Right Vs Left Conspiracies, viewed through Climate Change.

a reply to: Harpua

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

malignant
[muh-lig-nuh nt]

adjective

1. disposed to cause harm, suffering, or distress deliberately; feeling or showing ill will or hatred.

2. very dangerous or harmful in influence or effect.

3. Pathology.
a. tending to produce death, as bubonic plague.

b. (of a tumor) characterized by uncontrolled growth; cancerous, invasive, or metastatic.

from Dictionary.com

I have to say, that is a strange term to use in this context. Simply stating that there is no definitive proof of something there is no definitive proof of is not exactly what I would call "malicious." Perhaps, though, you meant it in respect to the entire Global Warming scam. That does make some sense, because the truth is indeed disposed to cause harm, suffering, or deliberate distress to the theory. Of course, that in itself is indicative of the theory being false, since truth will always support true theories. That's sort of the definition of the truth.

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.

Firstly, there is no scientific term such as "greenhouse gas." That is a vernacular descriptive used solely to try and communicate a scientific concept to a non-scientific audience. What it loosely describes is absorption spectra and the effect of re-emission of absorbed energy.

Secondly, "zero doubt" in the context you use it is absolutely false by definition. Anyone who claims to be a scientist but who has made up their mind beyond any doubt on any subject is violating the scientific method. Science is always to be questioned. Sir Isaac Newton described the Laws of Motion, and there was little doubt for many years that he was right. But then Einstein developed the Law of Relativity and showed that Newton was only correct where speeds were far slower than the speed of light. I have this sneaking suspicion that someday, someone will show how Einstein was only correct under certain restrictions. Had there been "zero doubt" of Newton's correctness, we would never have listened to Einstein.

Thirdly, we do not know for certain what effect carbon dioxide has overall in regards to climate, nor do we know for certain that the measured increases are man-made. We suspect these things, strongly suspect the contribution of man-made carbon dioxide, but that is far from certainty.

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.

Who has decided that colder temperatures are optimal? Certainly not me... history shows that humans survive and thrive better in warmer climates. Truth be known, humans are physically equipped for survival in subtropical areas. Only our technology allows us to thrive in warmer or colder climates. Thus, a few degrees of warming would increase the available land mass for human habitation, and for food production.

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.

Global Warming is more than a theory of climatic sensitivity to atmospheric gases... it has evolved with time to include a political agenda to increase taxation and raise prices by limiting energy production. The unique advantage of the political side of Global Warming is that it is global... meaning no longer do politicians need to increase taxes and prices country by country, but instead it can be accomplished world-wide.

In that sense, it is a hoax. It is a hoax that taxing carbon dioxide (aka taxing all energy production) will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In some ways, it could be seen as increasing carbon dioxide; if energy prices get too high, poor people will resort to burning wood, raw coal, anything to keep from freezing. Many areas of the world are in that situation now, without the introduction of carbon taxes... how will increasing taxation allow the poor to buy more of what is being taxed?

Don't bother answering that. You already did, in your last statement:

That is ignorance, plain and simple.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Serdgiam

I disagree completely..

The majority of the right thinks it is a total fabrication..

I do not think they agree with you very reasonable assessment. Look at the replies on this very thread..


I promise you I could post quotes from half the gop leaders and definitely could ever Hard right commentator..

That is why you get all the jokes everyone it snows.

“ where’s global warming now ?? Hahaha”

a reply to: TheRedneck

No definitive proof?!?!!


CO2 holds heat..


We are producing a butt load of CO2..

So where is the heat and CO2 going???


Obviously that isn’t hard math..

So what mechanism do you propose that will remove the excess heat from the excess CO2????


That is why 95% of scientists agree..

It is easy math.


Now, what the effects will be and how long it will take to see the effects is 100% fairly debated..

However, climate deniers are claiming the whole thing is a fraud..

a reply to: TheRedneck

First: You wanna get nitpicky with greenhouse gas not being a scientific term? Really? Do you not know what it means? I think you do.

