Global Warming Denial: An American Partisan Issue

reply to post by Doc Velocity



And isn't it amazing that it even to this day that quote still stands, and shows what those who call themselves Americans should be doing. Yet how many Americans are really following this concept which is part of the American tradition?

reply to post by curioustype


It is called AGW, yes anthropogenic means man made, but it is not refered to as MMGW but as AGW.

There is much evidence that shows AGW is nothing more than a hoax, and a scam, and the latest email leaks are part of that evidence.

The AGW proponents have tried to dismiss the leaked emails from which it can be seen that scientists like Mann, Jones, et al have been suppressing evidence, adding data, and even spoke of making illegal acts to stop all inquiries concerning the research they claim is the proof of AGW.

It is obvious by now that no matter what evidence comes forth the AGW proponents will dismiss such evidence because for them the "science" has actually become a "religion."

Even the geological evidence of Earth's past shows that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than what we have at present is BENEFICIAL to the green biomass of Earth, as well as for the animal kingdom.

The climate is ALWAYS changing, yet the AGWers want to stop a process that has been occurring for billions of years.

People like you claim the U.S., among other countries, have not done enough, yet we have done more than enough. there are countries like China, India, Russia, and many others who have less environmental concerns, and are the worst polluters in the world, yet these nations are being exempted by the AGW Socialist elites, and will be allowed to increase their emissions, and keep polluting as much as they want.

It is a fact that the reductions of emission performed by European countries HAS NOT WORKED, and instead those who want to get rich from this scam have been proposing treaties like "cap and trade" so that MONEY can be exchanged from hands and the rich will become richer at the expense of the people.

By MARTIN LIVERMORE | FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
The Obama administration has, as expected, re-engaged the U.S. in the negotiations for a global climate change mitigation regime after the Kyoto protocol expires at the end of 2012. A bill setting greenhouse gas reduction targets is currently progressing through Congress, with strong backing from the president. But apart from the warm feeling that comes with an improvement in America's international image, what is likely to be achieved in real terms, and at what cost?

To get a good idea, U.S. policy makers need only look across the Atlantic. The European Union, keen to show global leadership, introduced the world's first Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in January 2005, just before the Kyoto protocol came into force. The principle of this and similar schemes -- including the proposed U.S. cap and trade regime -- is that certain sectors of industry are allocated permits to emit fixed amounts of carbon dioxide, held to be the primary driver of climate change. If they manage to reduce emissions more than planned, companies can sell their excess permits; if they need more, they have to buy them.

Advocates of the system like it because "the polluter pays." Setting aside for the moment the question of whether it is justifiable to call carbon dioxide a pollutant, companies of course do not simply absorb these extra costs. Instead, they pass them on to their customers who are also, by and large, taxpayers. Not only does the taxpayer carry the cost of any cap and trade scheme, but their money also provides profit for a whole new industry: the new carbon trading sector, the middlemen who make the system work.

Unlike normal tradable commodities, carbon dioxide emissions can only be estimated, rather than quantified exactly. And it is only international agreements and national law that give these permits a price at all. The result is a system open to misuse, since all parties -- seller, middleman and buyer -- have an incentive and opportunity to manipulate the estimates. Sellers want to show how much they are reducing their emissions, buyers benefit from lower prices as more units come to market, and traders do good business in a buoyant market.

The biggest abuse began right at the start of the ETS when regulators handed out too many free permits. As a result, utilities companies made windfall profits by simply selling on large numbers of unneeded credits and not passing the savings on to their customers in the form of price cuts. Despite the EU's declared goal to dole out permits based on objective criteria, industry lobbying led to an overallocation. When push comes to shove, governments will always protect their national champions. The German government, for example, negotiated an easing of planned caps on emissions from cars to the advantage of manufacturers of higher-powered cars such as Mercedes-Benz and Porsche.

And this is in a bloc where the environmentalists have far more influence than in America. Translated across the Atlantic, any climate change bill will become the subject of the worst kind of pork-barrel politics riddled with loopholes for key industries before it becomes law.
................

online.wsj.com...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I beg to disagree:

The climate is ALWAYS changing, yet the AGWers want to stop a process that has been occurring for billions of years.

This has nothing to do with stopping carbon dioxide emissions, nor with stopping natural processes. This has to do with two things: money and power.

The oil companies do not lose money; they make money! What happens to prices when supply runs short? Prices increase. Profits increase. So what will happen in energy runs short? Energy prices will increase; energy profits will increase.

