|
The Climate Change Climate Change (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
You think GE is moving towards all that "green" bull because that's what they believe in? Or is it because they get huge sums of money from the government to proceed in that direction? |
im still not too sure you've understood this discussion. go and watch/read manufacturing consent, and then see if you you agree with d-res, and if so discuss it with me. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im still not too sure you've understood this discussion. go and watch/read manufacturing consent, and then see if you you agree with d-res, and if so discuss it with me. |
fair enough... I'll try to iron it out because I want to know where the disconnect is. |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
:haha: please, for the enjoyment of us all, could you please identify which financial or corporate elites are �manufacturing consent� in regards to global warming news? The problem with people that think like you is that global warming isn�t in anybody�s interests, most certainly not those who have the most to lose by environmental reform. Since these people (read: corporations) are the same ones that you believe control the upper echelons of government and all mainstream media, to what goal are they manipulating the information in regards to GW science? How do they benefit from maintaining the man-made global warming zeitgeist, when in reality that zeitgeist is telling everyone that big business needs to change their habits?
What you have said makes exactly zero sense. |
Cap and Trade will benefit companies that sell carbon credits, esp existing, large companies like GE. Those trading Carbon Credits stand to make a lot of money. Regulation and taxation will be very tough on new and growing, smaller businesses. Cap and trade will cost both home AND business owners an arm and a leg, all based on BAD SCIENCE.
The Missing Hotspot PDF An excellent 25-page critique of the climate change 'problem'.
From page 22:
| quote: | The Money Connection
So what is going on here? In time-honored journalistic fashion, follow the money:
- The amount of money spent on anti-AGW activity by organizations is around US$2 million per year, primarily from Heartland.
- The amount of money spent by pro-AGW organisations on research is about US$3 billion per year, about 1,000 times larger. It mainly comes from big government spending on pro-AGW climate research and on promoting the AGW message, and from the Greens.
- Emissions trading by the finance industry was US$120 billion in 2008. This will grow to over US$1 trillion by 2012, and carbon emission permit trading will be the largest ―commodity‖ market in the world�larger than oil, steel, rice, wheat etc. Typically the finance industry might pocket 1% � 5% of the turnover, so even now their financial interest matches the spending on pro-AGW activities and soon it will vastly exceed it.
Presumably therefore it is the finance industry that is driving the carbon emission permits agenda. Notice that a carbon tax, which would be simpler and fairer, would not benefit the traders and is not being put forward by governments. It is not that the ―science is settled‖ (a fine piece of anti-science propaganda!), but that the science is simply irrelevant now because big money interests are in control.
Who benefits? Emission permits are created by government fiat, out of thin air, yet have value. Trading favors the well-informed and those who can move the market, so big financial firms will routinely plunder the pockets of smaller market participants. The rest of us, one way or another, will pay for both the government-issued emission permits and the trading profits of the finance industry.
A former Chief IMF economist explains that the finance industry is now so powerful that it can sweep aside objections to its profit-making activities, no matter how ruinous they will be in the long term.
But these various policies�lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese-American economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership�had something in common. Even though some are traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans, they all benefited the financial sector. Policy changes that might have forestalled the crisis but would have limited the financial sector�s profits�such as Brooksley Born�s now-famous attempts to regulate credit-default swaps at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in 1998�were ignored or swept aside.�
From www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200905/imf-advice (and see also www.321gold.com/editorials/wilson/wilson050509.html):
―
I have met carbon emissions traders who say that they are well aware that carbon emissions almost certainly do not cause global warming. But that they are riding the trading for all it is worth while it lasts, because it is good business. They told me that that view seems to be widespread among carbon traders. |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
"tens of thousands"? surely you would be able to point us to all the peer-reviewed articles that undermine accepted global warming science? For you to be so sure of yourself (considering the complexities of the science are far beyond what you are capable of understanding without intense study) there must be an equal amount of literature that supports your view? We'd all love to read it. |
Certainly :)
Please enjoy
Petition signed by 31,478 scientists
The number of signatories with PhDs alone represent 15-times those seriously involved in the UN IPCC process.
List of All Signatories by State
12 pg Peer-Review Research containing 132 cited sources
Why Doesn't Anyone Mention the Record Growth of Sea Ice Around Antarctica? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
lols, yeah. that's where i thought you were getting your numbers from. we've all been through that list before, and it is amusing.
| quote: |
This fraud is the source of the Denier myth that (variously) 17,000, 30,000, 60,000 etc "scientists have
The Oregon Petition is a project by Arthur B. Robinson head of the tiny, industry funded so-called Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
It is an updated version of his notoriously fraudulent earlier attempts , the most recent being the 1998 Oregon Petition.
It's even been debunked at the Skeptics Society (the irony) "Misleading by Petition Just What is the Consensus on Global Warming?
For a thorough debunking of the alleged science accompanying the Petition
* Of moles and whacking: Oregon Petition, Redux
* Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
* The Oregon Petition
* Debunking the Oregon Petition Project
* debunked Oregon Petition on global warming
* Ignore Oregon petition
* Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition
* RealClimate scientists take on latest manifestation of global warming disinformation campaign
Most of the names (of those that are legitimate, which aren't many) are from over a decade ago, in some cases almost twice that age - like there's been no updates in the science recently?
