The Global Climate debate.....Posioned by Politics?

[kvnchrist]

 

As i posted several videos mentioning that very fact, the computer models and false science they are pushing is laughable, one reason to never trust mainstream science at all, it is a religion as you claim. Anything that contradicts their findings will be tossed, always be on the look out for the unusual, because usually its correct.

 

Aye....funding is one of the major keys, along with the power agenda of the "green" billionaires who wish to control energy resources.....many of whom are absolute hypocrites that have made billions off of fossil fuels in other nations.

Are you truly naive enough to think the "power agenda" of so called "green billionaires"(funny concept), is anywhere near as influential or pernicious of that of the fossil fuel industry? An industry that is the most profitable on the planet, the most politically influential, and best at endangering public safety for short term profit? This is no understatement, look at the networth of the top 10 corporations on the planet and what industries they are involved in. Look at their involvement in politics. Look at environmental and public health catastrophes caused by those companies. They have a vested interest in continuing "business as usual", with no fetters on behalf of the will of the people.

 

You guys doubt scientists who have integrity and dedicate their lives to the public good and instead believe corporate sell-out right wing politicians who openly take bribes from the fossil fuel industry so they can get re-elected?

 

You think peer reviewed scientists would collude around the world as part of some unprecedented global conspiracy to deceive the public? Seriously? This is juvenile nonsense, a knee jerk reaction against people with more knowledge and authority than you on a subject, and in today's "my opinion is worth as much as your facts' culture, people find this mentality to be permissible. It isn't. Some people know more than you, and if you can't understand the findings and methodology of scientific studies dealing in Basic Science, then that's more on account of your lack of curiosity and confidence in an ignorant opinion than anything else.

 

That's the only way to call it mates. You either don't know the facts, or you are simply in denial. It's the same mentality as people who think vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent.

 

“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.”

Isaac Asimov

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

― Isaac Asimov

“If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.”

Isaac Asimov

 

Sorry, but I don't see a single point here. I see opinion only and a good measure of snottiness.

 

As I've said before, I know nothing about this issue, but I have seen a lot of this personal attack condemnation of others and that to me speaks more loadly than anything about the state of affairs of the environmentalists movements.

 

There is no reason to believe that any scientist is less likely to be any more ideological or greedy as anyone else on the planet. A true believer is a true believer and these types of people are as impervious to any other theory or opinin as the next one. Do you really believe that whole industries can.'t become corupt if a strong driving force backed up by powerful people and government money place pressure on thos that don't want to play ball. The oil industry has no monopoly on influence peddling.

 

I will let the more educated amounst us here debate the finer points of this issue, but my freind, I don't think that the dirrection you've taken here has altered anyones opinon.

 

You may well be the best person I will ever meet, but I can't see that in this presentation and that is my opinion, as uneducated and juvenile as I know I can very well be, at times.

[JimboUK]

 

 

 

Are you truly naive enough to think the "power agenda" of so called "green billionaires"(funny concept), is anywhere near as influential or pernicious of that of the fossil fuel industry?

Absolutely!

The evidence is our there, Tom Steyr, Al Gore and other assorted hypocrites looming the largest.

 

You guys doubt scientists who have integrity and dedicate their lives to the public good and instead believe corporate sell-out right wing politicians who openly take bribes from the fossil fuel industry so they can get re-elected?

 

You could slam that one directly into reverse...Flip the subjects and you would be knocking on truths door. It's the left and the driving, take no prisoners, hell bent for leather green lobby that is the evil entity.

 

 

Why have we been having years upon years with record temperatures? Why are the glaciers melting? Why is the artic melting?

 

Records don't go back far enough to give any meaningful trend, we know from historical records that temps have been far higher than they are now. The glaciers aren't melting and even if they were increases in CO2 always come after ice melts, not before. As for the arctic, the ice sheet is 1.7million square kilometres larger now than it was in 2012, it's also thicker. Not that any of these inconvenient truths will convince alarmists, as I said in an earlier post it's become a religion to some and a handsome source of revenue for others, the fact that their models are based on fabricated data and have time again been proven to be incorrect is neither here nor there.

[HeyYou]

The first article explains nothing. Simply another theory why the earth isn't warming 'as fast'.

 

The second article assumes a much larger consensus amongst scientist than actually exists. it is more than a little biased.

