Right Vs Left Conspiracies, viewed through Climate Change.

a reply to: Ksihkehe


Actually there is plenty of discussion around cattle/methane gasses, so its not really odd at all.

a reply to: mc_squared

YES!

Nailed it.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Here I fixed it for you.

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.

HAHAHAHAHA... every scientist in the world is falsifying data and THAT will win them accolades and acceptance? By lying?

Its not even close to a sound argument.

a reply to: mc_squared

You ignore disruptive technologies like higher density energy sources: thorium, fusion, cold fusion which is an operational energy source check out e-cats.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Thank you for the thought out post.. I haven’t even read it yet, but I can tell it is legit contemplation, agree or disagree..

Some people need a lesson from you in counterpoints. Lol


A) the devestation factor is fairly debated, but I haven’t seen conservatives saying

“Of course it is happening because of us, but I don’t think it will be that bad.. Hell might even expand the worlds bread belts...”

So that is not really a fair place to set the bar..

They are preaching a globalist led conspiracy to fabricate the normal swing of the earths climate..


B) concerning big buisness taking the long term view..

For one devestation doesn’t mean the end of society..

what if they know the sea level will aready rise 8 inches and stopping now will only shave off 2 inches..

Is that worth trillions of dollars to some amoral buisness mogul who can just move off the coast???

Absolutely..

Plus you have the fact your competitors might still keep going.. meaning the inches are still there , but someone else made the trillions.

PS... paying good salaries that cut down on theft, training pay and loses in production is almost certainly long term less expensive, but it looks worse on a quarterly report. So what do countless corporations do??

Throw cheap unskilled labor at the problem and hope they save more from labor than they lose in turnover, text and mistakes..


C) I didn’t say the left had any great answers lol.. just pointing out the conspiracies behind both sides. For this OP pretend it doesn’t matter if it’s real or not.

What conspiracy theory is more probable??




CONCLUSION....

The right isn’t saying any of those very well thought out things..

The right isn’t saying ,

“Climate change is real, but that’s a stupid way to address it.”

The right is saying,

“This is all a vast conspiracy FOR OBAMA!!”

Lol...


I agree a carbon tax would be squandered..

But pretending it isn’t real is asking people to pretend math doesn’t work..

And people just lap it up..

Hell, how people believe the majority of the WORLDS media, scientists , unions , teachers, college professors, intellectuals , exc, exc , exc are all in a vast conspiracy to make republicans look bad is just as ridiculous...

a reply to: DanDanDat


How is that different from what I said lol??

The only difference that you just said basically all of the scientists are just screwing up and stupid.. instead calling it “group think”. Lol

The same BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS who design the experiments and measure the molecules are all “group thinked” lol..


So yea I’m cool with the changes..


It’s still the same 95+% versus 5% all convienently on the payroll of big oil companies..

So some how totally innocently 9 out of ten scientists are “group thinked.” Lol

a reply to: Harpua

He just tried to pretty up what I said. So I’m cool with it.


as you pointed out. It still requires some crazy mass hysteria in the place of the illuminati..

It is broken logic that requires an Extraordinarily explanation to attempt to make it gel.

a reply to: Harpua

There is no way more cows are farting than we have cars and factories and such..

Plus metane would just be on top of it...in addition to.

So that isn’t an argument against climate change, but a carbon tax.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

A few things we can all agree on. Even if man-made climate change is 100% BS, man-made ecological destruction is 100% real. There is no legitimate reason governments can't take concrete action to improve the environment.

Instead of going to the UN to push sanctions or invasions of countries without central banks, how about going there to enlist the aid of other countries to clean up the Earth. I'd love to see a US President go before the UN and say, "Look, we all know there is a huge floating plastic island in the Pacific. I'm going to send the US Navy there to clean it up. I welcome every nation to join in and help us. Russia, China, Britain, Iran, North Korea, anyone with a Navy that wants to help will be welcome." Something like that would be a real turning point for the ecology, the human race, and the whole world.

Share clean energy technologies with friend and foe alike. A global effort to protect the rainforests. Lets put our technological heads together and stop the radiation leaking at Fukushima. So many things we can be doing that won't require extra taxes or burdens that will make a positive change.

Another thing we can agree on, money gets in the way. I'd really like to say more here, but I have to go for now. I think we can find a lot of common ground here and maybe come up with a new approach.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Then it should be easy to point out where I’m wrong...

Something you didn’t do..

You just claim I’m wrong and feel like that is “enough said..”

Are you refuting that the right side thinks the vast majority of scientists, media and the government are in on it???

