Global warming, officially a conspiracy: new study

Originally posted by sonhouse
Leave it to you to turn 'religious beliefs' into a pejorative, how ironic.

That has been your goal the whole time, except when it comes to evilution and atheism.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That has been your goal the whole time, except when it comes to evilution and atheism.

My goals are not that limited.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
There's reason to debate. Recently, the LA Times and Reddit both decided to stop publishing or eliminate the opinions of "deniers".

Climate science is, therefore, the first science to have no further boundaries to explore. Climate science is the first science in the history of mankind where the science is "settled". Newtonian physics isn't settl ...[text shortened]... now how that will turn out. Food from the UN will be distributed by the local warlord in power.

A carbon tax won't have any negative economic effects. It will redistribute wealth from the 1% to pay off the national debt, which is necessary anyway, whilst providing a disincentive for corporations to pollute. The science isn't 100% settled and never is, but you and I understand that distinction because we're scientists. To the general public, there needs to be a truthful understanding that the matter is "settled" in that global warming caused by some humans (in the fossil fuel industry) is FAR more likely than 50/50 to be real, and that urgent action is needed, given both the potential harms, and the fact that a carbon tax is beneficial for other reasons in any case. Dependency on Middle-Eastern oil isn't in the American people's best interests in any case. Compare the Iraq war with a carbon tax. The threshold of certainty required to justify action has been passed, by far and away, and THAT is a settled issue, or should be.

Consider the addition of a cyclical and an exponential function:

50, 100, 50, 100, 50, 100, 50, 100, 50, 100, 50, 100, 50, 100, 50, 100, 50, 100, 50, 100 (Cyclical function: natural cycles)

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765 (Exponential function: human contribution to global warming)

51, 101, 52, 103, 55, 108, 63, 121, 84, 155, 139, 244, 288, 477, 660, 1087, 1647, 2684, 4231, 6865 (overall result)

What we see here is that, eventually, the exponential function overtakes the cyclical function, and accounts for most of the variance in the outcome. Towards the middle (55, 108, 63, 121, 84, 155, 139) it looks as if there's still a natural cycle, and that 121 and 155 are merely positive outliers. We're not yet at the stage where the exponential function of global warming has clearly differentiated itself in this manner, at least to the public's perception based on observed temperatures, but time is of the essence. We can't afford to wait until the evidence is obvious even to Joe the Plumber.

Originally posted by Eladar
Anyone who does not see the conflict of interests here is blind.

Money makes people do strange things. There is big money in global warming and some of the biggest beneficiaries of that money are the people making the claim.

The fossil fuel industry have a specific financial incentive to promote global warming denial. That's far more tangible and concrete than vague speculation that the 97% of climate scientists who think that global warming is real (and caused by some humans, in the fossil fuel industry) might all somehow be bribed in some abstract conspiracy that is not clearly defined, and that is believed in largely due to paranoid fears and general ideology.

In any case, unless you can establish with very high confidence that human-caused global warming is made up and not real, we'd better get to work and take decisive action until such time as you can demonstrate that there isn't a reason to. There is no cost for the 99% from a carbon tax, whereas there's an enormous cost if global warming continues.

Originally posted by karnachz
The fossil fuel industry have a specific financial incentive to promote global warming denial. That's far more tangible and concrete than vague speculation that the 97% of climate scientists who think that global warming is real (and caused by some humans, in the fossil fuel industry) might all somehow be bribed in some abstract conspiracy that is not clear ...[text shortened]... ost for the 99% from a carbon tax, whereas there's an enormous cost if global warming continues.

I think the deniers don't give a dam about the environment. They figure the crunch won't hit till they are safely dead, say 100 years from now, they don't care the world will pay the piper in due time as long as they can show the shareholders they are making mega profits.

Slick math lesson! Why did you stop playing?

Just a bit of bad news:

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-cloud-mystery-global-temperatures-4c.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think the deniers don't give a dam about the environment. They figure the crunch won't hit till they are safely dead, say 100 years from now, they don't care the world will pay the piper in due time as long as they can show the shareholders they are making mega profits.

Slick math lesson! Why did you stop playing?

Better than mega losses.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think the deniers don't give a dam about the environment. They figure the crunch won't hit till they are safely dead, say 100 years from now, they don't care the world will pay the piper in due time as long as they can show the shareholders they are making mega profits.

Slick math lesson! Why did you stop playing?

