It is also common knowledge that the warming of the earth is caused by a greenhouse effect, which is accentuated by some gas and CO2, which is emitted massively in the atmosphere by humanity. I don’t know what’s the problem with people accepting this here when it is now pretty much solid proved knowledge by the scientific community. This is not a new theory.
Some engineers who worked all their lives in petroleum can alway say that they don’t believe it, that the data isn’t solid but bottomline they don’t know more than the average guy who don’t work in the field. That is called talking out of your ass. For the rest it’s as if some people want to believe it’s not caused by mankind but jesus in a secret volcano preparing his comeback.
If you think first world countries will send trillions to third world countries you are out of your mind. This is 9/11 conspiracy level.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
It is also common knowledge that the warming of the earth is caused by a greenhouse effect, which is accentuated by some gas and CO2, which is emitted massively in the atmosphere by humanity. I don’t know what’s the problem with people accepting this here when it is now pretty much solid proved knowledge by the scientific community. This is not a new theory.
Some engineers who worked all their lives in petroleum can alway say that they don’t believe it, that the data isn’t solid but bottomline they don’t know more than the average guy who don’t work in the field. That is called talking out of your ass. For the rest it’s as if some people want to believe it’s not caused by mankind but jesus in a secret volcano preparing his comeback.
If you think first world countries will send trillions to third world countries you are out of your mind. This is 9/11 conspiracy level.[/quote]
You are arguing that something that was happening before humans showed up is still happening, the problem is that your crystal ball is seriously broken. No one can accurately predict the outcome assuming this theory is even true.
Case in point, please try and explain this bullshit…
New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.
The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, “It’s June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.” (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: “Gas reached over $9 a gallon.” (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)
This is more along the line of entertainment journalism than reports of scientific organization. I don’t see who is claiming that NYC would be under the sea in 2015.The economic predictions by teenagers or I don’t know who they originated from have little to do with global warming. There is a bunch of small general sentences of people more or less linked to global warming that may be out a context and put together by journalism for a show. This is a weird tv show, just like the ones about vulgarisation of quantum mechanics with a bunch of cool facts/ weird effects and that’s it. I would look upon IPCC instead.
Even if someone who is seen as serious claimed something outlandish at one point for whatever reason, it doesn’t matter and it doesn’t make global warming a hoax. What matter is the conclusions of the horde of scientists who constantly look at the validity of the work of each other and build a base of knowledge.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Global warming isn’t a scam you dumbasses. No one here is a climate scientist. You don’t go around telling health specialist, mathematician or anyone who is an expert in their field that their whole peer reviewed science is wrong, so why would you do it for climate science? [/quote]
The irony here kills me. If you say global warming isn’t a scam and only climate scientists can make that determination and you your self are not a climate scientist; then you cannot make the judgement as to whether or not it’s a scam. Only a climate scientist can do so.
So based on your own criteria, you can only state the fact that many climate scientist believe in global warming and some do not. You cannot judge it to not be a scam, or to be a scam.[/quote]
Every serious organisation says that global warming is a fact. The existence of 2 or 3 outsiders who say that there is no global warming (probably funded by people who have interests in the statut quo) doesn’t change anything. Anybody who want to believe something can find their ‘‘experts’’ to back up their claims.
[/quote]
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Global warming isn’t a scam you dumbasses. No one here is a climate scientist. You don’t go around telling health specialist, mathematician or anyone who is an expert in their field that their whole peer reviewed science is wrong, so why would you do it for climate science? [/quote]
The irony here kills me. If you say global warming isn’t a scam and only climate scientists can make that determination and you your self are not a climate scientist; then you cannot make the judgement as to whether or not it’s a scam. Only a climate scientist can do so.
So based on your own criteria, you can only state the fact that many climate scientist believe in global warming and some do not. You cannot judge it to not be a scam, or to be a scam.[/quote]
Every serious organisation says that global warming is a fact. The existence of 2 or 3 outsiders who say that there is no global warming (probably funded by people who have interests in the statut quo) doesn’t change anything. Anybody who want to believe something can find their ‘‘experts’’ to back up their claims.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I am not sure if this was to support my point or the opposite.
