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

[westwall]

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?

No, no you don't. That is patently obvious. Along with your claims of being a nuclear watch officer in the Navy, a position that doesn't exist, it is quite obvious you don't know shit from shinola.

 

[mamooth]

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.

"Those scientists don't know nuffin'!" conspiracy theory.

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

Ignorance of Henry's Law.

 

[mamooth]

No, no you don't. That is patently obvious.

It's patently obvious that you don't know how an equilibrium system works, as I just demonstrated, and that now you want to deflect from your failure.

Along with your claims of being a nuclear watch officer in the Navy, a position that doesn't exist, it is quite obvious you don't know shit from shinola.

Yep, you're back to that ugly old deflection that you use when you can't address the science.

Remember how that eventually ended? I took it to the military forum, I let the other vets know you were a vet-spitter, and you were curiously unwilling to stand by your accusations in front of an audience of vets. If you'd like, we can do that again. I won't address your vet-spitting sleaze here, but I will gladly go over it point by point in front of an audience of fellow vets.

 

[jc456]

That does nothing but support his contention. Where is your evidence that extinction rates are at normal levels?

Where's yours to show it's more than normal?

 

[jc456]

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 ?

he was looking for your dead bodies.

 

[jc456]

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.

keep in mind that the federal government funded many studies to which no observed empirical data was ever produced.

 

[jc456]

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?

and I know with 100% certainty that you are lying about climate.

 

[jc456]

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.

funny, you derailed it.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

ClosemindedCaption is a typical CFAG drone. He will parrot asinine bullshit until the welfare checks stop coming and he has to find a real job to keep his internet service.

He would starve to death during a coronal mass ejection if some ghetto rats don't cannibalize him.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

You really didn't want to hear or believe there were plausible answers. You want to believe international leftists truly endeavor to save humanity and the earth from detrimental effects caused through some sinister plot by American capitalists to enrich themselves at the expense of society.

You hate the fact that a handful of investors can establish a steel mill employing thousands, with a profit margin that makes it worthwhile as long as the workers are productive because those workers are being "exploited", but you're content with bullshit fraudulent companies who employ a few hundred people that eventually get laid off and have to seek government subsistence as long as they're doing it in the pursuit of "green" technology. You say you're offended by such corruption, but you insist it must continue by promoting the hoax of MMGW.

One thing that stuck out to me was your mention of the NSA. The NSA doesn't control shit. They have no control over anyone and all they are useful for is data collection. They have not done one single thing about how people communicate or move around the earth. They have failed to prevent attacks on our people such as on Ft Hood and the Boston Marathon in spite of numerous warnings.

Lets talk about "bank deregulation" for a moment, or better yet bank regulation. The "Community Reinvestment Act" FORCED banks to make housing loans backed up by federal dollars to people who couldn't fill out a credit application without help let alone a credit check, so lets please stop the bullshit about "deregulation". If there is a more incompetent gagglefuck of imbeciles on earth, or a more sinister mafia of criminals outside of the US capitol let me know, but if you're comfortable letting these assholes "regulate" the economy you're huffing some really strong paint fumes.

 

[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

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.

Just pointing out you were not applying correctly the adjective taxing.
... I didn't mention the need of any draconian measures by the by , read again.

 

[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.

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..

Well ,yes, basically what I said. The only really strong argument is the self aggrandizement part. A common human trait.

Control - nah, the NSA can already see us every time we fart poop or pee, why bother with such a complicated scheme ?

Birth control- yup , that would also be plausible , but that's not a bad thing: The XX century was quite wild in population growth terms, it jumped from 1.6 billion to 6 billion, the current population is 7 b and it will continue growing to 10 b, but mostly in Africa. Europe is already stable and the American continent is on its way. I am quite sure the Earth would not support a birth rate as explosive as the past century : that would mean 24 billion people in the Earth by the end of the XXI century. And even if the Earth could stand that amount of humans it would be too crowded.
And it's more a population control than reduction. Reduction would be what Stalin or Hitler achieved.... and they did it with the part of the world that didn't need birth control.

Anyhow, I've gotten my answers, so I'll be leaving the thread for a while... unless something interesting is posted ( like your carbon rise after temperature rise post you made ).

 

[westwall]

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

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.

Just pointing out you were not applying correctly the adjective taxing.
... I didn't mention the need of any draconian measures by the by , read again.

Refer to your OP. If it is a hoax what is the purpose? The purpose is theft. If there were as much real concern as they claim the solution would not be to tax and then do nothing else. That is the proof that it is a hoax. Wake up.

 

[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..

Well ,yes, basically what I said. The only really strong argument is the self aggrandizement part. A common human trait.

Control - nah, the NSA can already see us every time we fart poop or pee, why bother with such a complicated scheme ?

