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

[CultureCitizen]

Too Funny:

The alarmists think they can just spew their crap and everyone would believe them... Old Fraud posts the same crap over and over expecting a different result.

Their models are broken and fail 100% of the time..
Their predictions have failed over and over again..
The satellite data and US-CRN data shows their adjustments fraud..

It is a hoax designed to take freedoms away and assert power over the US and world populace, GLOBAL GOVERNANCE under SOCIALIST CONTROL.. It always has been..

Keeping the spirit of the OP:

Their models are broken and fail 100% of the time.. : Ok , assumed as true
Their predictions have failed over and over again.. : Ok , assumed as true
The satellite data and US-CRN data shows their adjustments fraud.. : ok , assumed as true

So , just ellaborate on your final phrase:
"It is a hoax designed to take freedoms away and assert power over the US and world populace, GLOBAL GOVERNANCE under SOCIALIST CONTROL."
How will freedoms be taken away ?
Who will assert power over the US and world populace ?
Who will be in charge of the global governance under socialist control ? Which country would be orchestrating this ?

 

[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 ?

Get the terminology right...

Global warming is soooo 1985

In 1977 it was a man made ice age.

I've got an idea, lets invent a problem that cannot be proven to not really exist since it happens naturally and insist that the cause is the fault of the prosperity of the greatest industrial and economic juggernaut the world has ever seen. We can use our influence in academia since we're all "scientists" or at least we can bullshit enough people to believe we are, along with a leftist media that hates capitalism in principle to convince a voting public that this "problem" can only be solved if their elected representatives give us billions of dollars to do more "research" while we fly around the world convincing people that all the "scientists" in the world need even more money to develop shit that no company would attempt to market because it will NEVER turn a profit and will have to be subsidized at tax payer expense.

In the mean time we can help other useless bed wetters like us get rich selling stupid shit like "carbon credits" to the mindless drones who our peers indoctrinate in public schools.

It's a fool proof....

No it's a fool dependent plan.

Goddamn, you have repeatedly been shown that was not the case. Most of the people involved in research during that period were predicting a warming. Those that weren't, were worried about the aerosols put into the air by industry.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how the climate operates.

Old Rocks,
For once I will ask of you for the sake of discussion (as hard as it may be ) to assume AGW is a hoax.
I am interested in learning from the mindset of those who so fiercely oppose the AGW theory.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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 ?

Transfer of wealth, communism.

Transfer of wealth and communism are two VERY different things.
Did you know in the XIX century the US government engaged in one of the largest welfare programs in history by handing out land to anyone who worked on it ?

That said, I would rather like to know how installing a couple of pannels and a solar heater in a roof and using a 100 mpg vehicle brings any country closer to communism.

I know it's two different things, that's why each is listed.
Manmade global warming is not about adding some solar panels. Leftard Calif has changed all of the regulations to kill new solar.
It's about taking money from those who have it and the government taking control of every aspect of our citizens.

 

[Pete7469]

Transfer of wealth and communism are two VERY different things.

No it is not when it regards a turd party (statists) taking some or all the profits of an individual against his best interests or their will, and giving any or all of the sum to someone who has either failed or never really attempted to create a profit of their own. Charity is a matter of will, and an honest person will only accept it if they feel they've earned it.

Did you know in the XIX century the US government engaged in one of the largest welfare programs in history by handing out land to anyone who worked on it ?

No, the US government offered land grants in conquered or purchased territory to citizens who agreed to settle on it and work. The agreement to work on it happened before the land was given. With communists the work happened before the land was conquered and "granted" to workers who never actually held title to it.

That said, I would rather like to know how installing a couple of pannels and a solar heater in a roof and using a 100 mpg vehicle brings any country closer to communism.

The agenda of the GW cult is to marginalize the economy and enrich non-productive bureaucrooks. Commies are non productive bureaucrooks. Who cares what they call themselves?

 

[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 ?

Transfer of wealth, communism.

Transfer of wealth and communism are two VERY different things.
Did you know in the XIX century the US government engaged in one of the largest welfare programs in history by handing out land to anyone who worked on it ?

That said, I would rather like to know how installing a couple of pannels and a solar heater in a roof and using a 100 mpg vehicle brings any country closer to communism.

I know it's two different things, that's why each is listed.
Manmade global warming is not about adding some solar panels. Leftard Calif has changed all of the regulations to kill new solar.
It's about taking money from those who have it and the government taking control of every aspect of our citizens.

... I am thinking the oposite, if you own a big enough piece of land ( 5,000 sq foot) and are thus able to generate and store your own energy you are less dependent on both corporations and the government.

Perhaps it is not the clean home made energy production and storage what wories you, but something else.
What is it exactly ?

