Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax?

[OnePercenter]

Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?

Keep in mind that the companies that cause global warming spend billions to influence conservative politicians. The non-politician conservatives are mere sheep.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did you see the data from OCO? It was quite clear that the equatorial rain forests are net sources of CO2...not the CO2 sink that you seem to believe that they are.

Does it ?
You should include the article associated with the map and not just the map and draw your own skewed conclusions from it.
"It shows hotspots of carbon dioxide over northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil.
These carbon spikes could be explained by agricultural fires and land clearing — practices that are widespread during spring in the Southern Hemisphere, OCO-2 scientists said."
If you watch the video, you will find they say the map is the average of 5 weeks of data, so that particular map does not tell the whole story.

NASA Satellite's 1st CO2 Maps of Earth Revealed

It tells 5 weeks of the story, the next 5 weeks shows the concentration are high above the Arctic Circle-- then NASA goes dark

You might not like that burning the rain forests is the main causes CO2, but that's just tough on you

You not liking a data set does not negate it

"These carbon spikes could be explained by agricultural fires and land clearing — practices that are widespread during spring in the Southern Hemisphere, OCO-2 scientists said."

It is not the rain forest causing CO2 but human activity.
Do you have reading comprehension problems Frank ?

OK, so why are you going after American industries instead of subsistence farmers?

 

[SSDD]

That said , I see no harm in going green on individual level : using a solar heater or solar cell in your roof, and using a fuel efficient car, and going vegan or reducing meat consumption as an individual choice ( probably a healthy choice if you are eating a pound of meat per day).

I don't use solar or wind and am not likely to...I shouldn't have to if we aren't worrying about CO2...the power systems we have work just fine if warmers don't tax them so high that the poor really do have to decide whether to eat or pay the power bill...I drive a diesel truck and probably eat a pound of one flesh or another every day...of course I catch or kill most of it myself but that's beside the point.

I don't want to be told what to do so long as I am not stepping on someone else's rights....if you want to deny yourself, by all means, go ahead. I support your choices 100% but don't expect for me to make the same choices....don't expect for me to do anything other than respect your right to make your own choices.

 

[Muhammed]

Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?

Of course it's a hoax. That's been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever in the minds of intelligent people. As far as motives, i'm sure there are a plethora of them.

 

[Vigilante]

• Carly Fiorina Slams 'Delusional' Obama, Left for Pushing Climate Change as National Security Threat
  NewsBusters.org ^ | November 29, 2015 | Curtis Houck
  Appearing on November 29th Fox News Sunday, 2016 Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina slammed President Barack Obama and his allies as “delusional” for continually pushing the notion that climate change is a chief national security threat for the United States and the world at-large. Fiorina was asked about the issue by host Chris Wallace in context of this upcoming week’s United Nations climate change summit in Paris and the argument that addressing climate change makes the world safer and rebukes Islamic terrorists. Carly Fiorina Slams 'Delusional' Obama, Left for Pushing Climate Change as National Security Threat The GOP candidate immediately...

 

[westwall]

I hate to break it to you but using wiki as your source is less than compelling. What's funny is even they can't agree on if it is happening, and this is a propaganda piece. You really need to do better than this.

Do you have any references showing the oposite : current extinction level is business as usual ?
You are currently supporting your statements with thin air, unless you are a biologist by trade , in whose case I would assume you've written one or two papers about the topic.

No. I am supporting my position based on the fact that YOUR people can't provide one iota of factual data to support what they say. In science the people making the claim MUST prove it. It is impossible to prove a negative. Or didn't you know that?

Not acceptable.
I agree there's quite a debate amongst the scientific community about whether or not weather warming is caused by human activity and the role of CO2, but you will not find any scientific claiming human triggered extinction is a hoax. No sir.

"It is not imposible to proove a negative", that's inaccurate . It is imposible to prove a universal negative .

Proove the world is NOT flat : cakewalk.
Prove there are NO pink elephants : hard as hell because you have to sample every existing elephant.

Many species are too small to be counted efectively so , I would rather reduce the discussion to vertebrates which are easier to count.
So here it goes :vertebrates populations declining by 30% in 40 years.

"The Evolution Lost report, published in the journal Science by more than 100 of the world's leading zoologists and botanists, found that populations of mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish species had declined by an average of 30% in the past 40 years."