According to the article it’s 36 laureates against one (not implying having a nobel prize in something makes you automatically an expert on the issue who works every day on the subject, but it would be at least a very educated guess). So pick your ‘‘expert’’?
I am inclined to think most of these nobel prizes wouldn’t care about some elaborate scheme to make a lot of money/control the people by some secret organisation/the liberals/illuminati/ masterminds of the new world order.
Renewable energy or business related to energy efficiency are also not easy ways to make money. It’s like calorie counting, lot of energy for little reward.
I am inclined to think most of these nobel prizes wouldn’t care about some elaborate scheme to make a lot of money/control the people by some secret organisation/the liberals/illuminati/ masterminds of the new world order.
[/quote]
Doesn’t have to be an “elaborate scheme” hatched by “secret organisation/the liberals/illuminati/ masterminds of the new world order.” Who said anything about that?
It’s just a simple transference of wealth via government coercion.
It’s very easy with massive taxpayer funded “help.” Very, very easy.[/quote]
I don’t think they would care about any transfer of wealth before the science.
I am not aware of the economics of the carbon market and funding of green energy. I just fail to see who are the main actor who gets robbed by the ‘‘scam’’ and who makes the money. Are all the republicans now defending the economic interests of the OPEC? Or maybe defending the few people who own the fossil ressource in the USA? Maybe I am just on a forum of oil industry billionnaires.
Aren’t there easier way for the powerful to scam the rest than a puny carbon market, like fiscal evasion and maybe wall street?
I don’t think they would care about any transfer of wealth before the science. [/quote]
They care about their funding, because without it they wouldn’t have a department or job to continue their work.
[quote]
I am not aware of the economics of the carbon market and funding of green energy. I just fail to see who are the main actor who gets robbed by the ‘‘scam’’ and who makes the money. Are all the republicans now defending the economic interests of the OPEC? Or maybe defending the few people who own the fossil ressource in the USA? Maybe I am just on a forum of oil industry billionnaires. [/quote]
The US government is using TAXPAYER money to fund programs/companies with specific agendas. Taxpayer money. That means they are “robbing” taxpayers if that’s how you want to view it. Those who pay taxes care about where their money is going.
I will say it again, money should be spent to help the environment, but the current climate policies being funded don’t. Read the article I posted (and re-posted) to start the thread. The money can be put to BETTER use. If the government is going to take my money and spend it, I want them to spend it on something that makes sense, not give it to their friends under the smoke screen of climate change.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Global warming isn’t a scam you dumbasses. No one here is a climate scientist. You don’t go around telling health specialist, mathematician or anyone who is an expert in their field that their whole peer reviewed science is wrong, so why would you do it for climate science? [/quote]
The irony here kills me. If you say global warming isn’t a scam and only climate scientists can make that determination and you your self are not a climate scientist; then you cannot make the judgement as to whether or not it’s a scam. Only a climate scientist can do so.
So based on your own criteria, you can only state the fact that many climate scientist believe in global warming and some do not. You cannot judge it to not be a scam, or to be a scam.[/quote]
Every serious organisation says that global warming is a fact. The existence of 2 or 3 outsiders who say that there is no global warming (probably funded by people who have interests in the statut quo) doesn’t change anything. Anybody who want to believe something can find their ‘‘experts’’ to back up their claims.
[/quote]
What qualifies an organization as ‘serious’? The same ‘serious’ organizations that warned us in the '70’s that we were heading into another ice age with as much gusto as warming is today, those serious organizations?
I have a lot of issues with people who want to alter the way I choose to live based on pop science. With the tiny slice of data they have, (100 years the 4.5 billion the Earth has existed) that’s all it will be.
There is no doubt the climate is changing, it always has and it always will and inevitably the Earth will be uninhabitable by any living thing no matter what we do. That is a scientific fact. This is not forever. It’s not even a real long time.
The only question is how much of a factor is man in it and what can be done even if it’s all man’s fault? It stupidly arrogant to believe we have control over the climate. Influence, yes, control, no. Anybody who believes they can control will likely do more harm then good, ever.