Does the right have a super solid motivation I am unaware of???

Is their some magical way that running a carbon tax scam is more profitable than just foreign g up the presses at a mint on a holiday weekend??

We are not professors here to grade your incomplete paper. If you want someone to refute something that you say, present a well-reasoned, factually correct argument and I'll play. But when you come at us with ideological bias and present it as an "analy[sis of] the over all concepts involved..," but fail to properly analyze one side, I'm not going to spoon feed you the points where you're wrong.

You have been doing this for a long time, JoshuaCox--why would I continue and continue to point out where you're wrong when you just ignore it and keep on doing what you do? It's a lesson in futility, and THAT is why I'm not going to correct you. The reality is, I'm not the only one making these claims, and instead of reflecting on what you keep doing that paints one side in the wrong light, you just keep on doing it and requesting people correct you.

Like I already mentioned, that's no how a debate works--you can't start off on a false premise, present it as fact, and then question why and how you're wrong when people, yet again, have to do so with you.

And for the record, I called you out for being biased, motivated by divisiveness, AND wrong. Don't sell my critique of your OP and comments short by saying I just said that you're wrong...even though you are definitely that, too.

Best regards.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

BWAHAHAHA...

Your so principled that you can’t make a legit counter argument, but you’ll type out 150 word explaining that you will not waste your time by ACTUALLY MAKING A POINT!!!

Lmao...


“I’m not willing to put forth the effort for a logical counterpoint, but I’ll use the exact same amount of effort to say I will not be making any counterpoints...”


So what are you here for then lol?!

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

No approach will EVER WORK if half the country still thinks it is a vast conspiracy to fabricate the whole thing..

I greatly appreciate your response, but I really don’t want to debate the potential foxes for climate change as much as the logic behind each sides theory..

Imho all the “right wing “ conspiracies follow the same pattern..

1) No definitive perpetrator that can be pointed to.

2) no realistic way to pull off the logistics required to perpetrate it.

3) no defined motivation..

4) no real life, tangible payout.. atleast not one that will likely pay for the expenses required to orcastrate and maintain it in the first place.

Pizzagate, sandy hook, chemtrails, exc, exc, exc,


The left wing conspiracies do not fit that mold..

Is anyone here able to adequately describe the thinking around why climate change ISN'T occurring and why the VAST majority of scientists say it is?

Since the OP and the follow up posts don't seem to adequately encapsulate a solid argument, I am honestly curious if there is a solid argument coming from the deniers.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Wow... and here I thought I had already heard the most biased, unfounded, twisted attempts to prove Global Warming... but this one takes the cake. You didn't set the bar, you just BECAME the bar!

The lefts conspiracy:

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

The rights Climate change conspiracy:

“Some mysterious illuminati type group who controls 95% of the media, scientists and government is purposefully pushing a fake narrative about climate change so they can better control us”

That is a completely twisted representation of both arguments, at least from my perspective and any scientific perspective. The left conspiracy as you wrote it is based on a previous acceptance of the validity of Global Warming. In other words,it assumes there is no question that Global Warming is already happening, is completely man-made, conforms precisely to the mechanism proposed, and is completely within our ability to control through taxation alone.

The right conspiracy as you wrote it is completely incorrect. It assumes that there is no such thing as globalism and that the powerful only act when they are well-paid instead of looking toward future investment returns. It also assumes the right disagrees with every single aspect of scientific research and is completely against any ecological benefit.

The truth is that there is no overall acceptance of Global Warming theory among these supposed 95% of scientists. It might be accurate to say that 95% of scientists accept the possibility of Global Warming theory; that is not the same as them agreeing with the theory. Few scientists will state that any theory is impossible, unless said theory directly violates long-established scientific principles.

The evidence so far is that a whole lot of scientists are actively pursuing climate modelling, and that thus far all of their models have had two similarities: they indicate a probability that the planet is warming, and they fail at verifying predictions. That doesn't mean the models should not be improved; it means they MUST be improved! The sheer number of scientists involved with this modelling means that someone somewhere somehow is paying a tremendous sum to have these models developed, and the fact that all have failed and also shown a trend toward warming is indicative of a desire of those funding the research to achieve a specific end result instead of the truth.

...unless you think these Global Warming scientists are working for free?

The right's actual position, based on my personal views as well as those I have read on this site and in other places, is that there is insufficient evidence to blame any warming which may exist on carbon dioxide emissions. They appear to want more extensive study and better results before making such assumptions. To prove their point, yes,I am sure some scientists are getting paid to refute the obvious bias in the body of tainted evidence being used to unjustly push an agenda as 'scientific.'