"Future extinctions risks are projected to be high, but the biodiversity crisis is much more than extinctions,"

One-fifth of world's back-boned animals face extinction, study warns

Did you even bother to look at the cause? I highlighted it for you....

"A separate study coordinated by the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew suggested that just over one-fifth of plant species are threatened – mostly in the tropics – due to man-made habitat loss. But the extent of the risk remains unclear.

As far as I can recall we were not debating the cause, rather the effects of human activity.
I fail to see your point . Can you ellaborate ?

I refer you to your OP title.......

"Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax"

It is the assumption of every person pushing for the globalization, and regulation of all of mankind that humans are responsible for global warming and that global warming is the root cause of everything bad that is happening on the planet from prostitution to terrorism. The list of things that have been blamed on global warming is quite amusing to behold.

"Acne , Longer plane flights , agricultural land increase , Afghan poppies destroyed , Africa devastatedAfrica in conflict , African aid threatened , African summer frost , aggressive weeds , More Toxic Poison Ivy , air pressure changes , airport malaria , Agulhas current , Alaska reshaped , moves , allergy season longer , alligators in the Thames , Alps melting , Amazon a desert , American dream end , amphibians breeding earlier (or not) ,anaphylactic reactions to bee stings , ancient forests dramatically changed , animals head for the hills , animals shrink , Antarctic grass flourishes , Antarctic ice grows , Antarctic ice shrinks , Antarctic sea life at risk , anxiety treatment , algal blooms , archaeological sites threatened , Arab Spring , Arctic bogs melt , Arctic in bloom , Arctic ice free , Arctic ice melt faster , Arctic lakes disappear , Arctic tundra to burn , Arctic warming (not)Atlantic less salty , Atlantic more salty , atmospheric circulation modified , attack of the killer jellyfish , avalanches reduced ,avalanches increased , Baghdad snow , Bahrain under water , bananas grow , barbarisation , beer shortage , beetle infestation , bet for $10,000 , better beer , big melt faster , billion dollar research projects , billion homeless ,billions face risk , billions of deaths , bird distributions change , bird loss accelerating , birds shrinking , bird strikes, bird visitors drop , birds confused , birds decline (Wales) , birds driven north , birds return early , bittern boom ends , blackbirds stop singing , blackbirds threatened , Black Hawk down , blood contaminated , blue mussels return , bluetongue , brain eating amoebae , brains shrink , bridge collapse (Minneapolis) , Britain one big city ,Smaller loaves of Bread , Britain Siberian , brothels struggle , brown Ireland , bubonic plague , budget increases ,"
A Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

 

[westwall]

Did you see the data from OCO? It was quite clear that the equatorial rain forests are net sources of CO2...not the CO2 sink that you seem to believe that they are.

Does it ?
You should include the article associated with the map and not just the map and draw your own skewed conclusions from it.
"It shows hotspots of carbon dioxide over northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil.
These carbon spikes could be explained by agricultural fires and land clearing — practices that are widespread during spring in the Southern Hemisphere, OCO-2 scientists said."
If you watch the video, you will find they say the map is the average of 5 weeks of data, so that particular map does not tell the whole story.

NASA Satellite's 1st CO2 Maps of Earth Revealed

It tells 5 weeks of the story, the next 5 weeks shows the concentration are high above the Arctic Circle-- then NASA goes dark

You might not like that burning the rain forests is the main causes CO2, but that's just tough on you

You not liking a data set does not negate it

"These carbon spikes could be explained by agricultural fires and land clearing — practices that are widespread during spring in the Southern Hemisphere, OCO-2 scientists said."

It is not the rain forest causing CO2 but human activity.
Do you have reading comprehension problems Frank ?

How much of the entire yearly CO2 budget of the world is generated by man? After you have answered that question you will understand why that statement is retarded.

 

[westwall]

As far as I can recall we were not debating the cause, rather the effects of human activity.
I fail to see your point . Can you ellaborate ?

Because there are real problems facing us....pollution, deforestation....land misuse....problems that we could address and probably make headway towards correcting...but nothing can get done because the AGW hoax is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers....they are talking about over a trillion dollars in taxes and fees that may, assuming the AGW hypothesis is correct (and I don't believe it for a second) make a fraction of a degree difference per century....the cost to benefit ration makes it a losing proposition....all that money put towards things that might actually make a difference makes far more sense don't you think?