Since carbon dioxide will have been addressed, the planet will have been 'saved'. No need to worry about those nasty other things, like SO2, methane, CFC's. We're safe with the evil carbon dioxide eliminated. No more paying outrageously for processing to remove sulfur.

The governments certainly lose nothing. They gain untold moneys from the initial sale of carbon credits. And of course, when supply gets so low that the people complain too loudly, why not just print up more carbon credits? They are no different than cash: easily printed and valuable. Oh, but they can't do that because of the limits? What is to stop them from quietly increasing those limits? they set the limits; they can change them.

The elite will certainly have what they want. They will have, finally, for the first time in modern history, true global power.

The only ones who will lose are those who have to buy energy to stay warm, cook food, get back and forth from work or a store, or who use any type of energy. They'll get to pay more, and possibly live with less. Rolling blackouts anyone? Rationed power? Better cook and shower at the right time, or else you'll be heating water and food by candlelight... assuming candles are allowed; they produce CO2 as well.

Oh, it'll not get that bad at first. It will seem wonderful at first. All will be glorious and all those who lobbied so hard for Cap & Trade will be holding it up as the greatest achievement by mankind since the shirt pocket. But wait, just wait, until we are all asleep again. That's when the greater restrictions will kick in, and power will no longer be just a flick of a switch away. Then you will see the beginning of the true effects of this idiotic regulation coming into play. Then you will realize what you have done.

Then it will be too late to change it.

In the meantime, I will be one of the least affected by this. Most of the power near me is hydro-electric; that produces no CO2. The Midwest will be the first hit in the US. New England will be next. Taxes will be levied on heating oil, making it barely possible to heat one's home throughout those cold winter months. Cities will be hit hard as well, as the cost of transporting everything you use, even food, will rise due to higher fuel costs. Then the same equation will affect the Southwestern desert regions, where food is not easily grown. I can grow most of my own food; I live amidst farmland. I am working to produce my own power. Can you?

Star for you, my friend, for the opportunity to explain what was really won.

TheRedneck

God I get sick of GLOBAL WARMING threads... YES we know the "CAP & TRADE" has been a scam solution waiting for a problem to be used to implement it and I am sick of hearing about GW until the promoters STOP the "scam" solution.

If Global Warming is "true" then provide real solutions or shut up.

The scare mongering to get your cherished "cap & scam" is getting old.


How about this... take "cap & scam" off the table and provide a REAL solution to this problem. Having no answer except a "SCAM" makes your whole argument LESS than Legitimate.

By the way... here are SOLUTIONS that I support because they are solutions and not scams.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Energy Independence Act of 2010

Federal Money is used to build a HUGE facility in New Mexico to grow Algae oil for domestic liquid fuel consumption. Closed system algae bio-reactors can produce 20,000 to 100,000 gallons per acre per year (for reference corn provides 18 gallons an acre per year, over a 1,000 times less fuel).

This would be a huge public works project requiring pipelines from the ocean needed to reach New Mexico for water. Glass can be made at location (sand) and glass vertical tube closed system bio-reactors constructed to include processing and refining facilities. Any extra water can easily be put through solar distillation and piped to your city of choice as clean water. Rail lines, barracks, roads, support, etc would also be required and the whole thing could be managed by the military with 6 month assignments of active duty personal to oversee the operation and civilian workers bused in and rotated (similar to working on oil platforms currently). Through constant expansion, 1/10 of the state of New Mexico would be utilized to harvest and process the product (carbon neutral liquid fuel).

Rules would have to be in place that the "product" is domestic use ONLY and would not be available to paper traders to speculate on price, etc. Once this is up and running as a NON-PROFIT entity, the cost of the product would be production cost + X% with the X% going to Federal Revenue. Once domestic needs are met, any excess would be sold on the open market.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Garbage Plasma facilities set-up at ALL major landfills.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Implementation of "solar-cell" easy-roll roofing materials massed produced in the U.S. (only by law)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you know what... these solutions ALSO make us energy independent (A national security issue) AND creates natural fertilizer (which would piss off Monsanto) So they are GOOD things to do anyway!


[edit on 7-12-2009 by infolurker]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
OP, I star and flagged your post because it contains a lot of truth.

However, ATS is full of conspiracy theorist who would rather believe a conspiracy than look at any scientific facts about how our atmosphere works and how humans effect it. So you will get a lot of ridicule, lots of denial of basic science, and a bunch of knowingly incorrect statements about global warming being fake because of certain observed things that fool them, and they ignore any logic that explains said observations.