Second: ok, zero doubt is not quite right. 5% doubt is closer to the truth. Look it up...but maybe you don't believe it because it doesn't fit your own narrative.

Thirdly, (I have to quote you here "we do not know for certain what effect carbon dioxide has overall in regards to climate, nor do we know for certain that the measured increases are man-made. We suspect these things, strongly suspect the contribution of man-made carbon dioxide, but that is far from certainty. "

Yes, this we suspect strongly, with around 95% certainty.

Quote from NASA.gov: "The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."

I know its hip to not trust any of the alphabet soup agencies, NASA included... but this brings us back to the premise of the OP: What makes more sense? NASA somehow benefitting from a carbon tax or big oil benefitting from the (manufactured) doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a thing?

Lastly you argue that "Global Warming is more than a theory of climatic sensitivity to atmospheric gases... it has evolved with time to include a political agenda to increase taxation and raise prices by limiting energy production. The unique advantage of the political side of Global Warming is that it is global... meaning no longer do politicians need to increase taxes and prices country by country, but instead it can be accomplished world-wide. "

The government has used incentives in many different ways: a high tax on cigarettes, conversely a tax rebate for first time home buyers. Incentivizing methods to increase energy efficiency or to implement renewable sources of energy are not a bad thing. It might look like a conspiracy to take money out our pockets, but it might also be something that incentivizes the industrial world to invest in renewable resources.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The majority of the right thinks it is a total fabrication..

So, what am I thinking right now?

That is why you get all the jokes everyone it snows.

No, you get all the jokes because it's funny to point out how ludicrous some of the Global Warming claims are.

It's also funny that in one post you claim the statements you allude to are both serious and jokes. Which is it?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Grimpachi

They already have the united states. They are taking other countries by leveraging the first worlds. They want the whole world. Comprehension is key. All you have to do is look at the Paris accord. It allows third worlds to produce all the Co2 they want and they get trillions in return and will be paid for by the 1st worlds. This is how they will control the markets. It's like a buy-out.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

First of all if CO2 holds heat. Than the dinosaurs would be a ball of fire since they had 5 times the Co2 of today. Also, the Ice Age would be a ball of fire because they had 4 times the amount to Co2 compare to today. But look it's two completely different climate which means Co2 has no effect on climate. It's the Sun idiot.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
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

Here you go; educate yourself on Publication Bias.

www.ted.com...

This is on a topic outside the regular left right paradigm so maybe you can accept it since it has not been politicised.

Plenty of BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS who design the experiments and measure the molecules that will hopefully cure all the world's ailments suffer from Publication Bias, Group Think, and Competitive Pressures.

It's not always sinister, or always because because they are stupid. It doesn't take an organized web of deseat to perpetrate. All it takes is human nature; once the heard starts moving in one direction all follow. Much of the time the BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS aren't even aware of their bias.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

No definitive proof?!?!!

That's what I said, yes.

CO2 holds heat..

No, it doesn't, at least not more so than any other gas. Carbon dioxide has a specific heat capacity of 37.135 J/K*mol. Water vapor at 25C has a specific heat capacity of 75.33 J/K*mol, about twice as high. Oxygen? 29.378 J/K*mol. Nitrogen? 29.124 J/K*mol.

And none of that even has an effect on the absorption spectra.

We are producing a butt load of CO2..

Yeah, it's terrible when people drive, have heat and electricity, and breathe...

We have a butt-load of people.

So where is the heat and CO2 going???

If I answered this, you couldn't understand it. So far all you have said in this entire thread is that you can read others' minds, you have no idea what the science behind Global Warming even is, and you think everyone who disagrees with your uninformed opinion is an idiot.

To be honest, I am not even sure I could give an answer, as poorly phrased and assumptive as that question is. Sort of like asking "If the sky is blue, how fast does a car run?"

So what mechanism do you propose that will remove the excess heat from the excess CO2????

