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

[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 ?

To push the left wing agenda. I can't see how that is hard to see or understand.

But then the question is WHAT specific point of the agenda will be pursued and how AGW will help pursue them.

That is easy as well.

1. Electing Democrats. Villainize the GOP for opposing it, create panic and worry over AGW, tell the sheeple that only electing Democrats will prevent DOOM.
2. Take control over people's lives, tell them what they can and cannot do or eat.
3. Taxes taxes taxes.
4. Damage oil and coal industries, promote "green" industries.
5. Appease major factions of the Democrat Party; environmentalists, Animal Activists, etc.

Mostly #1 and #2.

1) The GOP is villanizing itself for not admitting global warming ( even without the anthropogenic part). And while we are far from being at a life or death situation there are clear signs of warming: just try to take a look at the glaciers, also , sea level seems to have risen about 10 cm in the last 40 years or so. Again this is not an immediate threat, but something to keep an eye on.

2) I think that's unrelated to AWG, specially in the US, where there is a clear tendency to overeating: mostly everyone can get whatever food he likes, even if it is a receipe for early diabetes. The "doing" part is even less clear to me. What is it that the government doesn't allow you to do which is not a criminal activity ?

3) Taxes , yea , taxes are a pain in the ass. But the three bigest expenses are healthcare, defense and pensions, Both healthcare and defense can be optimized in many ways ( but discussing that would require a separate thread). Whatever grants or subsidies have been granted in renewables are not significant compared to healthcare and defense, so I find this argument weak.

4. Well, yes, they do get harmed , slightly , but so far the greatest harm has not come from green industry but from the Saudi kingdom. Many fracking companies are going south because of low oil prices, and the same goes for tar sands companies. You can't truly blame it on green industries.
I don't like nuclear very much , but if I had to choose between nuclear and tar sands or fracking , I would pick up nuclear.
5. That seems a legitimate motive to me, not a perverse agenda.

1) Bull shit. 100% bull shit.
2) You are wrong.
3) Deflection
4) No, they get harmed a lot.
5) of course it would seem like that to you. To destroy companies, cripple the economy, and lie to the American People, well that's a small price to pay for paying back DNC supporters isn't it?

You asked my for clarification, I gave it to you. You are a left wing nut, and an AGW cultist. Of course you disagree. All of your points have been debunked many times over. I answered your question, good bye.

Well , I can only say I am astounded by the strength and elloquence of your arguments.
Farewell

 

[Pete7469]

Glaciers advance and recede all the time, ice melts in some areas, and it grows in others. Anyone who lives on the coast can attest that sea levels have not changed in any amount that is significant. I go to Cocoa Beach regularly and have been since I was a teen in the 70s. The water level there is EXACTLY the same as it was.

Man made global warming is a scam. No rational intelligent person believes in that nonsense.

I'm surprised it took this long for bed wetters to go beyond the (correct) assumption that AGW is bullshit, to discuss the reason why someone would create the hoax. They weren't really interested in that anyway, they simply wanted to insist their fantasy world is real, and the rest of us are racists because we reject their moonbat messiah's agenda to shut down the coal industry. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't a vapid parasite why someone would try to scam the world.

Well duh...

For the same reason anyone comes up with a hoax...

For personal gain, whether it's money, power or just to get their rocks off.

So now we are back to arguing with fish tanks about the moonbat sacrament of envirobullshit.

I applaud those of you who continue to waste time with these mindless zealots. However you can not "change their minds", they're mindless. They have no cognitive capacity.

If they had a single synapse of independent thinking capability the fact that there have been numerous ice ages of variable degrees before there were MAMMALS, let alone humans with industrial infrastructure, and that all of these ice ages ended with warming that could only have been caused naturally they might come to a different conclusion.

Lacking that single synapse, they will never conclude that humans have no ability to change the climate if we wanted to.

Lets even imagine we did develop technology that could change the temperature of the earth.

Ever see "The Colony"?

That's what would happen.

So let the bed wetters drive those ugly little piece of shit "Smart" cars and sit in their echo chambers where they assure each other how brilliant and "educated" they are while sipping lattes. As long as we continue to prove MMGW is a bullshit scam to everyone who does have critical thinking skills, the moonbats can keep buying carbon credits from algore.