And there is nothing wrong with that that isn't wrong moreso with the actions of those apparently pressing for carbon credits.

But hey, good job. You lowered the bar until you ARE the bar!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

So what are you here for then lol?!

To call out asininity when I see it...at least, that's why I'm commenting on this thread.

The funny thing is, you don't seem to realize that people can be constructively critical without having to present a counter argument. Sometimes, the premise of a presented argument is so ridiculous that it doesn't warrant a counter argument, but does warrant criticism.

I'll keep repeating that last sentence until you can wrap your mind around that reality.

Chuckle all that you want, JC, but your posts in these multiple pages are proving my initial comment.

originally posted by: Harpua
Is anyone here able to adequately describe the thinking around why climate change ISN'T occurring and why the VAST majority of scientists say it is?

Who has said that "climate change" isn't occurring?

Also, the selective appeal-to-authority and bandwagon logical fallacies are inappropriate ways to argue one's point, if the goal truly is an intelligent debate.

Since the OP and the follow up posts don't seem to adequately encapsulate a solid argument, I am honestly curious if there is a solid argument coming from the deniers.

Point to the "deniers" in this thread. Seriously, "denier" is an epithet derived to demonize those who don't subscribe to the totality of the AGW system--it doesn't mean that we "deny" that the climate is changing.

That is a major point where the OP fails: He chooses to present only two possibilities, prescribes them to only two overly stereotyped political spectrums, and then incorrectly applies attributes to one side of the argument (the side, of course, that he is not on). All three aspects are a completely wrong way to approach an intelligent debate, and then he derides those of use who point this out for not wanting to proceed with an intelligent debate with him.

This is why I noted in my first comment that he is only out to create divisive dialogue and is not interested in rational discussion on the matter, even though he claims that he is. Most of us have dealt with him numerous times in the past--we understand how he approaches this topic and, most times, how he presents his argument.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Harpua

There is no way more cows are farting than we have cars and factories and such..

Plus metane would just be on top of it...in addition to.

So that isn’t an argument against climate change, but a carbon tax.

Well professor, perhaps you don't know wtf you're talking about because what I stated is fact. Instead of lapping up whatever you are spoon fed you should educate yourself or study the issue a bit.

ETA: I can't believe how absolutely ignorant you are on this topic with an OP written like you're some gift to humanity.

a reply to: Harpua

I think this is one of the biggest misunderstandings on the topic.

The vast majority of people believe in climate change. Where they become split is cause and what we should do about it. I believe this confusion was introduced when advocates of AGW started using the much broader, more general "Climate Change" to describe it.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is nice and specific. Climate Change, as it has become frequently used, involves a lot of assumptions and room for error. Basically it allows the psychological jump that every time the climate changes, humans caused it, and that's problematic. It enables the similarly erroneous jump that if someone doesn't believe humans are the main factor, that they don't believe in "Climate Change."

Either way, its not like AGW advocates are suggesting anything that "deniers" can actually get behind. Regardless of cause, they are plenty of things we can do and things we can invent that will reduce our environmental impact and everyone (or nearly) can get behind.

The fact that the vast majority of time and effort is spent on trying to convince people, subsequently insult them, and maybe with some money collection thrown in.. should tell one all they need to know about the situation.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The right's actual position, based on my personal views as well as those I have read on this site and in other places, is that there is insufficient evidence to blame any warming which may exist on carbon dioxide emissions.

TheRedneck

THIS right here encapsulates what is the most malignant form of denial there is among the (I'll say it again) deniers.

There is zero doubt by any climate scientist worth his salt that C02 is a greenhouse gas and that the increase (33%) in these gases since the beginning of the industrial revolution, even if they are not the only factor, are a major factor in trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

Even if there was increased solar activity playing a major part in warming temperatures, it would help lower the temps if we could lower the output of greenhouse gases.

I would totally understand if the rights perspective was that we don't have an adequate or realistic way to lower these gases since transportation is so vital to our current way of life, but what I cannot abide is people (like Trump) who just claim climate change is a hoax (created by China, lol) and uses examples like extreme cold weather in the NE this winter as proof that climate change is a hoax.

That is ignorance, plain and simple.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Are you gonna include a counterpoint???

Like “well I meant that methane cancels out CO2” ..

Or some reason the effects do not stack??


Because “methane is worse “ is not a valid counterpoint, since the methane is IN ADDITION TO.. not instead of..