If a man is 6 feet tall, where do babies come from?

It is easy math.

Ummm, no, it isn't math. Everything you've claimed on the subject thus far is more like babble.

However, climate deniers are claiming the whole thing is a fraud..

We'll get there in a minute. For now, I'm just claiming everything you just posted is so wrong it doesn't even make sense.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

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.

The truth is there is nothing true about your statement. It’s just your opinion, and a very misinformed one at that (I’ll come back to that though).

First off here’s what those famous “97%” studies and surveys actually say, straight from their own mouths, not yours:

Doran 2009 asked “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (97.4% yes)

Anderegg 2010: “We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century” (97.5% of publishing experts)

Cook 2013: “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

None of those say “well…ok we agree that it’s a theory and it’s possible, maybe” #Truth

Furthermore, here are statements from numerous esteemed academies:

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.

Joint Statement from 18 American Scientific Institutions

It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.

American Meteorological Society

Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere.

Joint Statement from 13 National Science Academies – Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, UK and USA

I could post more, but everyone should get the idea by now. Here’s the point:

The supposed outrage in this thread by the OP’s insinuation that right wingers believe in a vast conspiracy of scientists is a farce. I could pull up hundreds, if not thousands, of “skeptical” posts on ATS that say exactly that. Anyone who reads this topic on here already knows, so let’s stop kidding ourselves with the “Why, I never!…how dare YOU” fake drama.

The facts are all there in the words above. The consensus is about as explicit as you will see any scientist get with statements like “very likely, unequivocal, clear, dominant, primary”, etc.

Now that doesn’t mean you have to agree with it, but at least man up and acknowledge your own views are contrarian to it, instead of bargaining some feeble “well what they’re really trying to say is it’s just a theory and it’s possible, meep”

That leaves you with 2 options:

1. Either they are all lying about it, aka conspiracy, aka JoshuaCox’s framing of your position that some of you got so uppity-offended by.

2. They are all wrong. All the world’s best experts on this are wrong because you read some # on the internet, and you know better.


For anyone who wants to go with option #2, I am pretty much begging you. Because the other half of the OP was the leftist conspiracy that fossil fuel lobbyists and other shills are filling your heads with propaganda and misinformation to make you believe these things (said I’d come back to this). And unlike the suddenly shy skeptics on this thread - I am proud to stand by my conspiracy.

So PLEASE start posting about the “30,000 scientists against the consensus” or whatever meme you have lined up in opposition to the facts above. I’ll be happy to use it to demonstrate the exact premise of the OP: the leftist take is bang on – global warming is real, man made. Meanwhile there is a conspiracy among conservatives to confuse and deceive everyone, so the rich can get richer off the dying establishment they ALREADY own over you, while you sit there scared motionless because of imaginary socialists coming to take all your non-existent freedoms away.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
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.

You've totally lost me at this point. What are you even trying to say: that the climate change crowd is trying to suppress those technologies? Because those are all carbon-free.

Or are you saying people are trying to use climate change to bring about cold fusion? Because if that's the conspiracy - sign me up!

a reply to: Harpua

First: You wanna get nitpicky with greenhouse gas not being a scientific term? Really? Do you not know what it means? I think you do.

Oh, I do. I remember Al Gore using it, to great effect! A nice, woolen, invisible blanket across the planet to keep us nice and toasty.

That's the danger of using imprecise terms. People get the wrong idea. There is no blanket of carbon dioxide around the planet.

Second: ok, zero doubt is not quite right. 5% doubt is closer to the truth. Look it up...but maybe you don't believe it because it doesn't fit your own narrative.

I don't need to look it up. I know quite a few scientists. And I know what they tell me when we discuss it.

It's not the same thing they say on paper when publishing results. That would cost them their grant money.

Thirdly, (I have to quote you here ... "we do not know for certain what effect carbon dioxide has overall in regards to climate, nor do we know for certain that the measured increases are man-made. We suspect these things, strongly suspect the contribution of man-made carbon dioxide, but that is far from certainty. "

Yes, this we suspect strongly, with around 95% certainty.