The irony is, there is some evidence that suggests that going for renewable energy may be actually GOOD for the economy as a whole (by creating more jobs and by avoiding expensive imports of oil etc ) even in the short an medium run and certainly would NOT be necessarily bad!
It is certainly possible to have a strong economy with absolutely no fossil fuels being combusted.
Thus peoples greed that leads them to such delusions that there is no cause for us to act to prevent man made global warming simply could not be more illogical and may actually backfire on them if they get their way so that, instead of most of them getting more wealth, most will get less! If only they could see that, they will stop denying man made global warming because they believe whatever they want regardless of what the evidence says.

Any industry can be good for the economy, as long as it generates profit and doesn't go bankrupt.

The US government hasn't been very good at finding such companies in the 'green' movement.

Originally posted by Eladar
Any industry can be good for the economy, as long as it generates profit and doesn't go bankrupt.

The US government hasn't been very good at finding such companies in the 'green' movement.

For governments to find companies that are in the 'green' movement in particular is not what is required here at all.
What is required is for governments to strive to replace unsustainable sources of energy with sustainable sources and do so as soon as when and where it becomes cost effective to do so (which partly depends on how much money governments put into science research into renewables ) and do so with or without the help of private companies (not that there is any barrier to prevent governments from paying companies to help )

Obviously, this pragmatic strategy will not ever risk making the economy go bankrupt in particular. Some countries in the world now get most of there energy from renewables and they are not bankrupt, so why couldn't ALL countries do so without going bankrupt? To suggest changing over to renewables generally means bankruptcy would be nonsense.

Of course, for a company to help, it doesn't need to believe in 'green' anything in particular to have the will or be given an incentive from a government to do something to help. If a company that isn't into 'green' anything in particular is offered good money to, say, put solar panels on some roofs, would the company refuse the offer on the bases that it isn't 'green'? 😛 Obviously not. That would be extremely stupid and few companies could possibly be THAT stupid in general else they would have already made themselves bankrupt long ago! The company would generally take the offer and help because it would be in its financial interest to even if it doesn't care a less about 'green' anything. So, you see, a government DOES NOT NEED to "find" any companies that are in the 'green' movement to get companies to help change over to renewables.

Global Warming - Peer-Review Deception

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Global Warming - Peer-Review Deception

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcp40a6IYdY

All this proves is the human race is too stupid to have a real civilization.

One day science will create an enormous heat exchange thing a ma jig that will evenly spread and mix temperatures, in effect creating a constant temperature across the flat of the, eh, I mean the face of the earth. And a gigantic thermostat set to 72 degrees... fahrenheit. Mark my words, or not... because most of us will be dead by then... or maybe we will survive as heads in a jar. I know all this because I watch Futurama.

Originally posted by humy
For governments to find companies that are in the 'green' movement in particular is not what is required here at all.
What is required is for governments to strive to replace unsustainable sources of energy with sustainable sources and do so as soon as when and where it becomes cost effective to do so (which partly depends on how much money governments put in ...[text shortened]... y companies that are in the 'green' movement to get companies to help change over to renewables.

What sort of government did you have in mind for making this happen? Are you in favor of government take overs of pretty much any industry it wants to control?

I suppose the first step in doing this would be to create the impression of there being a crisis (global warming, health care, pimples, hair loss... name your crisis) that only said government is in a position to resolve. After that it shouldn't be too difficult to twist a few arms and pressure some high rollers into going along with it. And maybe encourage a few celebrities to speak out on the matter as well... most of them don't actually know what they're talking about, but they are constantly in the public eye and can be a rich resource for promoting just about anything, from pimple cream to hair growth and hair removal products.

Originally posted by lemon lime
What sort of government did you have in mind for making this happen? Are you in favor of government take overs of pretty much any industry it wants to control?

I suppose the first step in doing this would be to create the impression of there being a crisis (global warming, health care, pimples, hair loss... name your crisis) that only said gover ...[text shortened]... e for promoting just about anything, from pimple cream to hair growth and hair removal products.

Are you in favor of government take overs of pretty much any industry it wants to control?

I didn't in anyway say or imply that. I suggested a government can PAY a company to help, NOT “take over” a company to force it to help, so I don't know where you got that from.
By the way, and I know this would be completely changing the subject but, now you brought it up anyway, what would be so bad with a “ government take overs of pretty much any industry it wants to control”? I am not implying such a thing would necessarily be a good thing but rather I don't understand why you would think that would be necessarily a bad thing IF and only if that is what you think. Do you think that?
I should also point out that if the British government didn't take control of British industry during WW2, we would have lost the war and the Nazis would have invaded Britain -surely a great example of how government controlling industry can be a good thing!

I suppose the first step in doing this would be to create the impression of there being a crisis

That would be the extremely easy part -because science has proved there is a crisis.