The Climate-Industrial Complex

[skookerasbil]

Many in the public see reference to entities like the National Academies of Science, The American Association for the Advancement of Science et. al............among many, to be purely motivated by scientific discovery and with no vested interest. To these people, there are no special interests involved........the science simply exists to serve the world and make recommendations to make it better. And who would argue? After all, it is "science"........certainly a purely altruistic endeavor.

How many people out there ever consider lobbyists attached to these scientific organizations? And for what purpose?

How may in the public know that "climate science" is essentially government supported science? Might there be temptations to manipulate scientific conclusions in order to influence public policy decisions as they relate to appropriations? Have scholarly fields benefited by threatening the "disastrous" consequences of global warming? Do companies benefit from federal subsidies based upon the scientific "findings"? Have any industries sprung up over the last 30 years sprung up due to governmental funding attached to these scientific findings? Is it billions? Trillions? Do most people even know that they are taxed to fund these industries? Do these scientific organizations take big $ contributions from the fossil fuel industry? Are the computer models manipulated to ensure "conclusive evidence"? Do fears of catastrophic climate change benefit the field of science?

The National Academy of Sciences states in its mission statement, "dedicated to the independent and objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology". Many other high profile scientific organizations offer similar mission statements. Are the intentions purely altruistic? Why are scientists who don't concur with their findings blacklisted and destroyed professionally? Could it be that a lot of $$ are on the line?


Hmmmmmmmm.........................


Some highly instructive analysis HERE >>> Articles: The Climate-Industrial Complex

Interested parties can make up their own mind..............

 

[gipper]

It has been this way for decades. The AGW promoters KNOW AGW is a great way to promote and institute big tyrannical government. This is their motive and goal, but many are easily duped because they want to believe scientific organizations ARE altruistic...like Oldcock.

I remember back in the early 1970s, environmentalists of the time claimed loudly that Lake Erie was dead for a thousand years. Like nearly all their prognostications, it was amazingly wrong. They missed it by 980 years.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Many in the public see reference to entities like the National Academies of Science, The American Association for the Advancement of Science et. al............among many, to be purely motivated by scientific discovery and with no vested interest. To these people, there are no special interests involved........the science simply exists to serve the world and make recommendations to make it better. And who would argue? After all, it is "science"........certainly a purely altruistic endeavor.

How many people out there ever consider lobbyists attached to these scientific organizations? And for what purpose?

How may in the public know that "climate science" is essentially government supported science? Might there be temptations to manipulate scientific conclusions in order to influence public policy decisions as they relate to appropriations? Have scholarly fields benefited by threatening the "disastrous" consequences of global warming? Do companies benefit from federal subsidies based upon the scientific "findings"? Have any industries sprung up over the last 30 years sprung up due to governmental funding attached to these scientific findings? Is it billions? Trillions? Do most people even know that they are taxed to fund these industries? Do these scientific organizations take big $ contributions from the fossil fuel industry? Are the computer models manipulated to ensure "conclusive evidence"? Do fears of catastrophic climate change benefit the field of science?

The National Academy of Sciences states in its mission statement, "dedicated to the independent and objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology". Many other high profile scientific organizations offer similar mission statements. Are the intentions purely altruistic? Why are scientists who don't concur with their findings blacklisted and destroyed professionally? Could it be that a lot of $$ are on the line?


Hmmmmmmmm.........................


Some highly instructive analysis HERE >>> Articles: The Climate-Industrial Complex

Interested parties can make up their own mind..............

Perhaps there is such an agenda amongst climatologists, but I don't think we should lump all research together. I think there has been a lot of government support for biotech over the past 30 years and there have been a lot of important advances made in treating cancer, genetic diseases, and other areas.

 

[skookerasbil]

Many in the public see reference to entities like the National Academies of Science, The American Association for the Advancement of Science et. al............among many, to be purely motivated by scientific discovery and with no vested interest. To these people, there are no special interests involved........the science simply exists to serve the world and make recommendations to make it better. And who would argue? After all, it is "science"........certainly a purely altruistic endeavor.

How many people out there ever consider lobbyists attached to these scientific organizations? And for what purpose?

How may in the public know that "climate science" is essentially government supported science? Might there be temptations to manipulate scientific conclusions in order to influence public policy decisions as they relate to appropriations? Have scholarly fields benefited by threatening the "disastrous" consequences of global warming? Do companies benefit from federal subsidies based upon the scientific "findings"? Have any industries sprung up over the last 30 years sprung up due to governmental funding attached to these scientific findings? Is it billions? Trillions? Do most people even know that they are taxed to fund these industries? Do these scientific organizations take big $ contributions from the fossil fuel industry? Are the computer models manipulated to ensure "conclusive evidence"? Do fears of catastrophic climate change benefit the field of science?

The National Academy of Sciences states in its mission statement, "dedicated to the independent and objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology". Many other high profile scientific organizations offer similar mission statements. Are the intentions purely altruistic? Why are scientists who don't concur with their findings blacklisted and destroyed professionally? Could it be that a lot of $$ are on the line?


Hmmmmmmmm.........................


Some highly instructive analysis HERE >>> Articles: The Climate-Industrial Complex

Interested parties can make up their own mind..............

Perhaps there is such an agenda amongst climatologists, but I don't think we should lump all research together. I think there has been a lot of government support for biotech over the past 30 years and there have been a lot of important advances made in treating cancer, genetic diseases, and other areas.

Indeed.........but the area's you cite are measurable. Funding for climate change is based almost entirely upon computer modeling and not empirical evidence. Tens of thousands of scientists believe use of computer modeling for predicting the future climate is useless.

In the early 1990's, the NOAA was very straight and upfront about their inability to predict future climate based upon the models. By the late 90's, that level of transparency had disappeared.......any astute observer must ask the question.............why?

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Many in the public see reference to entities like the National Academies of Science, The American Association for the Advancement of Science et. al............among many, to be purely motivated by scientific discovery and with no vested interest. To these people, there are no special interests involved........the science simply exists to serve the world and make recommendations to make it better. And who would argue? After all, it is "science"........certainly a purely altruistic endeavor.

How many people out there ever consider lobbyists attached to these scientific organizations? And for what purpose?

How may in the public know that "climate science" is essentially government supported science? Might there be temptations to manipulate scientific conclusions in order to influence public policy decisions as they relate to appropriations? Have scholarly fields benefited by threatening the "disastrous" consequences of global warming? Do companies benefit from federal subsidies based upon the scientific "findings"? Have any industries sprung up over the last 30 years sprung up due to governmental funding attached to these scientific findings? Is it billions? Trillions? Do most people even know that they are taxed to fund these industries? Do these scientific organizations take big $ contributions from the fossil fuel industry? Are the computer models manipulated to ensure "conclusive evidence"? Do fears of catastrophic climate change benefit the field of science?

The National Academy of Sciences states in its mission statement, "dedicated to the independent and objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology". Many other high profile scientific organizations offer similar mission statements. Are the intentions purely altruistic? Why are scientists who don't concur with their findings blacklisted and destroyed professionally? Could it be that a lot of $$ are on the line?


Hmmmmmmmm.........................


Some highly instructive analysis HERE >>> Articles: The Climate-Industrial Complex

Interested parties can make up their own mind..............

Perhaps there is such an agenda amongst climatologists, but I don't think we should lump all research together. I think there has been a lot of government support for biotech over the past 30 years and there have been a lot of important advances made in treating cancer, genetic diseases, and other areas.

Indeed.........but the area's you cite are measurable. Funding for climate change is based almost entirely upon computer modeling and not empirical evidence. Tens of thousands of scientists believe use of computer modeling for predicting the future climate is useless.

I agree about long term climate modeling. The climate system is too complex with too many areas not well understood like the impact of clouds, to give accurate predictions. We can see how the models diverge over periods as short as five days when we look at the hurricane predictions. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't monitor those things that give us signals about warming, whether it be thawing permafrost, melting glaciers, bleaching coral, or whatever. Just so you know where I am at, I do believe man is contributing to warming, but how much so is very difficult to determine. I do not think we should saddle our economy with massive regulatory costs to try and prevent warming

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All we know for certain is that atmospheric CO2 is activating undersea volcanoes in Antarctica. Like the Suns corona, the mechanism that causes this remains a complete mystery

 

[skookerasbil]

Many in the public see reference to entities like the National Academies of Science, The American Association for the Advancement of Science et. al............among many, to be purely motivated by scientific discovery and with no vested interest. To these people, there are no special interests involved........the science simply exists to serve the world and make recommendations to make it better. And who would argue? After all, it is "science"........certainly a purely altruistic endeavor.

How many people out there ever consider lobbyists attached to these scientific organizations? And for what purpose?

How may in the public know that "climate science" is essentially government supported science? Might there be temptations to manipulate scientific conclusions in order to influence public policy decisions as they relate to appropriations? Have scholarly fields benefited by threatening the "disastrous" consequences of global warming? Do companies benefit from federal subsidies based upon the scientific "findings"? Have any industries sprung up over the last 30 years sprung up due to governmental funding attached to these scientific findings? Is it billions? Trillions? Do most people even know that they are taxed to fund these industries? Do these scientific organizations take big $ contributions from the fossil fuel industry? Are the computer models manipulated to ensure "conclusive evidence"? Do fears of catastrophic climate change benefit the field of science?