 

[Pete7469]

Hey pete, you are one idiotic ass. So the whole of the scientific community is in on a hoax. From every culture, political system, and nation in the world. Only you 'Conservatives' know the truth. You are so sure of that with your third grade education. Ignorant, willfully so, and proud of it, that is the credo of asses like you.

Your premise is bullshit bed wetter, the "whole of the scientific community" doesn't advance the hoax. Just the assholes of the scientific community that libtards pretend represent %97 of the community.

Weapons grade stupid describes you perfectly. You have no answers as to how or why ice ages came and went, you just cling to your programming like the loyal little zealot you are, convinced everyone who isn't brainwashed like you is ignorant.

 

[mamooth]

Pete, are you ever going to apologize for posting that fake Time Magazine cover?

You lied to the board Pete, and got caught. What's your excuse? Was your deception deliberate, or were you just doing that "brainless cult piss-guzzler" thing you do so often?

Given how you lied about that and aren't the least bit sorry about doing so, why shouldn't everyone now assume everything you say is a lie?

The two sides here aren't even remotely alike in the honesty department. The rational people are honest, while most of the deniers lie loudly and proudly, and will keep repeating the same lie even after it's been debunked many times.

 

[jc456]

Pete, are you ever going to apologize for posting that fake Time Magazine cover?

You lied to the board Pete, and got caught. What's your excuse? Was your deception deliberate, or were you just doing that "brainless cult piss-guzzler" thing you do so often?

Given how you lied about that and aren't the least bit sorry about doing so, why shouldn't everyone now assume everything you say is a lie?

The two sides here aren't even remotely alike in the honesty department. The rational people are honest, while most of the deniers lie loudly and proudly, and will keep repeating the same lie even after it's been debunked many times.

fake? fake? how can that be, you need a confession. You have someone from Time Magazine saying it was faked? ahahahhhhhhhhhahahhhahahahahahahah felll on floor again damn it, hhahahaahahahahahahaha

 

[Pete7469]

Pete, are you ever going to apologize for posting that fake Time Magazine cover?

You lied to the board Pete, and got caught. What's your excuse? Was your deception deliberate, or were you just doing that "brainless cult piss-guzzler" thing you do so often?

Given how you lied about that and aren't the least bit sorry about doing so, why shouldn't everyone now assume everything you say is a lie?

The two sides here aren't even remotely alike in the honesty department. The rational people are honest, while most of the deniers lie loudly and proudly, and will keep repeating the same lie even after it's been debunked many times.

I didn't fake anything bed wetter.

LINK

And there's this...

From the WSJ

From Time magazine, June 24, 1974:



As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing.

So go **** yourself with that stupid cat.

Your entire political philosophy is based on lies and fairy tales moonbat.

 

[mamooth]

Pete, Time Magazine itself says you posted a fake, with the evidence showing how it was faked.

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com

You now know you posted a fake, but instead of admitting your mistake, you double down on the big lie.

You can't use the excuse any more that you're just a brainless rube. You're proudly lying deliberately now, and you don't care who knows. Thus, everyone should always initially assume everything you say is a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.

 

[SSDD]

Kids forced to eat healthier school lunches. Reduced obesity. Starting a lifetime of healthier diet choices. God, that's awful.

Except childhood obesity is on the rise...

Severe childhood obesity on the rise in U.S., study shows
Many health problems are associated with children’s diets
WHO | Childhood overweight and obesity
US obesity rates on the rise: 113 million by 2022
Obesity Still on the Rise Among Americans, With Women Overtaking Men

and on and on....clearly the measures you claim are so great are not working...more feel good lip service which doesn't deliver squat but cost a great deal of money. Its the liberal way.

You are just sssstttuuupppiiiddd beyond belief.

You are as gullible as the come....which is a shining hallmark of stupid..

 

[jc456]

Pete, Time Magazine itself says you posted a fake, with the evidence showing how it was faked.

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com

You now know you posted a fake, but instead of admitting your mistake, you double down on the big lie.

You can't use the excuse any more that you're just a brainless rube. You're proudly lying deliberately now, and you don't care who knows. Thus, everyone should always initially assume everything you say is a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.

funny he admitted that they did a story on global cooling. too funny here:

"and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming. For some reason a Newsweek article on the next ice age, published back in 1975, gets a lot of the attention, though TIME did a version of the story, as did a number of other media outlets. The rationale goes this way: the fact that scientists were once supposedly so concerned about global cooling, which didn’t come true, just shows that we shouldn’t worry about the new fears of climate change."