 

The 'clean energy' claim is a myth. Sure, once completed, windmills and solar panels are 'green'. The problem comes from their manufacture. Have a closer look at some of the materials that go into them, and what has to be done to refine those materials, and the whole 'green' aspect changes significantly. Also, I would point out that wind power is not precisely reliable.... therefore, some variety of back up is required. And what does that backup usually consist of? Diesel Generators...... that's really green......

 

'Nother question I have is: Why is it, that in locales where windmills are installed, the price of electricity goes UP????? That one absolutely baffles me.

 

Why is the antarctic ice increasing? (at record levels?)

 

If you think all these 'research institutions' are being forthright, and honest, then you REALLY need to take a look at where their money is coming from. For an interesting comparison, I invite you to have a look at just why the US government refused to finance ANY kind of gun research AT ALL. (not making better ones, but, their impact on society.) If you think some organization, no matter what it is, isn't going to be motivated to come up with "findings" that support the position the folks writing the checks favor..... Well, I have some really nice ocean-front property in Nevada I would like to sell you.

[Beriallord]

Climate change is being blown way out of proportion by leftists. Its gotten to the point where most people don't even take it seriously anymore.

 

"Going green" means tripling or quadrupling your electric bill over using coal power.

 

FYI, those giant windmill farms they got in some areas are just meat grinders for birds. They're also an eyesore on the landscape.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Beriallord

[kvnchrist]

Anytime there is a social or political movement there will be corporate interests that will be ready, willing and able to take advantage of it. I laugh every day at all these corporations that do things, they say are to help the environment, but really they are got trying to save themselves money.

[HeyYou]

Anytime there is a social or political movement there will be corporate interests that will be ready, willing and able to take advantage of it. I laugh every day at all these corporations that do things, they say are to help the environment, but really they are got trying to save themselves money.

Or make themselves more....... as the case may be.

 

I wanna know why, even WITH all the federal subsidies for wind power, the electric company would have to charge MORE for wind generated power, than they would if they did nothing at all?

[Beriallord]

 

I wanna know why, even WITH all the federal subsidies for wind power, the electric company would have to charge MORE for wind generated power, than they would if they did nothing at all?

 

Because the technology is inefficient, its increadibly high maintenance, and in part the subsidies may involve them replacing a certain % of their already established methods of producing energy more efficiently through some other source like coal. its a huge money sink even with the subsidies. Either the technology is there, or it isn't. If the technology isn't good enough to compete with cheap, non-renewable sources and produce energy for a similar price, then its a terrible solution. We still got another 200+ years of coal reserves. We aren't gonna be running out of coal any time soon. I'm sure the technology will improve to the point where we'd never need to use coal again long before we use up our reserves. Some people are acting like we're in some sort of desperation to find a clean renewable source of energy. That isn't something us, or even our grandchildren are going to have to worry about. If there is any faith in humanity to be had, someone will have gotten an efficient nuclear fusion reactor up and running that would make solar and wind power look like some hipster fad from the 1990s that has gone way out of style.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Beriallord

[edgeburner]

 

Because the technology is inefficient

 

Aye. As it stands now, alternative energy is not a viable solution. Our tax dollars are what is propping up many of these "pet" companies. Down the road? Perhaps, but, as it stands now, unless your are very well-off and can afford a 25,000 to 40,000$ layout (for solar panels)... nada. Wind farms have been an almost absolute failure to date, and a huge drain on out tax dollars.

 

Considering the fact that science does not substantiate the anthropogenic angle of the global warming theory/hypothesis, we would do well to give coal factories grants for clean coal production rather than eliminating them altogether. Cheap and reliable beats unproven, unaffordable, tax draining hope. Someday these alternative ideas may be viable, but not today.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2014 by edgeburner

[HeyYou]

Well, the technology has to become 'proven' somehow..... though, I would prefer it NOT be at MY expense..... :D

 

It isn't so much the burning of the coal that's the problem, its the coal ash....... if we could find a way to make it useful...... like, add it to concrete, for a bit more strength, or something similar, that would help out GREATLY.

[edgeburner]

Proven how? Perhaps on a small scale, but, as a solution for climate manipulation and for viability and affordability, I haven't seen proof. It certainly isn't a solution for providing energy for the 'masses'.

 

It isn't so much the burning of the coal that's the problem, its the coal ash....... if we could find a way to make it useful...... like, add it to concrete, for a bit more strength, or something similar, that would help out GREATLY.

Perhaps as a fertilizer? We could carpet bomb Washington with the ash? :)