The National Academy of Sciences states in its mission statement, "dedicated to the independent and objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology". Many other high profile scientific organizations offer similar mission statements. Are the intentions purely altruistic? Why are scientists who don't concur with their findings blacklisted and destroyed professionally? Could it be that a lot of $$ are on the line?


Hmmmmmmmm.........................


Some highly instructive analysis HERE >>> Articles: The Climate-Industrial Complex

Interested parties can make up their own mind..............

Perhaps there is such an agenda amongst climatologists, but I don't think we should lump all research together. I think there has been a lot of government support for biotech over the past 30 years and there have been a lot of important advances made in treating cancer, genetic diseases, and other areas.

Indeed.........but the area's you cite are measurable. Funding for climate change is based almost entirely upon computer modeling and not empirical evidence. Tens of thousands of scientists believe use of computer modeling for predicting the future climate is useless.

I agree about long term climate modeling. The climate system is too complex with too many areas not well understood like the impact of clouds, to give accurate predictions. We can see how the models diverge over periods as short as five days when we look at the hurricane predictions. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't monitor those things that give us signals about warming, whether it be thawing permafrost, melting glaciers, bleaching coral, or whatever. Just so you know where I am at, I do believe man is contributing to warming, but how much so is very difficult to determine. I do not think we should saddle our economy with massive regulatory costs to try and prevent warming

My sentiments exactly

I have posted up hurricane model graphics in here......laughable when you see the level of divergence that is possible. To a person, the AGW crusaders dismiss any even casual relationship to climate change modeling. Since nobody could possibly be that stoopid, it screams "agenda".

 

[Old Rocks]

And yet all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies, and all the major Universities have policy statements that state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But we have a bunch of ignoramuses on a message board that disagree. Oh, who to believe? LOL

56" of rain in Houston in six days, just normal bit rain LOL 9000 homes and businesses burned in cluster of fires in California, just normal. LOL You silly pissant brainless assholes are pissing into the wind on a daily basis.

 

[gipper]

And yet all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies, and all the major Universities have policy statements that state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But we have a bunch of ignoramuses on a message board that disagree. Oh, who to believe? LOL

56" of rain in Houston in six days, just normal bit rain LOL 9000 homes and businesses burned in cluster of fires in California, just normal. LOL You silly pissant brainless assholes are pissing into the wind on a daily basis.

All naturally means scientific truth....but only in your small deluded mind.

 

[mamooth]

If your theory requires a secret undetectable global conspiracy, your theory is paranoid kookery.

Thus, denialism is paranoid kookery.

It really is that simple. All the deniers on this thread are just bitter paranoid whackjobs.

 

[skookerasbil]

Only members of the religion never heard the phrase, "Follow the money!"

Everything on Gods green earth is bought............oh.........but not the climate change industry. They are purely in it to save the planet out of the good of their hearts!

Welp........I posed many good questions in post #1. Not one answered by anybody associated with climate alarmism. Not that I expected it..............

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL So those oh so liberal Texans are a big part of the conspiracy because they are spending more than anyone else on renewable generation. Not only that, but the State of Texas is actually building grids to take advantage of wind and solar energy. And making a profit doing that. A climate conspiracy that makes a profit. What will they think of next. LOL

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL So those oh so liberal Texans are a big part of the conspiracy because they are spending more than anyone else on renewable generation. Not only that, but the State of Texas is actually building grids to take advantage of wind and solar energy. And making a profit doing that. A climate conspiracy that makes a profit. What will they think of next. LOL

Hey there are profits to be made in Texas and other locations.........that's all it is though. Its no tsunami wave for green energy..........its rather a tiny wave like we see in the Long Island Sound by me. Garner enough of a small market, it sticks..........these people contribute to campaigns so of course will be stroked as is necessary. In New York we have some relatively new niche markets in the technology sector. In virtual reality......digital marketing.......app technologies. We're talking tens of millions to low hundreds of millions. They'll make their profits but we're not talking the next GE! Niche markets..............just like these green energy markets in Texas. The politicians aren't happy when the people get pissed when the blackouts come!! Green energy has found a market in Texas because of one reason only: the population is going to double by 2025. Power generation has been lagging behind so smart entrepreneurs stepped in and filled the void with green energy technologies. People are making profits........good old supply and demand.

http://truenergy.net/texas-electricity-projections-improve-still-low/


And lets not forget........with Trump in office, no more nutter 500 billion dollar contracts going to fake corporations like Solyndra. Thank God for that............no more stoopid.

 

[Old Rocks]

By the time President Pussy Grabber is out of office, we will have paid that much for his vacations. Why doesn't the asshole just stay down there? He has accomplished nothing at all in DC. And old Pence is going to be so stained by association with the treasonous fat senile old orange clown that he will lose the Presidential election by a landslide, even though he will be President by that time.