Hey Skooks, spent a lot of time on the floor today laughing my balls off. you just can't write this kind of stuff. I mean, dude, they post up stuff that debunks their own story. How frikn funny is that? They ask for confessions and you give them the confession and they say none have been posted. What kind of nut jobs on here? ones that make me laugh so hard I fall on the floor.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I'm surprised it took this long for bed wetters to go beyond the (correct) assumption that AGW is bullshit, to discuss the reason why someone would create the hoax. They weren't really interested in that anyway, they simply wanted to insist their fantasy world is real, and the rest of us are racists because we reject their moonbat messiah's agenda to shut down the coal industry. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't a vapid parasite why someone would try to scam the world.

I remain open to the discussion of the OP, it just happened that the last person discussing the topic ( the one with a green witch avatar) had the argumentative power of a dimwit, so I stopped discussing with him/her.
If you want to retake on the possible causes and consequences of the AWG-as-a-hoax you are most welcome. I actually had a good debate with WestWall and surprisingly we ended up agreeing on many important points ( though not on the AWG itself, which is kind of irrelevant given the nature of the OP ).

 

[PredFan]

But then the question is WHAT specific point of the agenda will be pursued and how AGW will help pursue them.

That is easy as well.

1. Electing Democrats. Villainize the GOP for opposing it, create panic and worry over AGW, tell the sheeple that only electing Democrats will prevent DOOM.
2. Take control over people's lives, tell them what they can and cannot do or eat.
3. Taxes taxes taxes.
4. Damage oil and coal industries, promote "green" industries.
5. Appease major factions of the Democrat Party; environmentalists, Animal Activists, etc.

Mostly #1 and #2.

1) The GOP is villanizing itself for not admitting global warming ( even without the anthropogenic part). And while we are far from being at a life or death situation there are clear signs of warming: just try to take a look at the glaciers, also , sea level seems to have risen about 10 cm in the last 40 years or so. Again this is not an immediate threat, but something to keep an eye on.

2) I think that's unrelated to AWG, specially in the US, where there is a clear tendency to overeating: mostly everyone can get whatever food he likes, even if it is a receipe for early diabetes. The "doing" part is even less clear to me. What is it that the government doesn't allow you to do which is not a criminal activity ?

3) Taxes , yea , taxes are a pain in the ass. But the three bigest expenses are healthcare, defense and pensions, Both healthcare and defense can be optimized in many ways ( but discussing that would require a separate thread). Whatever grants or subsidies have been granted in renewables are not significant compared to healthcare and defense, so I find this argument weak.

4. Well, yes, they do get harmed , slightly , but so far the greatest harm has not come from green industry but from the Saudi kingdom. Many fracking companies are going south because of low oil prices, and the same goes for tar sands companies. You can't truly blame it on green industries.
I don't like nuclear very much , but if I had to choose between nuclear and tar sands or fracking , I would pick up nuclear.
5. That seems a legitimate motive to me, not a perverse agenda.

so to summarize, it is only ok to have your point of view and any other falls short of discussion? I see.
how many folks care that a glacier is melting or not?
Prove the fear there that is top on a list. prove sea level rise, still not accomplished by anyone.

Awesome, I agree. So tell these other wackos that making money from something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't real.

I want the tax money back, the empirical evidence has never been provided. So, the money made was spent badly and was abused by those cheating the tax payer. So I want the money returned.

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

dude I have asked and still no empirical evidence that human CO2 is dangerous. Can you post something up that can refute my statement? Just saying, Herr Koch in 1901 is the only experiment that proves it doesn't. So feel free to post up the challenge experiment.

IPCC already stated the pause for 15 years in their AR5 report, ouch, that sucks for you there, the scientist and organization already documented that fact. So CO2 went up, yet temperature did not. Closes the page that CO2 drives temps. Now please always feel free to post up any material that opposes the IPCC report.

Glaciers advance and recede all the time, ice melts in some areas, and it grows in others. Anyone who lives on the coast can attest that sea levels have not changed in any amount that is significant. I go to Cocoa Beach regularly and have been since I was a teen in the 70s. The water level there is EXACTLY the same as it was.

Man made global warming is a scam. No rational intelligent person believes in that nonsense.