Which one? There are multiple assumptions in your post.

I can go along with 95% confidence for man-made carbon dioxide being a major factor in rising levels, but I think that is excessive for the other assumptions.

Quote from NASA.gov:

Yeah, they want their grants renewed. See above.

I know its hip to not trust any of the alphabet soup agencies, NASA included... but this brings us back to the premise of the OP: What makes more sense? NASA somehow benefitting from a carbon tax or big oil benefitting from the (manufactured) doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a thing?

That's a false comparison. No one is saying NASA itself benefits. NASA uses data from scientists world-wide who get paid by grant money. THOSE SCIENTISTS are benefiting right now as we speak. That's not conjecture.

The government has used incentives in many different ways: a high tax on cigarettes, conversely a tax rebate for first time home buyers. Incentivizing methods to increase energy efficiency or to implement renewable sources of energy are not a bad thing. It might look like a conspiracy to take money out our pockets, but it might also be something that incentivizes the industrial world to invest in renewable resources.

None of those plans limit the amount of commodity. Taxes on cigarettes do not in any way directly limit the number of cigarettes that be manufactured or sold. Tax benefits on mortgages do not directly affect the number of mortgages banks can make.

A carbon credit scheme directly limits the amount of energy that can be produced by law, by directly limiting the amount of fuel that can be utilized.

Energy efficiency, in case you haven't noticed, is already improving by leaps and bounds. The incentive is already there: cost savings by not having to pay as much for energy. Heating units, home appliances, even TVs and computers use much less power now than they did ten years ago, which was much less than 20 years ago, which was... you get the idea. I am actually designing a circuit right now that uses femto-amps... 1*10^-15 amp units. A couple decades ago, nothing worked with less than micro-amp (1*10^-6 amp) units. I can't even enter it in some of my simulation software that way. I have to use decimals of pico-amps.

TheRedneck

a reply to: mc_squared

The truth is there is nothing true about your statement. It’s just your opinion, and a very misinformed one at that (I’ll come back to that though).

OK.

First off here’s what those famous “97%” studies and surveys actually say, straight from their own mouths, not yours:

“We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century” (97.5% of publishing experts)

Did they just say, "we asked only scientists who agreed with Global Warming theory, and 97% agree with Global Warming theory"?

Maybe I misread that... anyway, I thought we had established I know absolutely nothing about science or physics.

Help me out here... is this where I am supposed to go "derp, derp"?

That leaves you with 2 options:

1. Either they are all lying about it, aka conspiracy, aka JoshuaCox’s framing of your position that some of you got so uppity-offended by.

2. They are all wrong. All the world’s best experts on this are wrong because you read some # on the internet, and you know better.

3. The real money in research right now is in proving Global Warming as a viable theory, and scientists like money as much as you do.

Oh, and incidentally, I learned everything I need to know to disprove the assumptions surrounding Global Warming theory before there WAS an Internet. Back then we had these things called "books" that had something called "knowledge" in them. Oh, and it was a lot harder to flood a library than it is to swamp the Internet... only smart people got to write technical books.

the other half of the OP was the leftist conspiracy that fossil fuel lobbyists and other shills are filling your heads with propaganda and misinformation to make you believe these things (said I’d come back to this). And unlike the suddenly shy skeptics on this thread - I am proud to stand by my conspiracy.

Yeah, I remember that: the conspiracy that said the oil companies had gone back in time and changed the textbooks so I didn't remember reading what I read. Oh, yeah, that's believable.

Not.

And I don't think the term "shy" defines me very well.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Did they just say, "we asked only scientists who agreed with Global Warming theory, and 97% agree with Global Warming theory"?

Maybe I misread that... anyway, I thought we had established I know absolutely nothing about science or physics.

