Global warming is a money making hoax

[bo862]

Feb 7, 2012 20:48:21 GMT -5 lapwasktp said:

Maybe I'm missing something, But a guy who works for a Auto company is worried about Global Warming.. WTH... Ford Motor co. produces tons of pollutants in the making of a complete car... Really.. Have you ever visted the paint department at KTP or LAP.. We incenerate acetate and other harmeful chemicals on the property constantly to paint our vehicles... I believe that goes into the air... I think you might want to quit Ford and start working for the EPA so your conscious will feel better... Just saying...

It is a big difference between polluting a stream and changing global weather patterns.

This goes back to the living in a cave discussion. Anywhere you work is going to do some type of polluting. With industrialization it is going to happen. The key is to make sure the pollution does not get out of hand in the damage to the environment or people.


At least I’m not a unionized factory worker voting for conservatives! I will quit right after every conservative in the IUAW gives up their union job and takes the under paid labor jobs on farms.

[jobs1stb4polarbear]

The fundamental goal of these radical retarded environmentalists is not to end global warming or global cooling.....they cannot do that since even the most aggressive actions make little impact..... instead, their goal is to discredit capitalism and to use global warming and other environmental concerns as a justification to impose their ideological, political, and ethical agenda(make money).... They haven't a clue how to really counter the natural cooling and warming trends of the planet.....but if they blame it on human beings, then the solution is to control people.

Global warming is a scientific issue. I can be convinced that the earth is getting warmer, but it will take more than slogans and hysteria to convince me that the warming is something other than a natural cycle in our planet's history that may have some repercussions on human life..... The solution lies in technical advances to help humans adapt to climate change. Not to kill off the humans in order to save the planet.

If the radical environmentalists really wanted to "do something" about global warming, then they would be calling for funding projects that explore countermeasures and methods to adapt to it. What we see instead is the same kind of religious fanaticism and holy fervor that the left so despises in the fundamental right. What they really want is power over people.

Theirs is basically a totalitarian agenda in which they, the "elites", will dictate how people should live on this earth.

For some time there has been a struggle between the totalitarians of the right and the totalitarians of the left to dominate. All the major conflicts of the last century occurred when one or the other tried to take control over the world.

The Marxist left always based its claim for socialist leadership on "scientific principles" ....including technology....which they assert "proves" that socialism works.... except of course, that it didn't. Which is why the left has adopted the "new and improved" doctrine of radical environmentalism (which asserts that technology is evil and destructive)....insisting that human society and progress are "destroying" the earth. Of course, they cleverly invoke "science" as a justification for their beliefs....a strategy that is identical to that adopted by the creationists in their "Intelligent Design" arguments (which, of course, the left has complete contempt for).

Neither represents real science.

The "elites" have never abandoned their dreams of imposing a socialist paradise, and one of their basic strategies is to undermine capitalism by using the talking points of their "environmental religion".

I suspect that they truly believe that if humans would abandon capitalism and technology; go back to the cave and live the "simple life", then their ideology would finally work in the real world and their dreams of a religious international socialist paradise would finally be realized.

Watch for new, improved environmental fantasies to be foisted on the public, even as the old one's are exposed as distortions and delusions. This is easy to do, since the real goal of these fantasies are not really about helping humans....or the planet.... they are rationalizations to exert control, dominance, and why not make a little money on the side...

[bulldognuts]

Don't worry Bo I didn't get my feelings hurt,I just found it interesting when you finally responded you ignored the fact that the kind of proposals that I had said were being proposed were actually being proposed.
I could talk about other ridiculous proposals that have been made in the name of "Lets save the planet" but it would be a waste of time.

I find this passage in your response interesting.

" We are in agreement on this type of issues. Even when someone in the govt is trying to pass a bill that is pretending to try to help with an issue that I believe in does not mean I’m wiling to give up every freedom they may ask for."

What freedoms are you willing to give up in the name of "Lets save the planet"

The reason I ask is,I believe that many people want to feel like they matter and are willing to do things that makes them feel better and be able to say"See I am helping save the Planet" and the whole time they are slowly eroding their own freedoms.

But, alas this is only my opinion.When the time comes that all of these little freedoms that we lose,start to add up and we are not able to make many of our own decisions about what kind of car we can drive,how we heat our homes,when we want to go on vacation,but are told that we should not waste valuable resources on such frivolous things, maybe people will wake up and see what all this is really about.

You may believe that I am being over dramatic about where all of this is heading but,I do not think I am.

The reason I included the links about Cass Sunstien,and John Holdren is to Illustrate the way and I hesitate to use this word to describe them,"Elite"thinkers that is advising our President thinks about the masses that must be manipulated to achieve the goals of getting people to accept giving up all of these little freedoms.

I also want to add that everything that Polar wrote in above post is hitting the nail on the head,and he does it in a way that I wish I could.

Bo you are deeply concerned about Climate Change,so tell me what freedoms are you willing to give up to save the planet.

[bulldognuts]

Hey Polar I just wanted to let you know I thoroughly enjoy reading your post.You have a way with words that I truly admire.

[bo862]

“Bo you are deeply concerned about Climate Change,so tell me what freedoms are you willing to give up to save the planet.”

I am willing to give up the freedom to use fossil fuels, coal and oil, as the primary means to provide my energy. I’m also willing to find a way to make myself sacrifice the incandescent light bulb.


“(when) we are not able to make many of our own decisions about what kind of car we can drive”

Is it giving up freedom if you pull into a refueling station to put hydrogen or a biofuel into your vehicle instead of gas?

[bo862]

Other than the one fact, jobs1st post would make any oil bought politician or think tank proud. The lined through sections are conspiracy, exaggerations, baiting or off topic not worth responding to.

Jobs1st
The fundamental goal of these radical retarded environmentalists is not to end global warming or global cooling.....they cannot do that since even the most aggressive actions make little impact..... instead, their goal is to discredit capitalism and to use global warming and other environmental concerns as a justification to impose their ideological, political, and ethical agenda(make money).... They haven't a clue how to really counter the natural cooling and warming trends of the planet.....but if they blame it on human beings, then the solution is to control people.

Global warming is a scientific issue. I can be convinced that the earth is getting warmer, but it will take more than slogans and hysteria to convince me that the warming is something other than a natural cycle in our planet's history that may have some repercussions on human life..... The solution lies in technical advances to help humans adapt to climate change. