One of them had a guy talking about how harmless Glyphosate (Monsanto product) was:

Pesticide Lobbyist Refuses To Drink Glyphosate After Claiming It’s Safe To Drink

The other had a guy talking about what a big hoax climate change is:

Co-founder of Greenpeace: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

The general consensus from ATS members was that the first guy was clearly a phony corporate hack, while the 2nd
was a hero of the anti-establishment.

Problem is the guy in both threads was the same person: Patrick Moore, former Greenpeace member (not a founder) turned professional sell-out for Agribusiness & Big Oil. So how do you resolve that one? From experience I already know the answer (by making pretzels out of logic), but the point is JoshuaCox's assessment is spot on. Patrick Moore is an obvious shill, climate denial is the actual hoax, and you're the target market skeptical patriots (keep fighting the good fight)!

a reply to: neo96

The right isn’t saying...

“climate change is real, but a carbon tax wouldn’t help and would be squandered.. let’s take a different more effective approach..”


If they were smart that’s what they would be saying..

Then your not taking on 90% of the worlds scientists and I think we would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks a carbon tax won’t be squandered..


But that’s not what they are saying..

They are saying the fundamental concept is broken. That is all a scam invented to “control people”. That their is some (usually) obama led conspiracy to fake climate change..


And the fact that carbodioxide holds more heat and we are producing a butt load of it is kinda easy math...

PS...you mean the US has spent 22 trillion on welfare polices including social security and such...

And prob a pittance compared to rightwing wars that have won no territory or treasure..

Vietnam.. Iraq and Afghanistan.. Korean War..

So we have spent 22 trillion feeding the poor and elderly from the left and spent 44 trillion AND COUNTLESS LIVES , losing wars where were never gonna keep anything even if we won, thanks to the right..

I can live with that..

Plus how much in blood and treasure has the CONSERVATIVE WAR O DRUGS cost us???

How many lives ruined ONLY BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS??



There is just no comparison..

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: JoshuaCox

And from this ridiculous post we can see which side you are on. You completely categorized it in a left-leaning way as to how the right views the conspiracy of climate change or global warming or global cooling or whatever you want to call it for this endeavor. That's how you characterize it is not how the right sees it at all.

Jaden

So why don't you explain how the right sees it then? So far this thread has produced a lot of paranoid sizzle with no steak in response to the OP's challenge.

Skip the "follow the money" and "because...globalists" cliches and actually lay out how the conspiracy works. This is your chance to shine!

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Hypothetically, there is a payout if a carbon tax is ever passed

This isn't even particularly true. Where I live, British Columbia - one of the only places that actually has a carbon tax - it is revenue neutral. Meaning whatever we pay into it at the pump we get given back to us in the form of lower income taxes, rebates, etc. Nobody makes a dime off it - it is simply there as a deterrent from spending our money on bad things, and using it on better choices instead.

But this point doesn't fit the "they're out to get my monies!" right wing narrative, so it just gets ignored in the debate (like most of the actual facts).

a reply to: mc_squared

Not so much money but energy and money they want a monopoly on both.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The goal is not to destroy the world. The goal is a stealth takeover the world, so if the non western world signs the climate pact in exchange for trillions paid for by the west, than the Central Bankers will get to take over their country financially. Nothing is for free.

a reply to: amfirst1

The US is already 20 trillion in debt. If they could take over based on debt then what are they waiting for?

Here I fixed it for you.

It has dawned on me that the conspiracy dynamic between both political factions have very stark differences.. differences I think kinda apply across the conspiracy spectrum..

Really a totally different math is being used by both factions.

To highlight this I will use climate change, and let’s just for a minute pretend we are aliens who have no idea who is correct, and let’s ONLY analyze the over all concepts involved..

The lefts conspiracy:

“ A handful of big oil companies have hired a handful of scientists and politicians to “cloud the waters” about climate change. To stop any loss in sales or from increases to regulations...”

It is short, sweet and to the point..

PERPETRATORS:

You have the potential perpetrators being real people who we could hypothetically track down.

Logistics:

Logistically it is very do able..

We can see if this or that oil company is really paying off the handful of scientists and check donations to politicians..

MOTIVATION:

it’s obviously even short term profitable.. no need to conjure some abstract concept to assign a motivation..

PAYOUT:

It’s just good old fashion greed and the almoghty dollar.



The rights Climate change conspiracy:

“The scientific community is suffering from group think when it comes to anthropomorphic climit change. Whether it be to secure grant money, Peer preasure or Publication bias, the scientific community is putting to much stock in unproven climit models that are arbitrary in the data used and the time periods investigated"

Perpetrator:
Normal every day people succumbing to their human nature to seek out acceptance in the community; to publish positive results in peer review journals; to sustain their employment in a highly competitive and politicized industry.

Politicians who use the subject to sway one issue voters.

Logistics:
Go along to get along. Fug the data. Reduce the sample size. Reduce the time scope. Only publish positive results and by pass the negative results. Learn how to game the grant system (hey it'll keep all your friends in the lab employed)

Give a stump speech and smile at the camera.


MOTIVATION:

No motivation required; most of its human nature. If you need a motivation though a.c. accolades and greed work.

Further one's political career.


Pay out:

Grant money, accolades, publications.

The furtherance of one's political career.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: mc_squared

Not so much money but energy and money they want a monopoly on both.

And who are "they" exactly? Give us names, and then please fill in the blanks on how the people I mentioned above - scientists from two centuries ago - fit into this grand scheme.

Besides, what makes you think "they" don't already have a monopoly. Fossil fuel based energy is predicated on 1. non-renewable resources that are already controlled by the rich and powerful, and 2. centralized power plants, also controlled by the same.

The solution to global warming is 1. abundant, renewable energy that can't be monopolized as a commodity (unless you pull a Mr. Burns and block out the Sun) and 2. de-centralized, distributed generation. With solar panels and batteries you can have your own power plant and take yourself off the grid.

Sorry but I'm still not hearing anything that makes sense once you actually demystify it - it just comes off as paranoid rhetoric.