 

[Weatherman2020]

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 ?

Transfer of wealth, communism.

Transfer of wealth and communism are two VERY different things.
Did you know in the XIX century the US government engaged in one of the largest welfare programs in history by handing out land to anyone who worked on it ?

That said, I would rather like to know how installing a couple of pannels and a solar heater in a roof and using a 100 mpg vehicle brings any country closer to communism.

I know it's two different things, that's why each is listed.
Manmade global warming is not about adding some solar panels. Leftard Calif has changed all of the regulations to kill new solar.
It's about taking money from those who have it and the government taking control of every aspect of our citizens.

... I am thinking the oposite, if you own a big enough piece of land ( 5,000 sq foot) and are thus able to generate and store your own energy you are less dependent on both corporations and the government.

Perhaps it is not the clean home made energy production and storage what wories you, but something else.
What is it exactly ?

Like I said, which you ignore, is Democrats are trying to kill new solar. From saying it will kill turtles to eliminating all incentives to taxing solar users, the so called green people hate solar.

 

[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 ?

The two most simple reasons ever....money and power.

Westwall, your explanation seems oversimplified, please ellaborate.

Goldman Sachs, The Koch Brothers, The World Bank Group, and a whole host of other financial groups have invested millions into the climate change meme. All with the desire to reap huge profits for the privilege of shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other. The IPCC estimates it will cost 76 trillion dollars to change the worlds system of energy production to a green one. All of those financial groups will be payed enormous sums of money to do it.

Politicians and governments are using the climate change meme to take ever more control over how people live, work, travel (or not as the case may be) with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop he other to reduce the human footprint on the planet. The wealthy though will of course still be allowed to enjoy the beauty of the wild and better yet they won't have any of those pesky poor people around to annoy them.

 

[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 ?

Get the terminology right...

Global warming is soooo 1985

In 1977 it was a man made ice age.

I've got an idea, lets invent a problem that cannot be proven to not really exist since it happens naturally and insist that the cause is the fault of the prosperity of the greatest industrial and economic juggernaut the world has ever seen. We can use our influence in academia since we're all "scientists" or at least we can bullshit enough people to believe we are, along with a leftist media that hates capitalism in principle to convince a voting public that this "problem" can only be solved if their elected representatives give us billions of dollars to do more "research" while we fly around the world convincing people that all the "scientists" in the world need even more money to develop shit that no company would attempt to market because it will NEVER turn a profit and will have to be subsidized at tax payer expense.

In the mean time we can help other useless bed wetters like us get rich selling stupid shit like "carbon credits" to the mindless drones who our peers indoctrinate in public schools.

It's a fool proof....

No it's a fool dependent plan.

Goddamn, you have repeatedly been shown that was not the case. Most of the people involved in research during that period were predicting a warming. Those that weren't, were worried about the aerosols put into the air by industry.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how the climate operates.

Old Rocks,
For once I will ask of you for the sake of discussion (as hard as it may be ) to assume AGW is a hoax.
I am interested in learning from the mindset of those who so fiercely oppose the AGW theory.

CC, let me ask you something. What makes you think that the theory of AGW is factual? What empirical evidence is there to support it?

 

[Dot Com]

Reminds me of this

 

[westwall]

Reminds me of this

What's funny, and sad that you don't understand it, is every one of those other things that are legitimate concerns (such as rainforest degradation, water pollution, toxic waste dumps, contaminated food etc.) CAN'T be dealt with because the bureaucrats and rich corporations are taking the money that could be used to fix those issues, and pissing them away in the vain hope that we can lower the global temp by one degree in 100 years.

 

[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 ?

The two most simple reasons ever....money and power.

Westwall, your explanation seems oversimplified, please ellaborate.

Goldman Sachs, The Koch Brothers, The World Bank Group, and a whole host of other financial groups have invested millions into the climate change meme. All with the desire to reap huge profits for the privilege of shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other. The IPCC estimates it will cost 76 trillion dollars to change the worlds system of energy production to a green one. All of those financial groups will be payed enormous sums of money to do it.

Politicians and governments are using the climate change meme to take ever more control over how people live, work, travel (or not as the case may be) with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop he other to reduce the human footprint on the planet. The wealthy though will of course still be allowed to enjoy the beauty of the wild and better yet they won't have any of those pesky poor people around to annoy them.

Goldman Sachs, The Koch Brothers, The World Bank Group, and a whole host of other financial groups have invested millions into the climate change meme. All with the desire to reap huge profits for the privilege of shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other. The IPCC estimates it will cost 76 trillion dollars to change the worlds system of energy production to a green one. All of those financial groups will be payed enormous sums of money to do it.
An acceptable argument, but then, isn't that capitalism's goal : invest to reap billions ?
Except the part where you state : shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other, true, it does seem like a huge effort to get to the same point, unless it is done at the right pace : some energy plants have to be decomissioned as they get old.
I understand this part and it seems a valid concern.