So good luck replying to their ignorance.

I have actually studied the issue for over a decade, with real scientists, and you simply have no idea just how wrong you are. Calling the realists "ignorant", is displaying yourself as lesser.

Let us look at a couple photos since this was a partisan hack thread. Now, the first photo of the Dems after declaring their overthrow of the Repubs.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8c580afd154e.jpg[/atsimg]


The next is after a collection of independants and Conservative Repubs. Not the Neo Cons or the RINO's.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd924796191b.jpg[/atsimg]

Now who should we trust with cleaning up?

Pollution should not be a partisan issue. Now who is bringing up partisanship here? C&T or any carbon trading is a SCAM. Nuff said on this thread.

climate change -NO

sun blowing up ? - YES



.... don't take it personally

This is a good video to show you the ignorance of climate change deniers with regards to the recent hacked emails.

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


If you have been "studying" climate change for more than a decade and you are still a skeptic, that just means you are lost, confused, uninformed, and probably just not bright enough to understand basic physics.

It's actually the opposite if you call yourself a "realist" yet don't even understand the basics of Earths atmosphere and how humans effect it.....that means YOU are the lesser of lessers.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


"People like you claim the U.S., among other countries, have not done enough, yet we have done more than enough. there are countries like China, India, Russia, and many others who have less environmental concerns, and are the worst polluters in the world, yet these nations are being exempted by the AGW Socialist elites, and will be allowed to increase their emissions, and keep polluting as much as they want."

Hey, what's with the 'people like you' bit?

I was trying not to make accusations about the USA as 'not doing enough', in fact I was trying to reflect some understanding of the somewhat uniquely tricky circumstances the USA finds itself in approaching the current debates. As I understand it the USA IS the greatest energy consumer per capita on the planet, and simultaneously the largest CO2 emitter per capita?

You're right, few other countries that are important in this debate can approach with anything like a perfect record, or innocent intentions either, as they are obviously all either already or becoming major industrial/manufacturing/consumer players and getting there has always been a dirty business - literally and metaphorically.

Therein lies one of the key decisions here, if the USA is genuinely not concerned/moved to act on the issue, then does it not forefeit any future opportunity to lecture those emerging economies like the BRIC nations, if they subsequently (and possibly quite quickly) give up on global efforts to deal/control these issues because of the absence of a commitment perceived as fair or comparable by the rest of the table from the current main user/emitter? That was certainly looking like the outcome pre-Obama and still isn't quite guaranteed?

In fact I suspect that in the current climate [sorry] , the USA is likely to want to be included in such a deal because, whether this science about the link to climate change - AGW! - turns out to be right or wrong, they may find it useful to have additional leverage to attempt to influence (apply brakes) to shifts in demand for world resources by asserting some sort of brake on growth in competing markets/nations before their average consumption/wealth escalate any more within already massive populations, creating competing fresh large groups of 'middle class' consumers spread widely around the globe ?

reply to post by DraconianKing



"HAAAEAAA HEEAAAEAa He sthaid Anus"

great

reply to post by TheRedneck


What you're saying here is very interesting. As I guess you know, I enter this debate at the current time essentially on the 'believer in the mankind influenced climate change' side of the fence, but I am open minded, this is just where I am based on what I've seen to date, and I'm not going to try and convey all that.

However, my position does not stop me from suspecting, as you do, that there are many unfortunate spin-off opportunities for exploitation and manipulation of the movement up the agenda of this issue/debate.

Going back to your post, it makes me think many Americans would perhaps be surprised how far down that road that you imagine/depict we have already gotten over in Europe - but it's not all due to environmental policies, there are many other contributing factors.

reply to post by TheRedneck


This is one of the worst cases of fear mongering I have seen. You make AGW alarmist look like pussies.
Nice job.
Keep up the good work Redneck.

reply to post by ZombieOctopus


You are exactly right, it is partisan. On the one side are folks who want honest science and on the other side there are folks like you who are looking to use science to justify an economic and ideological agenda.

The science has yet to be completed and unfortunately it might never be due to the complexity of the issue. It was, what 30 years ago when these same dudes we're currently listening to like Eric Holderen and Paul Ehrlich were telling us that we were going to have an ice age and that we should commit massive resources. Oh yea. Thats the same Paul Ehrlich and Eric Holderen (our current science czar) who postulated that by 2010 over population would be so severe that the planet would be littered with dead folks in the streets. Outside of hell holes like Darfur and other politically created disasters, does not look like thats happening either.