Sory , you are preaching to the wrong guy , I had already agreed on the fact that these problems have to be addressed and we should wait until we have more conclusive data on the co2 problem (I arbitrarily set the date to 2020) before taking any taxing measures.

That said , I see no harm in going green on individual level : using a solar heater or solar cell in your roof, and using a fuel efficient car, and going vegan or reducing meat consumption as an individual choice ( probably a healthy choice if you are eating a pound of meat per day).

Why tax? Why not legislate truly draconian measures to reduce CO2. If it is truly as dangerous as you claim then taxing merely enriches the one percenters but does absolutely nothing to solve the supposed problem of CO2 increase. That is the ultimate proof to me that it is all a fraud.

 

[mamooth]

It is the assumption of every person pushing for the globalization, and regulation of all of mankind that humans are responsible for global warming and that global warming is the root cause of everything bad that is happening on the planet from prostitution to terrorism.

That's a lunatic conspiracy theory on your part. Normal people don't rave about phantom globalists hiding in the bushes.

Nor do normal people rely on making up strawmen about what others supposedly believe. I don't believe any of the crap you say I have to believe, hence I know with 100% certainty that you're lying about me. The same goes for most of the people on the planet. Since most everyone knows you're lying about them, why would you expect anyone to pay any attention to you?

 

[mamooth]

How much of the entire yearly CO2 budget of the world is generated by man? After you have answered that question you will understand why that statement is retarded.

Given that you just demonstrated how you don't understand how an equilibrium system works, why would you expect anyone to take you seriously? You literally fail at the most basic science.

 

[CultureCitizen]

As far as I can recall we were not debating the cause, rather the effects of human activity.
I fail to see your point . Can you ellaborate ?

Because there are real problems facing us....pollution, deforestation....land misuse....problems that we could address and probably make headway towards correcting...but nothing can get done because the AGW hoax is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers....they are talking about over a trillion dollars in taxes and fees that may, assuming the AGW hypothesis is correct (and I don't believe it for a second) make a fraction of a degree difference per century....the cost to benefit ration makes it a losing proposition....all that money put towards things that might actually make a difference makes far more sense don't you think?

Sory , you are preaching to the wrong guy , I had already agreed on the fact that these problems have to be addressed and we should wait until we have more conclusive data on the co2 problem (I arbitrarily set the date to 2020) before taking any taxing measures.

That said , I see no harm in going green on individual level : using a solar heater or solar cell in your roof, and using a fuel efficient car, and going vegan or reducing meat consumption as an individual choice ( probably a healthy choice if you are eating a pound of meat per day).

Why tax? Why not legislate truly draconian measures to reduce CO2. If it is truly as dangerous as you claim then taxing merely enriches the one percenters but does absolutely nothing to solve the supposed problem of CO2 increase. That is the ultimate proof to me that it is all a fraud.

Ahem
Taxing - wearingly burdensome:
So , you were saying ?

the definition of taxing

 

[CultureCitizen]

Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?

Keep in mind that the companies that cause global warming spend billions to influence conservative politicians. The non-politician conservatives are mere sheep.

So , I've heard. Regardless , the spirit of the thread was intended to know what the evil plan was about. I've got my answers:
- Increase government control over people's life (plausible , but weak, since the NSA has demonstrated there are other ways to achieve such control)
- Destroy the economy ( kind of weak also , given bank de-regulation works faster for such means)
- Self aggrandizement from scientists ( plausible )

The thread has derailed since. Time to let it rest in peace.

 

[SSDD]

Keep in mind that the companies that cause global warming spend billions to influence conservative politicians. The non-politician conservatives are mere sheep.

So , I've heard. Regardless , the spirit of the thread was intended to know what the evil plan was about. I've got my answers:
- Increase government control over people's life (plausible , but weak, since the NSA has demonstrated there are other ways to achieve such control)
- Destroy the economy ( kind of weak also , given bank de-regulation works faster for such means)
- Self aggrandizement from scientists ( plausible )

The thread has derailed since. Time to let it rest in peace.[/QUOTE]

Assuming that you are still looking at this thread.....a question.