Quote from National Academy of Sciences
"The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that:
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science." |
http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition
from memory, when i examined that petition it included signatories from undergrads in fields completely unrelated to climate science. it is meaningless.
| quote: |
Cap and Trade will benefit companies that sell carbon credits, esp existing, large companies like GE. Those trading Carbon Credits stand to make a lot of money. |
lol. nobody, and i mean nobody, is making heaps of money from emissions trading. the "stock" is worth the most when you would never want to sell it (business is good), and is worthless when you want to get rid of it (when business is bad).
to connect this to our earlier discussion, is it your contention that somebody (let's say GE since you have mentioned them) is using their power and influence to corrupt the scientific literature and its influence in the media in order to make money from emissions trading? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
to connect this to our earlier discussion, is it your contention that somebody (let's say GE since you have mentioned them) is using their power and influence to corrupt the scientific literature and its influence in the media in order to make money from emissions trading? |
thats exactly what Enron and Goldman-Sachs tried to get their foot in the door to do in the late 90's.
you control carbon - you control everything.
even his holiness Gavin Schmidt admits no one can predict the climate for any length of time so why the rush to hammer clearly damaging draconian measures down the throat of liberal western societies based on "settled science" when the science is clearly flawed? |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
thats exactly what Enron and Goldman-Sachs tried to get their foot in the door to do in the late 90's.
you control carbon - you control everything.
even his holiness Gavin Schmidt admits no one can predict the climate for any length of time so why the rush to hammer clearly damaging draconian measures down the throat of liberal western societies based on "settled science" when the science is clearly flawed? |
Because regardless of whether or not global warming even exists, we are emitting far too much CO2 into the atmosphere, among other pollutants.
Thats pretty much the bottom line. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
thats exactly what Enron and Goldman-Sachs tried to get their foot in the door to do in the late 90's. |
and look at them now, controlling the world. oh wait...
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
you control carbon - you control everything. |
but carbon is only worth something when everybody absolutely must bathe their children in it. during downturns in an economy, the carbon credits are worthless. and when the economy is pumping, you're not gonna sell your carbon coz you'll need it to keep pumping. that's why im against a trading scheme. it doesn't make any sense.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
even his holiness Gavin Schmidt admits no one can predict the climate for any length of time so why the rush to hammer clearly damaging draconian measures down the throat of liberal western societies based on "settled science" when the science is clearly flawed? |
well that's (kind of) my point. global warming measures will be "clearly damaging" to all kinds of things, which is why i dont buy this argument that the 'ruling' corporations are manufacturing consent for personal gain with regards to GW science. everyone's gonna pay somehow. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Because regardless of whether or not global warming even exists, we are emitting far too much CO2 into the atmosphere, among other pollutants. |
every car, plane, train, ship, moped, ect. on the planet accounts for less than 2% of all the Co2 measured in the atmosphere which in itself comprises of 0.0384% by volume of atmosphere. thats the bottom line Clovis, not Clovis.
you can't (no one can) even begin to catagorize Co2 as a pollutant, much less anthropogenic Co2...UNLESS YOU LEGISLATE IT TO BE. i'm sorry but that is not science, it's politics - it's control. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and look at them now, controlling the world. oh wait... |
don't be daft. Enron went down for completely different and unrelated reasons and you know it. or should. they were dirtier than Lewinsky's blue dress
if they were around today they'd be straight up Congressman Waxley's ass to get their piece of the trillion dollar pie.
| quote: | | well that's (kind of) my point. global warming measures will be "clearly damaging" to all kinds of things, which is why i dont buy this argument that the 'ruling' corporations are manufacturing consent for personal gain with regards to GW science. everyone's gonna pay somehow. |
it's not all about corporations imo. (maybe someone has a different take.) it's about government control over everthing including, again to an extent because not all corporations make their money the same way, corporate profits.
EDIT> my sentence structure is extra e today b/c im tired |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
don't be daft. Enron went down for completely different and unrelated reasons and you know it. or should. they were dirtier than Lewinsky's blue dress |
haha, of course. but you sensible TA users are missing the point. in d-res' world the corporations control and run everything are all-powerful and all-knowing.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
if they were around today they'd be straight up Congressman Waxley's ass to get their piece of the trillion dollar pie. |
but that is a far cry from influencing the scientific debate about climate change and how it is represented in the media.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
it's not all about corporations imo. (maybe someone has a different take.) it's about government control over everthing including, again to an extent, corporate profits. |
you certainly pick and choose your times to be a "less evil government in our lives" conservative :p but anyway, is it your assertion that the ruling class (whomever they might be) have distorted and/or controlled the evidence related to GW in a quest for personal gain? which is really what we're talking about here. d-res is arguing that GW is all about the elite controlling us and "manufacturing consent" (primarily) through their ownership of media (and presumably any and all scientific publications).
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
EDIT> my sentence structure is extra e today b/c im tired |
yeah, mine usually is because of the bong :) |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Meanwhile:
| quote: | The Plum Line
Greg Sargent's blog
Poll: Only A Bare Majority Of Republicans Believes In Global Warming
The polling unit of The Washington Post graciously sends over the crosstabs of the paper’s new polling on environmental issues, and they’re fascinating:
They show that only a bare majority of Republicans believe in global warming, and that GOPers are surprisingly out of step with the rest of the electorate (independents included) on the issue. The crosstabs reveal:
* Only 54% of Republicans believe “the world’s temperature may have been going up slowly over the past 100 years,” versus 43% who don’t believe it. By contrast, 71% of independents say it’s been happening — almost exactly the same at the 72% overall who believe this. Obviously, an even higher number of Dems (86%) believe it.
* Only a quarter of Republicans believe global warming is a “very serious” problem, versus 43% of independents who believe this, nearly a 20-point difference. Overall, 44% believe it’s a very serious problem.
* Republicans are the only group where a minority (43%) believes that the United States should take action on global warming “even if other countries do less.” Majorities of independents (52%) and Democrats (66%) believe the U.S. should take action despite the actions of other countries. |
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/c...global-warming/
It's fascinating to me how this has become a political issue. Where is the ideological reason for climate skepticism, and why is it that Republicans are overwhelmingly skeptics? Is it the religion thing? I wonder if the idea of anthropogenic anything is anathema to many conservative's social beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
