BBC back peddling on Climate Change/Global Warming

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




Market distortions due to political preferences are "a bad thing."

Political preferences are reducing the cost of photovoltaic systems?
How does that work? I know there are tax credits involved. Is that a bad thing?




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jdub297
 


Faulty logic.

Why?
The same as hiring Alan Dershowitz doesn't minimize the legitimacy of my legal defernse.
If "big oil" or the Depatment of Energy pay for a study, neither constitutes a legitimate challenge to the results.


You cite scientists being supported by AGW "supporters".

No, I didn't. I noted the variety of funding available for all types of research.


But the fact that there are scientists supported by AGW "deniers" is irrelevant?

The source of funding, without more, is meaningless. Must every government-funded study disfavor government to be "relevant?" If it favors government is it "irrelevant?"

What of scientists supported by AGW "believers?" Is that "relevant?"
How sad.

jw



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




The source of funding, without more, is meaningless.

What?
Your whole post makes no more sense that that statement does.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jdub297
 




Market distortions due to political preferences are "a bad thing."

Political preferences are reducing the cost of photovoltaic systems?
How does that work? I know there are tax credits involved. Is that a bad thing?

Whatever happened to the topic of the BBC editing out the unfounded proclamations of a biased AGW advocate?

As for your question, political preferences are NOT reducing the cost of PV systems. Rebates, subsidies and tax credits do not change the underlying costs of production. They shift the costs to others. The amount remains the same; the payer changes as political prefrerences dictate.
"Is that a bad thing?"
Why should I and my family pay for you to light your home with wind or solar or hydrogen power?
Why don't you buy my groceries and transportation?

jw



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Whatever happened to the topic of the BBC editing out the unfounded proclamations of a biased AGW advocate?
Good question. You think it's odd that incorrect information is not distributed? Of course, it would have been more fun for you if the goof had been broadcast.


Rebates, subsidies and tax credits do not change the underlying costs of production.
That is true. But actual costs for PV systems have declined. And, as occured in the 70's, increasing oil prices have made alternative energy sources more practical from a relative standpoint.


Why should I and my family pay for you to light your home with wind or solar or hydrogen power?
You aren't, I don't, and I don't think you live in my state. But why should I, who ride a bike (hypothetically speaking) pay for you to drive on a road I don't ever use?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by starfoxxx
This hole global warming thing seems like a scam.. Pay some people some money and it all goes away..
Ummm....."Hole Global Warming"...as in carbon credit money pit...? As in AGW believers digging themselves deeper?............Wow, that's another fine case of ........"your Freudian slip"...is showing.

YouSir



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
reply to post by bigyin
 
these "people" have been trying to sway public opinion and thus taxes into programs that will ulimately F the planet up worse trying to fix something that wasnt broken, or at the very minimum do absolutely nothing.


Precisely!

There is no man-made "cure" for a warming climate. We should be focused on adaptation. Plants and wildlife adapt. Man adapted before, during and after the ice ages of the past 100,000 years.

As time goes by, more "scientists" see that a different strategy than throwing money at the problem is the wisest response to a changing climate.
jw


There you go. "throwing money at the problem" will not stop the El Nino Effect every
11 years. No problem. Just ignore it.

We can't throw money somewhere and stop our sun from having a direct effect on Earth.
No problem. Just ignore the sun.

The Global Warming Religion can however regulate CO2 so lets do that.
We will still have another ice age but who cares?
Lets control the general population with fear and just see what happens.

I remember when Al Gores movie An Inconvenient Truth came out.
The liberals showed it children and made them hysterical.

Don't give children adult problems. They won't be able to solve the problem and it
will drive them crazy.
edit on 13-2-2013 by TauCetixeta because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by starfoxxx
This hole global warming thing seems like a scam.. Pay some people some money and it all goes away..


Correct, it has always been a scam. It is all about money and nothing else.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
which is the more believable conspiracy.....

all the climatologists are in on it for.....well, can't think of a reason, or the big oil companies are smearing the climatologists so they can keep selling oil ?


The reason for rhe bandwagonning is the climate has become a priority as seen by some researchers, while other researchers say not enough research had been done in the first place, and that much of it is inaccurate and too short term, and that the data they did use is not reliable. With such a huge emphasis on climate research, anyone else looking for other research funding, gets their face put out of joint, unless they can append their own research into the climate change arena with some tenuous connection. Watch this space!