Politicians and governments are using the climate change meme to take ever more control over how people live, work, travel (or not as the case may be) with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop he other to reduce the human footprint on the planet. The wealthy though will of course still be allowed to enjoy the beauty of the wild and better yet they won't have any of those pesky poor people around to annoy them
Ah , and here we go again : this
"take ever more control over how people live, work , travel"
No , I don't think this is related to AGW and green technologies.
and then
"with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop the other to reduce the human footprint on the planet".
Manhatan or Hong-kong style appartment buildings ? My point of view is that this is a byproduct of speculation on housing and real estate in general and is unrelated to AGW. Also , modern buildings are not particularly green : they need an elevator which becomes an energy hog after the 10th floor and there is no way to make them energy independent: I've done my calculations : a 4 person household needs at least 4,000 sq foot of land to be energy independent, and that is assuming you get a 100+ mpg car. So , I might not agree with you on the AGW, but I will agree with you on this: anyone who tells me that I should live in a crammed appartment with little space and no greenery should get the middle finger.

 

[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 ?

The two most simple reasons ever....money and power.

Westwall, your explanation seems oversimplified, please ellaborate.

Goldman Sachs, The Koch Brothers, The World Bank Group, and a whole host of other financial groups have invested millions into the climate change meme. All with the desire to reap huge profits for the privilege of shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other. The IPCC estimates it will cost 76 trillion dollars to change the worlds system of energy production to a green one. All of those financial groups will be payed enormous sums of money to do it.

Politicians and governments are using the climate change meme to take ever more control over how people live, work, travel (or not as the case may be) with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop he other to reduce the human footprint on the planet. The wealthy though will of course still be allowed to enjoy the beauty of the wild and better yet they won't have any of those pesky poor people around to annoy them.

Goldman Sachs, The Koch Brothers, The World Bank Group, and a whole host of other financial groups have invested millions into the climate change meme. All with the desire to reap huge profits for the privilege of shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other. The IPCC estimates it will cost 76 trillion dollars to change the worlds system of energy production to a green one. All of those financial groups will be payed enormous sums of money to do it.
An acceptable argument, but then, isn't that capitalism's goal : invest to reap billions ?
Except the part where you state : shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other, true, it does seem like a huge effort to get to the same point, unless it is done at the right pace : some energy plants have to be decomissioned as they get old.
I understand this part and it seems a valid concern.

Politicians and governments are using the climate change meme to take ever more control over how people live, work, travel (or not as the case may be) with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop he other to reduce the human footprint on the planet. The wealthy though will of course still be allowed to enjoy the beauty of the wild and better yet they won't have any of those pesky poor people around to annoy them
Ah , and here we go again : this
"take ever more control over how people live, work , travel"
No , I don't think this is related to AGW and green technologies.
and then
"with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop the other to reduce the human footprint on the planet".
Manhatan or Hong-kong style appartment buildings ? My point of view is that this is a byproduct of speculation on housing and real estate in general and is unrelated to AGW. Also , modern buildings are not particularly green : they need an elevator which becomes an energy hog after the 10th floor and there is no way to make them energy independent: I've done my calculations : a 4 person household needs at least 4,000 sq foot of land to be energy independent, and that is assuming you get a 100+ mpg car. So , I might not agree with you on the AGW, but I will agree with you on this: anyone who tells me that I should live in a crammed appartment with little space and no greenery should get the middle finger.

No, the use of government to pass laws that benefit your corporation and punish the middle class and poor is the very definition of fascism, not capitalism.

Here you go. "Passive" houses. The new "sustainable" designs. The thinking being that to counter the overpopulation non problem you must squish mankind into small footprints.


Passivhaus Institut

 

[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 ?

The two most simple reasons ever....money and power.

Westwall, your explanation seems oversimplified, please ellaborate.

Goldman Sachs, The Koch Brothers, The World Bank Group, and a whole host of other financial groups have invested millions into the climate change meme. All with the desire to reap huge profits for the privilege of shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other. The IPCC estimates it will cost 76 trillion dollars to change the worlds system of energy production to a green one. All of those financial groups will be payed enormous sums of money to do it.

Politicians and governments are using the climate change meme to take ever more control over how people live, work, travel (or not as the case may be) with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop he other to reduce the human footprint on the planet. The wealthy though will of course still be allowed to enjoy the beauty of the wild and better yet they won't have any of those pesky poor people around to annoy them.