 

[skookerasbil]

By the time President Pussy Grabber is out of office, we will have paid that much for his vacations. Why doesn't the asshole just stay down there? He has accomplished nothing at all in DC. And old Pence is going to be so stained by association with the treasonous fat senile old orange clown that he will lose the Presidential election by a landslide, even though he will be President by that time.

Ray you gotta let go of that anger my friend. Not worth it. I learned to live with Soetero for 8 years because I knew there would be massive backlash ( Whitelash )......which, of course, we saw a year ago.



Forget about Trump..........the fact of the matter is, the Climate Change Industry message has been a failure.......for 20 years now. There are many articles out there written by environmentalists that speak exactly to this = a need to change direction in the PR campaign. But they don't. To me, it is just more fodder for it being fake...........nobody gives a crap about the environment here. As long as the few high rollers are bringing in ample green profits, they are happy. Its the human condition. Was happening when Obama was around for 8 full years.......Trumps presence changes nothing about that dynamic. Its a reality that the climate change community has to come to terms with. The bomb throwing strategy has been an enormous failure...........its not even debatable. If solar/wind were up around 20% of providing us electricity by now, the strategy would obviously have been a success. I'm just here in this forum to tell the reality story like it is.

 

[Old Rocks]

In 2012, the worldwide production of electricity by solar was 97 terawatt hours. By 2016, that was 286 terawatt hours. By 2020, it will be 482 terawatt hours. Don't you wish you had a bank account that grew like that? That is about a 450% growth in 8 years. So by 2028, we are looking at about 20,000 terawatts by 2028. And by that time, coal will be dead.

Solar industry - growth 2020 | Forecast

 

[Old Rocks]

Renewables to lead world power market growth to 2020
(Istanbul) — 2 October 2015

Renewable energy will represent the largest single source of electricity growth over the next five years, driven by falling costs and aggressive expansion in emerging economies, the IEA said Friday in an annual market report. Pointing to the great promise renewables hold for affordably mitigating climate change and enhancing energy security, the report warns governments to reduce policy uncertainties that are acting as brakes on greater deployment.

“Renewables are poised to seize the crucial top spot in global power supply growth, but this is hardly time for complacency,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol as he released the IEA’s Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report 2015 (MTRMR) at the G20 Energy Ministers Meeting. “Governments must remove the question marks over renewables if these technologies are to achieve their full potential, and put our energy system on a more secure, sustainable path.”

Renewable electricity additions over the next five years will top 700 gigawatts (GW) – more than twice Japan’s current installed power capacity. They will account for almost two-thirds of net additions to global power capacity – that is, the amount of new capacity that is added, minus scheduled retirements of existing power plants. Non-hydro sources such as wind and solar photovoltaic panels (solar PV) will represent nearly half of the total global power capacity increase.

The report sees the share of renewable energy in global power generation rising to over 26% by 2020 from 22% in 2013 – a remarkable shift in a very limited period of time. By 2020, the amount of global electricity generation coming from renewable energy will be higher than today’s combined electricity demand of China, India and Brazil.

The report says the geography of deployment will increasingly shift to emerging economies and developing countries, which will make up two-thirds of the renewable electricity expansion to 2020. China alone will account for nearly 40% of total renewable power capacity growth and requires almost one-third of new investment to 2020.

Renewables to lead world power market growth to 2020

 

[skookerasbil]

Renewables growth looks spectacular..........but only when it is not compared to conventional energy!

The forecast graph for renewables from the Obama EIA report in 2016 is highly instructive >>>

http://naturalgasnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/eia-aeo2014-forecast-512x384.png


It shows that decades from now, fossil fuels will still be dominating the market...........to a tune of 70%

You see.........when you see terms like "growth", they can convey something you think is spectacular. But then you take a closer look and it suddenly can become rather unimpressive.
Take a chick you haven't seen in years and she suddenly calls you and during the conversation tells you she went for boob augmentation which made her cup size 75% bigger. You tell all your pals about the big boobed chick you are taking out. So...............you go on a date and expect to see these amazing boobs.........after all, they are 75% bigger!! You pick her up and your first impression is . Date fAil...........no elaboration needed if you have half a brain. But it points out.......some can be very very tricky when presenting statistics and using terms like "bigger", "increased", "growth", "much higher".........creates a perception............but almost always, when these statistics are compared to something, they suddenly look laughable. Like renewable energy compared to fossil fuels for the next 30+ years.

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh.....regarding the EIA projections..............

from Sourcewatch >>>

The IEA states that the board "is supporting the IEA in delivering its responses on climate change, clean energy and sustainable development, as well as advising on issues for coal relevant to world energy security."[2]

International Energy Agency - SourceWatch



Of course an agency designed to push sustainable energy is going to have rosey projections............duh.


I'll go with the Obama administration projections ( link in post #18 )

 

[skookerasbil]

Well we can lock this thread.................