Adapting to Global Warming

Abstract
Summary


Although people often develop close to the coast, shorelines constantly change due to erosion, sedimentation, and sea level rise. During the last century, sea level has risen approximately 6-9 inches worldwide and 9 inches along the coast of East Central Florida. There is estimated to be a 90 percent probability of over a 1 foot rise in sea level by 2150 along the Florida coast. However, there is a 50 percent probability that this rise could be seen by the year 2075.

This study is the first comprehensive attempt to assess the likely response to sea level rise in East-Central Florida. The study area contains the (ocean) coastal areas of Brevard and Volusia counties, approximately 14.5 percent of the combined area of the two counties); We omitted the portion of these coasts counties along the St. John's River. According to the 2000 census, the population in the coastal census tracts is approximately 503,000 in 260,000 dwelling units. The coastal population is expected to grow to roughly 550,000 residents in 287,000 dwelling units by 2020. Major tourist destinations such as Daytona Beach, Cocoa Beach, and Melbourne Beach are included in the study area. Therefore, the effects of sea level rise will affect not only the residents, but may have a major effect on tourist destinations as well, which may result in dramatic effects on the economic well being of the counties. The study focused on the lowest 240 square miles, using a common mapping benchmark for defining low coastal land: the 10-foot contour. More than 141,000 acres of uplands and almost 96,000 acres of wetlands are in this area and would be directly affected by a continued rise in sea level. Wetlands and water comprise 65% of the study area.

In Volusia County, the majority of coastal lands are developed and almost certain to be protected. Nevertheless, there is a substantial amount of preserve areas along both sides of the lagoon at the northern and southern ends of the county, as well as the middle of county along Sebastian Inlet. At the northern end of the county there are also three forested islands that are not formally part of a preserve but whose development would be difficult and hence shore protection is unlikely. And at the southern end of the county, there are some low-lying agricultural lands where coastal development with planned low and moderate density, with wetlands situated around them and hence shore protection are unlikely, .as well as an even greater area of undeveloped land where development is expected but not necessarily inevitable.

Regionwide, land in which shore protection is almost certain accounts for 65,000 acres (102 square miles), 15% of the study area. Single family residential lands account for 46,000 acres. The maps show that for all practical purposes, past and planned development have already made it inevitable that property will be protected and the inland migration of wetlands will be blocked and eventually eliminated along 30% of Brevard and 60% of Volusia County shores. Existing conservation lands, however, ensure that wetlands will be able to adjust to rising sea level along the shores of about 45% and 15% of the two counties, respectively. Perhaps most importantly, we still have a realistic opportunity to choose between wetland migration and coastal development for approximately 25% of the land in each county. (See the summary table).

Brevard and Volusia coastline is an important ecological and economical resource for the region and state. Land use is a state and local responsibility and decisions should be made concerning the protection of developed and undeveloped land before it becomes too expensive or impossible to protect the shoreline and property. The counties and cities are presented, through this study, with options for decision making concerning land use and the protection of common infrastructure, property, resources, and the economic base of the community from sea level rise. In some cases, it is reasonable to wait and respond as the sea rises. However, infrastructure changes may require a lead time of a few decades, and land use decisions last centuries. If we want to preserve more than half of our coastal environment as sea level rises, policies should be developed to ensure such a preservation before the remainder of our coastal zone is developed. Doing so need not impair property values; but a failure to act soon would preclude opportunities to preserve the coastal environment in a cost-effective manner.

LOL. Predfan, you are definately showing us what a dumb ass you are. A measured 9" rise is significant on a very flat beach.

No dumbass, just because you post a lie, doesn't make me wrong. Yes of course the shore changes the beach advances and recedes, but piers don't move and neither do sea walls. Neither do the intercostal waterways, or the docks and launches.

Your brain is as small as your thinking. That is why you are stupid enough to believe that garbage. How you can be so stupid and still use a computer is a mystery.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Pete, Time Magazine itself says you posted a fake, with the evidence showing how it was faked.

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com

You now know you posted a fake, but instead of admitting your mistake, you double down on the big lie.

You can't use the excuse any more that you're just a brainless rube. You're proudly lying deliberately now, and you don't care who knows. Thus, everyone should always initially assume everything you say is a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.

Dam Pete, how was the view when mammoth took yiu to the woodshed?

 

[Pete7469]

I remain open to the discussion of the OP, it just happened that the last person discussing the topic ( the one with a green witch avatar) had the argumentative power of a dimwit, so I stopped discussing with him/her.
If you want to retake on the possible causes and consequences of the AWG-as-a-hoax you are most welcome. I actually had a good debate with WestWall and surprisingly we ended up agreeing on many important points ( though not on the AWG itself, which is kind of irrelevant given the nature of the OP ).