What do you think motivates people? What do you think is at the root of motivation to do a thing...to do anything?

 

[ClosedCaption]

This guy is quoting movie scripts lmao!

1984 is a book you sniveling twit.

And a movie dumbass rofl. Great debating bro. Next will you be quoting Top Gun or Home Alone?

It was a book first, a book written by a socialist who saw the pitfalls of the system he preferred.

Of course it was a book first and it was a movie also. Since I didn't say the movie was first I have no idea what you have a problem with. So I was correct and you're just bitching.

Top gun and Home Alone are not critiques on authoritarianism,and thus are not material to this discussion. 1984 is, and answers the question of IF AGW was all a hoax, what the reason would be.

Authoritarianism isnt material to this discussion either. Just because you like to repeat it without expounding on what that control is then you still have nothing.

Control!

Control What?

YOU!

How?

Yanno, Authoritarian communist liberal indoctrination Anti-America uh uh...hatred pro-terrorist ummmm.....

 

[martybegan]

1984 is a book you sniveling twit.

And a movie dumbass rofl. Great debating bro. Next will you be quoting Top Gun or Home Alone?

It was a book first, a book written by a socialist who saw the pitfalls of the system he preferred.

Of course it was a book first and it was a movie also. Since I didn't say the movie was first I have no idea what you have a problem with. So I was correct and you're just bitching.

Top gun and Home Alone are not critiques on authoritarianism,and thus are not material to this discussion. 1984 is, and answers the question of IF AGW was all a hoax, what the reason would be.

Authoritarianism isnt material to this discussion either. Just because you like to repeat it without expounding on what that control is then you still have nothing.

Control!

Control What?

YOU!

How?

Yanno, Authoritarian communist liberal indoctrination Anti-America uh uh...hatred pro-terrorist ummmm.....

it's always about control and power, again you watermelons failed to implement socialism via yammering about class and capital, now you are trying it using weather and temperature.

 

[flacaltenn]

Acidification is a farce. Man could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the pH of the ocean would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 still very alkaline.

For as long as the science has existed, "acidification" has been the term for an increase in [H+]. Staring and ending pH is not relevant. Denier attempts to deny that are some recent historical revisionism.

And if you disagree, I suggest you also tell the medical community they're getting it all wrong, as "acidosis" is defined as blood pH falling below 7.35.

Deniers also don't understand water chemistry. pH 7.0 is only the neutral state in one type of system, pure water undergoing strong acid/base interactions. In a system with multiple layers of buffering like the oceans, pH 7.0 is a number of no significance.

No one is arguing about neutral PH numbers or buffered systems. We barely understand the NATURAL daily/annual variations in ecosystem PH values and yet -- are absolutely panicked about a couple tenths of PH change largely being a surface effect.

The other observation is that as surface water WARMS, the acidification effect will fall. You cannot have both apocalyptic visions -- pick one..

 

[westwall]

How much of the entire yearly CO2 budget of the world is generated by man? After you have answered that question you will understand why that statement is retarded.

Given that you just demonstrated how you don't understand how an equilibrium system works, why would you expect anyone to take you seriously? You literally fail at the most basic science.

Ummmm, probably because it was you who failed the basic science, admiral.

 

[westwall]

As far as I can recall we were not debating the cause, rather the effects of human activity.
I fail to see your point . Can you ellaborate ?

Because there are real problems facing us....pollution, deforestation....land misuse....problems that we could address and probably make headway towards correcting...but nothing can get done because the AGW hoax is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers....they are talking about over a trillion dollars in taxes and fees that may, assuming the AGW hypothesis is correct (and I don't believe it for a second) make a fraction of a degree difference per century....the cost to benefit ration makes it a losing proposition....all that money put towards things that might actually make a difference makes far more sense don't you think?

Sory , you are preaching to the wrong guy , I had already agreed on the fact that these problems have to be addressed and we should wait until we have more conclusive data on the co2 problem (I arbitrarily set the date to 2020) before taking any taxing measures.

That said , I see no harm in going green on individual level : using a solar heater or solar cell in your roof, and using a fuel efficient car, and going vegan or reducing meat consumption as an individual choice ( probably a healthy choice if you are eating a pound of meat per day).