Goldman Sachs, The Koch Brothers, The World Bank Group, and a whole host of other financial groups have invested millions into the climate change meme. All with the desire to reap huge profits for the privilege of shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other. The IPCC estimates it will cost 76 trillion dollars to change the worlds system of energy production to a green one. All of those financial groups will be payed enormous sums of money to do it.
An acceptable argument, but then, isn't that capitalism's goal : invest to reap billions ?
Except the part where you state : shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other, true, it does seem like a huge effort to get to the same point, unless it is done at the right pace : some energy plants have to be decomissioned as they get old.
I understand this part and it seems a valid concern.

Politicians and governments are using the climate change meme to take ever more control over how people live, work, travel (or not as the case may be) with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop he other to reduce the human footprint on the planet. The wealthy though will of course still be allowed to enjoy the beauty of the wild and better yet they won't have any of those pesky poor people around to annoy them
Ah , and here we go again : this
"take ever more control over how people live, work , travel"
No , I don't think this is related to AGW and green technologies.
and then
"with the eventual desire to have all of the peons of the world living in apartments of around 600 square feet stacked one atop the other to reduce the human footprint on the planet".
Manhatan or Hong-kong style appartment buildings ? My point of view is that this is a byproduct of speculation on housing and real estate in general and is unrelated to AGW. Also , modern buildings are not particularly green : they need an elevator which becomes an energy hog after the 10th floor and there is no way to make them energy independent: I've done my calculations : a 4 person household needs at least 4,000 sq foot of land to be energy independent, and that is assuming you get a 100+ mpg car. So , I might not agree with you on the AGW, but I will agree with you on this: anyone who tells me that I should live in a crammed appartment with little space and no greenery should get the middle finger.

No, the use of government to pass laws that benefit your corporation and punish the middle class and poor is the very definition of fascism, not capitalism.

Here you go. "Passive" houses. The new "sustainable" designs. The thinking being that to counter the overpopulation non problem you must squish mankind into small footprints.


Passivhaus Institut

But then the same can be said about oil companies , specially those engaging in fracking and tar sands and those ripping the artificial benefits of zirp (zero interest rate policy ) . Yes it is a form of fascism, but its only the name of the company that changes not the actual fascist policy.

Regarding the designs the one in the upper picture doesn't quite convince me.
The one in the lower picture looks interesting though... or are there two views of the same design ? Ok, five floors is a no go for me.
Ah, and I must correct my figure : 600 sq feet of land are enough for a househould of four ( think of a two flor house for a total of 1200 ft2 of living space), that's about the minimum, you can have three or four story buildings but that's about it. Anything higher simply stops you from achieving energy independence.

 

[Crick]

I think Otmar Edenhofer said it best... In an interview with Germany's NZZ reporter:

(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): "First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

CAGW or AGW or Global Warming or Climate Disruption or whatever name they call it, it has always been about power, control and wealth redistribution.. FROM DAY 1

Source

According to the Media Research Center, Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007

Your problem here is that this is what Edenhofer says is being done by the world's sovereign nations to keep carbon in the ground and out of the atmosphere. He is NOT saying that this is the purpose or goal of the IPCC.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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 ?

It's not a hoax. The hoax is that it's not deliberate to uncover oil reserves in the arctic. World desperately wants to get off middle east oil but unless it can make equal amounts available from elsewhere we're stuck dancing with the devil.

 

[SSDD]

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 ?

Follow the money trail and consider the political power to be gained...then ask yourself why you would ever ask such a question. We are, after all, talking about trillions of dollars...amounts of money and political power that literally dwarf the money involved in the whole big tobacco and big oil claims.

 

[Dot Com]

Reminds me of this

What's funny, and sad that you don't understand it, is every one of those other things that are legitimate concerns (such as rainforest degradation, water pollution, toxic waste dumps, contaminated food etc.) CAN'T be dealt with because the bureaucrats and rich corporations are taking the money that could be used to fix those issues, and pissing them away in the vain hope that we can lower the global temp by one degree in 100 years.

link?

 

[ClosedCaption]

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 ?

The two most simple reasons ever....money and power.

Westwall, your explanation seems oversimplified, please ellaborate.

Did West Elaborate?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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 ?

Control

The sole aim of government is to increase controls on the population

 

[ClosedCaption]

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 ?

Follow the money trail and consider the political power to be gained...then ask yourself why you would ever ask such a question. We are, after all, talking about trillions of dollars...amounts of money and political power that literally dwarf the money involved in the whole big tobacco and big oil claims.

Where does this money trail go? And what political power is enough to turn a blind eye toward a cleaner earth?

I mean I have power and everything but the earth...You gotta be more specific.