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jdub297
 


Whatever happened to the topic of the BBC editing out the unfounded proclamations of a biased AGW advocate?
Good question. You think it's odd that incorrect information is not distributed? Of course, it would have been more fun for you if the goof had been broadcast.



Just a small point of order, Attenborough's programme was broadcast in full, it was the Sunday repeat that was edited.
As much as the BBC programmes have great substance, there has been over a period of time, some loss to the integrity of the best of the BBC's programmes, which are also the most expensive to make.
The contracting out of programmes, has allowed too much fakery to creep in, it would be interesting just how much these 'outside' contract actually cost, against what used to be done in house.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouSir

Originally posted by starfoxxx
This hole global warming thing seems like a scam.. Pay some people some money and it all goes away..
Ummm....."Hole Global Warming"...as in carbon credit money pit...? As in AGW believers digging themselves deeper?............Wow, that's another fine case of ........"your Freudian slip"...is showing.

YouSir
So how do you fix global warming without taxing people and making oil cost go up, while China will balance out any good America or other developed nations make on reducing emissions...



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by starfoxxx

Originally posted by YouSir

Originally posted by starfoxxx
This hole global warming thing seems like a scam.. Pay some people some money and it all goes away..
Ummm....."Hole Global Warming"...as in carbon credit money pit...? As in AGW believers digging themselves deeper?............Wow, that's another fine case of ........"your Freudian slip"...is showing.

YouSir
So how do you fix global warming without taxing people and making oil cost go up, while China will balance out any good America or other developed nations make on reducing emissions...
Ummm....I really don't have any faith that there "is anything to fix". It all just sounds like weather to me...which frankly has never been static during my lifetime. If the IPCC had been truthful from the getgo and included things such as historic cycles and solar output and not played hide the monkey with data not supportive of their assertions then perhaps they would have a tad more credibility..."Carbon credits", what a perfectly laughable solution to a non-existant problem........If it makes you feel better you can call me a denier as I call you a sycophant.

YouSir



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouSir

Originally posted by starfoxxx

Originally posted by YouSir

Originally posted by starfoxxx
This hole global warming thing seems like a scam.. Pay some people some money and it all goes away..
Ummm....."Hole Global Warming"...as in carbon credit money pit...? As in AGW believers digging themselves deeper?............Wow, that's another fine case of ........"your Freudian slip"...is showing.

YouSir
So how do you fix global warming without taxing people and making oil cost go up, while China will balance out any good America or other developed nations make on reducing emissions...
Ummm....I really don't have any faith that there "is anything to fix". It all just sounds like weather to me...which frankly has never been static during my lifetime. If the IPCC had been truthful from the getgo and included things such as historic cycles and solar output and not played hide the monkey with data not supportive of their assertions then perhaps they would have a tad more credibility..."Carbon credits", what a perfectly laughable solution to a non-existant problem........If it makes you feel better you can call me a denier as I call you a sycophant.

YouSir

Agreed, that's just about where we are. The University of East Anglia e-mails were a disgrace and even one contributor, (a central figure) sent a threatening e-mail to someone who had published them online, and while even in that e-mail, used the term, "if they are true" while that person already knew they were true. What an idiot.

Just to add, I started a thread and I remember using the same phrase as you, except it was "Hide the sausage"


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 13-2-2013 by smurfy because: Link.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jdub297
 


Whatever happened to the topic of the BBC editing out the unfounded proclamations of a biased AGW advocate?
Good question. You think it's odd that incorrect information is not distributed? Of course, it would have been more fun for you if the goof had been broadcast.


You concede that 3.5C is "incorrect information?' How brave.
The "goof" was broadcast; and, it was not a "goof" (although I'm sure you'd like to see it as so); it is an accurate representation of the AGW hystreria permeating MSM.


Why should I and my family pay for you to light your home with wind or solar or hydrogen power?
You aren't, I don't, and I don't think you live in my state. But why should I, who ride a bike (hypothetically speaking) pay for you to drive on a road I don't ever use?
Government-paved roads allow for traffic to move efficiently. Most are accessible to bikes,

jw



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jdub297
 


Rebates, subsidies and tax credits do not change the underlying costs of production.
That is true. But actual costs for PV systems have declined. And, as occured in the 70's, increasing oil prices have made alternative energy sources more practical from a relative standpoint.

Oil prices are receding compared to 70s dollars, Alternative enrgy sources are only (barely) viable thanks to government support.






top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join