It won’t matter dick what we do unless China, India, the ME, the 3rd world (where Europe sent all their pollution as a result of ‘Cap and Trade’) etc. Clean up their acts big time. We can live in caves, or commit suicide and the world will still be polluted as fuck.
The other fact that tends to be ignored, is like it or not we have been working on ‘Climate Change’ for 2 decades now. If the stuff we have already done, has not done dick, then on what basis are we to believe doing more will do dick? I would like to see the results of what we have already done before we do anymore. 'Cause if it ain’t working, what’s the point of doing it?
The problem used to be fluorocarbons, then CO, now it’s CO2, that’s right the shit we exhale. It sounds to me like they make up a new boogie man every time one doesn’t seem to be it. They got a good one now, with 7 billion people on the planet, we are definitely going to put a lot of CO2 into the air sans a single machine, so we can never eliminate it.
I don’t think they would care about any transfer of wealth before the science. [/quote]
They care about their funding, because without it they wouldn’t have a department or job to continue their work.
[quote]
I am not aware of the economics of the carbon market and funding of green energy. I just fail to see who are the main actor who gets robbed by the ‘‘scam’’ and who makes the money. Are all the republicans now defending the economic interests of the OPEC? Or maybe defending the few people who own the fossil ressource in the USA? Maybe I am just on a forum of oil industry billionnaires. [/quote]
The US government is using TAXPAYER money to fund programs/companies with specific agendas. Taxpayer money. That means they are “robbing” taxpayers if that’s how you want to view it. Those who pay taxes care about where their money is going.
I will say it again, money should be spent to help the environment, but the current climate policies being funded don’t. Read the article I posted (and re-posted) to start the thread. The money can be put to BETTER use. If the government is going to take my money and spend it, I want them to spend it on something that makes sense, not give it to their friends under the smoke screen of climate change.[/quote]
When you are a nobel laureate, at the end of your career and the top of the ‘‘food chain’’ you don’t have to worry about your job anymore. Do you think these people who mostly spent their lives looking for the truth would plainly lie or sign something they don’t believe? I would never lie for any money reason in any scientific field, because integrity is a core value for me and I am proud of it, and I am just a lowly dumbass. I would rather quit to be a janitor at a gym. Integrity is the first thing that makes a man. I am done with this point.
As I said I am not aware of the economics and functionning but I thought cap and trade was actually a tax for companies where they pay for the carbon they emit and not a form of funding. It some form the money perceived can go for the funding of things like implantation of greener technologies. It can also be balanced with tax reductions in another area of the activity of the company their so that the net result is no tax augmentation if that matters.
I read it the article, I am not going to make up my mind of a scientific subject with an article from a political website. I agree global warming has never been the biggest problem for the environnement, but it happens that the solution can be worked up along with the ideology of economic development and growth.
I don’t think they would care about any transfer of wealth before the science. [/quote]
They care about their funding, because without it they wouldn’t have a department or job to continue their work.
[quote]
I am not aware of the economics of the carbon market and funding of green energy. I just fail to see who are the main actor who gets robbed by the ‘‘scam’’ and who makes the money. Are all the republicans now defending the economic interests of the OPEC? Or maybe defending the few people who own the fossil ressource in the USA? Maybe I am just on a forum of oil industry billionnaires. [/quote]
The US government is using TAXPAYER money to fund programs/companies with specific agendas. Taxpayer money. That means they are “robbing” taxpayers if that’s how you want to view it. Those who pay taxes care about where their money is going.
I will say it again, money should be spent to help the environment, but the current climate policies being funded don’t. Read the article I posted (and re-posted) to start the thread. The money can be put to BETTER use. If the government is going to take my money and spend it, I want them to spend it on something that makes sense, not give it to their friends under the smoke screen of climate change.[/quote]
When you are a nobel laureate, at the end of your career and the top of the ‘‘food chain’’ you don’t have to worry about your job anymore. Do you think these people who mostly spent their lives looking for the truth would plainly lie or sign something they don’t believe? I would never lie for any money reason in any scientific field, because integrity is a core value for me and I am proud of it, and I am just a lowly dumbass. I would rather quit to be a janitor at a gym. Integrity is the first thing that makes a man. I am done with this point. [/quote]
The integrity you point to is exactly why some of the scientists have left the organizations. The organizations have clear political agendas, and are not adhering to the integrity of their scientific profession.