You absolutely misread that. Naturally because you haven’t read the actual study, even though a few posts ago you were explaining to members “the truth” about what it really says. And I’m glad we’ve established the science thing, because:

Oh, and incidentally, I learned everything I need to know to disprove the assumptions surrounding Global Warming theory before there WAS an Internet.

I see - like that time you disproved it right here on ATS with this amazing thread:

Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

Seeing as how this is on the internet, it means it came well after you already learned everything you need to know. You sure stuck around to soak up all accolades from people who generally admitted they had no idea what you were doing, but very impressed nonetheless with all the big numbers and stuff. 280 flags - congrats!

Except until I noticed you made a very serious error in that math, which immediately debunked the whole thread flat on its face. Curious how you never even responded to that, just let it die real quick, and disappeared from these forums for, what – a few years? It’s a shame too because I realized later my debunking was actually wrong, since it used numbers from your OP that were also wrong. Evidently the numbers do lie, after all. In any case some recalculations with all the wrongs ironed out proved the whole thing as debunked as ever.

Could’ve had a real interesting conversation there tho...but it’s ok - because you already knew everything you need to know to disprove global warming!

Anyway now you’re back, talking over people and mansplaining how much better your science is than theirs. Me thinks your math still doesn’t add up.

But I also think this conversation is pointless. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from these silly debates, it’s that some people are so enamored with climate denial, not because they’re looking to uncover truth or a conspiracy, but because they’re desperate to stroke their ego.

IMO that’s the number one way these professional deniers get people so hooked on their bullsh#t: bait you with seething, irrational hatred of leftists, and top it off with promises of how much smarter you’ll look than those smarmy Liberal scientists. Good luck with all the cognitive dissonant baggage it must bring. Just remember you can always drown that out by changing the subject to greenhouse gas “vernacular”.

a reply to: TheRedneck

A) Are we producing those other gasses at the same rate as CO2???

No..

B) are those gasses being traded or swapped out for the CO2 we are producing???

No...

C) are those other heat holding gases being ADDED TO the CO2 we are producing??

Yes...


The fact that “methane is worse” is ridiculous because we are not producing loads upon loads of metane AND THE METANE IS I ADDITION TO NOT INSTEAD OF!!!



D) CO2 catches the suns heat..

We are producing a WHOLe WHOLE lot of CO2..

Thus more of the suns heat is being held on the earth because of the extra CO2.


So what mechanism is removing the excess heat, from the atmosphere???


That seems like easy math to me.. and 95% of the worlds scientists, college professors, intellectuals, exc, exc, exc....


It has got to feel good to know that you and the 4 scientists on the payroll of opec are JUST SOOO much smarter than EVERYONE else..

Lol

Apparently NYC will be suing big oil for contributing to climate change: www.chicagotribune.com...

Laws of physics. Some things conduct heat better. Metals conduct heat better than wood. But heat cannot be created by atmosphere. Earth's heat comes from the Sun. If the Sun does not increase or decrease, Earth's heat does not increase or decrease.

originally posted by: Harpua
Apparently NYC will be suing big oil for contributing to climate change: www.chicagotribune.com...

Oil causes death and destruction. Saudi Arabia uses dirty oil money to buy planes and bombs and massacre Yemenis. I applaud NYC going after oil companies, but to think NYC can win is foolish. Oil feeds the military industrial complex. The military industrial complex feeds on blood of the innocent.

Heat on Earth exists either in the air or on the surface. If it's not in the air, it's on the surface. If it's not on the surface, it's in the air. The Sun is the source of heat on Earth. Earth does not create heat. Earth either reflect heat back to space or absorbs heat in its air and surface. CO2 does not increase or decrease heat anymore so than any other gas in the air.

While it is true CO2 might absorb heat better than O2 and N2, just as metals conduct heat better than wood and water, CO2 does not increase heat on Earth. Remember, the Sun is the source of heat, not Earth. More CO2 means the air absorbs more heat and less heat is absorbed by the surface. But overall amount of heat on Earth does not change because the Sun does not change.