Why tax? Why not legislate truly draconian measures to reduce CO2. If it is truly as dangerous as you claim then taxing merely enriches the one percenters but does absolutely nothing to solve the supposed problem of CO2 increase. That is the ultimate proof to me that it is all a fraud.

Ahem
Taxing - wearingly burdensome:
So , you were saying ?

the definition of taxing

As far as I can recall we were not debating the cause, rather the effects of human activity.
I fail to see your point . Can you ellaborate ?

Because there are real problems facing us....pollution, deforestation....land misuse....problems that we could address and probably make headway towards correcting...but nothing can get done because the AGW hoax is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers....they are talking about over a trillion dollars in taxes and fees that may, assuming the AGW hypothesis is correct (and I don't believe it for a second) make a fraction of a degree difference per century....the cost to benefit ration makes it a losing proposition....all that money put towards things that might actually make a difference makes far more sense don't you think?

Sory , you are preaching to the wrong guy , I had already agreed on the fact that these problems have to be addressed and we should wait until we have more conclusive data on the co2 problem (I arbitrarily set the date to 2020) before taking any taxing measures.

That said , I see no harm in going green on individual level : using a solar heater or solar cell in your roof, and using a fuel efficient car, and going vegan or reducing meat consumption as an individual choice ( probably a healthy choice if you are eating a pound of meat per day).

Why tax? Why not legislate truly draconian measures to reduce CO2. If it is truly as dangerous as you claim then taxing merely enriches the one percenters but does absolutely nothing to solve the supposed problem of CO2 increase. That is the ultimate proof to me that it is all a fraud.

Ahem
Taxing - wearingly burdensome:
So , you were saying ?

the definition of taxing

And your point is what? My point is if the situation was as dire as you all say it is I would think that draconian measures would be implemented to control it. Instead you support taxes that enrich the already super rich, impoverishes the middle class, and does nothing to actually reduce pollution.

Sounds like a winner if I am one of the one percenters but it sounds like I am getting royally screwed if I am not.

 

[westwall]

Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?

Keep in mind that the companies that cause global warming spend billions to influence conservative politicians. The non-politician conservatives are mere sheep.

So , I've heard. Regardless , the spirit of the thread was intended to know what the evil plan was about. I've got my answers:
- Increase government control over people's life (plausible , but weak, since the NSA has demonstrated there are other ways to achieve such control)
- Destroy the economy ( kind of weak also , given bank de-regulation works faster for such means)
- Self aggrandizement from scientists ( plausible )

The thread has derailed since. Time to let it rest in peace.

Increase government through a multitude of regulations which we are already witnessing with the EPA and other Federal agencies using rules to get around the requirement of have legislators actually pass laws.

Destroy the economy. Here is the mantra of the enviro movement today...."

The trouble is, offsetting our consumer lifestyle won’t get us to where we need to go. We need to consume far less, move away from a growth-centric economic system and reduce the human population – all of which will take bold institutional changes, not a credit card upgrade."

In other words, reduce the size of the economy and reduce the number of people. The population reduction is a common thread amongst all of them which was smart thinking in the 1960's but in light of new technologies, and the fact that the population is stabilizing, demographers now say the population will top out at 9 billion and then drop back down to 6 billion (all without a single draconian measure taken other than in China).

And finally self agrandizment. How else could otherwise poor scientists make so much money (Mann has over 30 million tax payer dollars in his bank account and he can't even do simple stats) in so little time and become the darlings of media than by promulgating this crap. And what's worse is it becomes more and more obvious that they really have no clue they are going to fight ever harder to maintain their status because when the their fall comes it will be long and hard.....and they know it..

 

[mamooth]

Ummmm, probably because it was you who failed the basic science, admiral.

Yet I understand how an equilibrium system works, and you don't.

Let me try to dumb it down sufficiently so that even you can grasp it.

If I make $1000 a week and spend $1000 a week, my bank account remains the same. Equilibrium system.

If I make $1010 a week and spend $1000 a week, my bank account rises by $520 a year, even though my income has only increased 1%. The equilibrium has been perturbed.

CO2 in the atmosphere works the same way.

What about that is so hard to grasp? Grade schoolers can understand it. Why can't you?