What solution are you talking about? The elimination of carbon? Eliminating carbon as a fuel source conflicts with the economic development of many countries as it is easy/cheap to obtain and has high efficiency.
I would never lie for any money reason in any scientific field, because integrity is a core value for me and I am proud of it, and I am just a lowly dumbass. I would rather quit to be a janitor at a gym. Integrity is the first thing that makes a man. I am done with this point. [/quote]
I would never lie for any money reason in any scientific field, because integrity is a core value for me and I am proud of it, and I am just a lowly dumbass. I would rather quit to be a janitor at a gym. Integrity is the first thing that makes a man. I am done with this point. [/quote]
I don’t think they would care about any transfer of wealth before the science. [/quote]
They care about their funding, because without it they wouldn’t have a department or job to continue their work.
[quote]
I am not aware of the economics of the carbon market and funding of green energy. I just fail to see who are the main actor who gets robbed by the ‘‘scam’’ and who makes the money. Are all the republicans now defending the economic interests of the OPEC? Or maybe defending the few people who own the fossil ressource in the USA? Maybe I am just on a forum of oil industry billionnaires. [/quote]
The US government is using TAXPAYER money to fund programs/companies with specific agendas. Taxpayer money. That means they are “robbing” taxpayers if that’s how you want to view it. Those who pay taxes care about where their money is going.
I will say it again, money should be spent to help the environment, but the current climate policies being funded don’t. Read the article I posted (and re-posted) to start the thread. The money can be put to BETTER use. If the government is going to take my money and spend it, I want them to spend it on something that makes sense, not give it to their friends under the smoke screen of climate change.[/quote]
When you are a nobel laureate, at the end of your career and the top of the ‘‘food chain’’ you don’t have to worry about your job anymore. Do you think these people who mostly spent their lives looking for the truth would plainly lie or sign something they don’t believe? I would never lie for any money reason in any scientific field, because integrity is a core value for me and I am proud of it, and I am just a lowly dumbass. I would rather quit to be a janitor at a gym. Integrity is the first thing that makes a man. I am done with this point. [/quote]
The integrity you point to is exactly why some of the scientists have left the organizations. The organizations have clear political agendas, and are not adhering to the integrity of their scientific profession.
What solution are you talking about? The elimination of carbon? Eliminating carbon as a fuel source conflicts with the economic development of many countries as it is easy/cheap to obtain and has high efficiency.[/quote]
No they don’t, their mandate is to evaluate methodically the information based on scientific publications.
Saying fossil fuel is the primary determinant of economic development and the elimination of it is detrimental to the second is a bold statement.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
No they don’t, their mandate is to evaluate methodically the information based on scientific publications. [/quote]
Are you really arguing that political bias doesn’t exist in regards to how some scientists view climate change? If that is true, why would a scientist leave top organizations with statements specifically stating that they were not allowed to view things in a scientific way as there were preconceived conclusions based on political agendas?
[quote]Saying fossil fuel is the primary determinant of economic development and the elimination of it is detrimental to the second is a bold statement.
[/quote]
I didn’t say primary determinant of economic development. I said, “Eliminating carbon as a fuel source conflicts with the economic development of many countries”. If you don’t agree, how many countries would not have a negative economic impact if they didn’t utilize fossil fuels in any way?
I would never lie for any money reason in any scientific field, because integrity is a core value for me and I am proud of it, and I am just a lowly dumbass. I would rather quit to be a janitor at a gym. Integrity is the first thing that makes a man. I am done with this point. [/quote]
lol, just lol…
[/quote]
??
[/quote]
You say integrity is one of your core values, but you wanted to hire someone to hack your school’s network to falsify your records…