Here is the problem. There is not a bit of scientific evidence, even should you believe that man is causing warming that would suggest that man can do anything about it. Its kind of like a bath tub that is overflowing because YOU left the faucet on and can't turn it off. Do you begin to bail the tub out with a shot glass despite the fact the water is running full steam, or do you figure out thats a waste of time? The climate proposals would have a thousand dudes bailing out the tub with shot glasses, neglecting all of our other goals and objectives. We're going to do that, but the tub is still going over flow. Even if the warming science is right, the marginal changes that can be affected by man are so marginal that they will not impact the climate change.

There is the rub. The issue is not about impacting the climate. It is about impacting the economic quality of life of the western world. Honestly answer these questions.

If it was quantitatively proven without a shadow of a doubt that the best way to positively alter the climate would be for the US to ramp up our comsumerism by 1000% would all of the world's left would be pushing that agenda?

If the world's scientists determined that the best way to rush "green" technology to the market would be for them to all be produced in the Western world and then sold to the developing world, would the same folks would be pushing it?

If they could determine that by merely painting every roof in the world white would solve the problem they would all say "cool" and order up a ton of paint? Or would they still push a climate agenda that had a massive economic component?

They would not change their agenda. They will not because this is a political and economic agenda, not an environmental agenda, plain and simple.

Tell me why no economists have developed a multi-decade economic analysis of what the proposed global taxation regime envisioned by the warming activists would do to world? How more many folks in poverty, how many drugs not made because corporate taxes were too high for western firms to make investments in R&D? They won't develop a scenario of that nature for two reasons. 1. it would suggest that it would be an economic disaster of unprecedented magnitude. 2. they will tell you that the data that would be needed to make such an analysis is too uncertain. Wait - by definition predicting the weather is uncertain but they are fully able to do that, but with another equally emperically and predictable science such as economics, they are unwilling to do it?

The earth may be warming and a tiny of the percentage of that warming might be caused by man. The solutions to the problem will destroy significant elements of the global economy and bring along with that destruction misery and death.

Also, these "honorable" scientists who are dedicating their lives to solve this human problem are for the most part whores who live off of government grants. If you are a scientist who is working on a analysis as to why man is not causing warming, how many grants do you figure he's got a shot at? Not from any government and not from any university.

This whole business is all about lowering the standard of living for the countrys on the planet who have organized themselves in a manner that enables them to be successful and having them further subsidize (more than they already do subsidize) those countrys who have failed to organize themselves in a manner that enables success and prosperity. I don't see a whole lot of slick green technologies being developed or produced in Uganda. I do see a lot of slick green infrastructure being given to Uganda and that is what this is all about.

It is partisan. Those who think on one side and those who feel on the other.

reply to post by curioustype

As I guess you know, I enter this debate at the current time essentially on the 'believer in the mankind influenced climate change' side of the fence, but I am open minded, this is just where I am based on what I've seen to date, and I'm not going to try and convey all that.

Fair enough. At one time I was also on the same side of the 'fence' as you are now. I won't condemn you (or anyone else) for that, as long as you have an open mind. To do so would be hypocritical.

However, my position does not stop me from suspecting, as you do, that there are many unfortunate spin-off opportunities for exploitation and manipulation of the movement up the agenda of this issue/debate.

Were there any semblance of responsible concern, such as an effort to stop carbon dioxide emissions, interest in ways to scrub carbon dioxide directly from the air, or even ways to economically assist those who want to help but can't afford to, perhaps I could be a little less pessimistic. But the entire focus, from a propaganda perspective, is to create a money-maker for large corporations and politicians while ignoring reality (and science) from any other perspective. That is not progress, and it is not conducive to solving problems; it is only conducive to making money. I can easily state that I see no correlation between warming and lack of politician's income.

Going back to your post, it makes me think many Americans would perhaps be surprised how far down that road that you imagine/depict we have already gotten over in Europe - but it's not all due to environmental policies, there are many other contributing factors.

I would say we have all been duped by a stealthy shift in values perpetuated via decades of slow manipulation of public opinion by corrupt businessmen and politicians. Of course we are not all aware of how far down this road we really are. When one leads a cow to the slaughter, one simply does not stop every few yards and update the cow on how quickly they will become a Big Mac.

I am realizing more about this widespread manipulation on a weekly basis. And you are right: many of the realizations I have are not related on the surface to climate concerns. It's a massive chess game, and we are the pawns. As with a real chess game, one may know one corner of the board extremely well and have no idea of how the game is progressing.

TheRedneck