Well as it has been said, the purpose of any hoax would be for self aggrandizement.

These so called "experts", scientists according to liberals, have data they use to scare people into believing human beings and their prosperous lifestyles are causing a problem that only government can solve through regulations, taxes and massive pork projects that usually fail to achieve anything. These "scientists" receive huge funding grants for more "research", government gets empowered and grows larger, and crony corporations build shit like windmills and solar panels and even sometimes go bankrupt after being subsidized to the tune of $535,000,000.

Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

A half a billion dollars alone could enrich a whole lot of people, and that is a pittance. It doesn't even register on the radar when considering all of the incredible sums of money the government has dumped into the gaping maw of environazi alarmists. That half a billion dollars was wasted on just one company, and there are many other examples of such waste.

Lets just imagine for a second that Bush or some other republicrat administration soaked the tax payer for $500 million that was given to a corporation that went tits up. Democrooks would have been howling for investigations, impeachment and prison sentences, but in this case...



Why?

Because criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths, their friends and donors are getting rich. Liberals are always pissing and moaning about rich corporations screwing the public and getting rich through fraud. Here's was stark glaring example but I have yet to see the occutards shitting all over the WH lawn over it.

You also need to consider the fact that the most prominent MMGW snake oil salesmen are doing the exact opposite of what they're telling the rest of us to do. They might throw a couple solar panels on their houses, but they're flying all over the world, using more energy as individuals than some small towns and demanding the rest of us shut off our AC. If that doesn't make it blatantly clear they themselves don't believe the bullshit they're promoting I don't know what does. The fact they're getting richer while doing so should be proof enough to you what the agenda is. If you can't see it, I don't know what else on earth can prove it to you. Jesus Christ Himself could come down from the clouds and tell you to your face and you'd respond with some shit about Him being corrupted by the oil industry.

You've been rather polite and I appreciate it, but I stand with my contention that liberals are mindless zealots completely lacking in cognitive capacity.

Now just so you know, in my early to late teens I believed in all the MMGW horse shit. I used to put up flyers and posters in school urging people to use less energy, less paper and that marijuana could save the environment if we used it for industry.

I woke up.

I still smoked the shit, but it finally occurred to me that if pot was useful for anything other than making TV tolerable, companies would use it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, reducing pollution (not CO2 though, which is plant food) is always a good thing. How about we work on that.

Well, won't someone make money from that? I understand that if someone makes money is a hoax.

I have no problem with people making money so long as they don't use the power of government to legislate their competition out of existence. Government should never be the determiner of which company is successful or not. Government has a shitty track record of accomplishing anything well.

Awesome, I agree. So tell these other wackos that making money from something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't real.

I want the tax money back, the empirical evidence has never been provided. So, the money made was spent badly and was abused by those cheating the tax payer. So I want the money returned.

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

Your science is nothing more than a wild ass guess.. broken models... Failed prediction stages... So even your guess is worse than a pile of crap...

 

[SSDD]

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

Can you provide one piece of empirical evidence that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in warming? Here is a hint...there is none which means that there is no empirical evidence to support the most fundamental claim of the AGW hypothesis....what sort of science has no empirical evidence to support the very cornerstone of their hypothesis?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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 ?

Under that assumption, it becomes the history's dumbest conspiracy for world domination ever conceived.

 

[Pete7469]

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

Can you provide one piece of empirical evidence that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in warming? Here is a hint...there is none which means that there is no empirical evidence to support the most fundamental claim of the AGW hypothesis....what sort of science has no empirical evidence to support the very cornerstone of their hypothesis?

All the scientists say so!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

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 ?

Population control by billionaire hedge funders and elitists.

 

[martybegan]

From 1984:

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"

 

[ClosedCaption]

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

Can you provide one piece of empirical evidence that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in warming? Here is a hint...there is none which means that there is no empirical evidence to support the most fundamental claim of the AGW hypothesis....what sort of science has no empirical evidence to support the very cornerstone of their hypothesis?

If science isn't good enough then can you tell me well I'm supposed to choose from as proof?

Yanno, something more reliable than science like a ouija board maybe? Or a magic 8 ball?

This is like saying prove that 2 plus 2 equals 4 but here's the catch, you can't use numbers or math. Lol