Birth control- yup , that would also be plausible , but that's not a bad thing: The XX century was quite wild in population growth terms, it jumped from 1.6 billion to 6 billion, the current population is 7 b and it will continue growing to 10 b, but mostly in Africa. Europe is already stable and the American continent is on its way. I am quite sure the Earth would not support a birth rate as explosive as the past century : that would mean 24 billion people in the Earth by the end of the XXI century. And even if the Earth could stand that amount of humans it would be too crowded.
And it's more a population control than reduction. Reduction would be what Stalin or Hitler achieved.... and they did it with the part of the world that didn't need birth control.

Anyhow, I've gotten my answers, so I'll be leaving the thread for a while... unless something interesting is posted ( like your carbon rise after temperature rise post you made ).

Europe is dropping. Africa and India are increasing. Japan, China and most of the rest of Asia is on the verge of a huge drop. The US is only increasing because of illegal immigration. The whole meme that population control is needed is a lie. Your constant referral to the NSA as a arm of control is illustrative that you either don't care to discuss truthfully or are in favor of the controls that are already in place and those that are coming.

So yeah, you're done.

 

[IanC]

hoax?

what govt project does not find evidence for its own continuation? if it doesnt meet its original objectives it simply revises the objectives.

HeadStart in the US was supposed to improve IQ in impoverished minority children. when that didnt happen, they simply said it was a good thing to socialize them. the funding goes on as before, or increases.

 

[SSDD]

Im wondering why culture citizen didn't answer my question....

I'll ask again....What do you think motivates people? Answer that question honesty and you will have the answer to why anyone does anything....then all you need do is look at the specifics.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Im wondering why culture citizen didn't answer my question....

I'll ask again....What do you think motivates people? Answer that question honesty and you will have the answer to why anyone does anything....then all you need do is look at the specifics.

Ah , well , I've mostly lost interest in the thread ... I've been working on the math of the amount of money required to go 100% renewable...right now it would have to be a 50 year project ( it's kind of expensive , so a bit of caution seems to be in order ).

Regarding your questions. Each person has different motivations at different points of their lives . That's my point of view. Although one friend of mine had a twisted reasoning by which even altruism was some kind of self interest. His reasoning : aha , then your brain rewards you for altruism, so there's always self interest as a motivator. The failure in his reasoning of course is that then you get a very fuzzy definition of self interest, so you've just moved the problem one step backward .
Then we get : self-interest , anything that satisfy your interests ( tautologic ) . so it boils down to what are your intersts : peace ? war? drugs? money? women? men? friendship? partying? art? food?

 

[westwall]

Im wondering why culture citizen didn't answer my question....

I'll ask again....What do you think motivates people? Answer that question honesty and you will have the answer to why anyone does anything....then all you need do is look at the specifics.

Ah , well , I've mostly lost interest in the thread ... I've been working on the math of the amount of money required to go 100% renewable...right now it would have to be a 50 year project ( it's kind of expensive , so a bit of caution seems to be in order ).

Regarding your questions. Each person has different motivations at different points of their lives . That's my point of view. Although one friend of mine had a twisted reasoning by which even altruism was some kind of self interest. His reasoning : aha , then your brain rewards you for altruism, so there's always self interest as a motivator. The failure in his reasoning of course is that then you get a very fuzzy definition of self interest, so you've just moved the problem one step backward .
Then we get : self-interest , anything that satisfy your interests ( tautologic ) . so it boils down to what are your intersts : peace ? war? drugs? money? women? men? friendship? partying? art? food?

The math has already been done. Low estimate is 76 trillion dollars. You can find the full report here....


http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

 

[Crick]

1) The avoidance of pain
2) Survival
3) Reproduction

PS, the majority of the cost of reducing our carbon emissions is not going in to the pockets of climate scientists.

How about an estimate of what the fossil fuel industry looks to lose should we shut them down over the next 30 years or so? You'd think that would motivate then to do SOMETHING. So... what have they done about it? What has been the response of the fossil fuel industries to the news( that that their own scientists told them in the early 1980s) that CO2 emissions are going to cost us hundreds of trillions of dollars and them their very existence? Nothing? Don't make me laugh.

 

[SSDD]

[

Regarding your questions. Each person has different motivations at different points of their lives .......

.......Then we get : self-interest , anything that satisfy your interests ( tautologic ) . so it boils down to what are your intersts : peace ? war? drugs? money? women? men? friendship? partying? art? food?

Self interest is indeed the answer....It is all about what is in it for me. Even Mother Theresa acted out of self interest...her actions brought her closer to her God...there was something deeply satisfying in it for her....

Once you know that self interest and what's in it for me is the driving factor behind the AGW hoax, all you need do is look at each player and see what he or she is getting out of it. For some, it is just keeping a job....publish or perish and it is well known that if you go along with the game, both publishing and grant money are easy...for some it is the limelite...for some it is political power....there are as many reasons for maintaining the AGW narrative as there are people who are maintaining it. Looking for some overarching unifying reason to keep the narrative going is a waste of time...there isn't one....other than there is something in keeping it going for each individual who is doing his part.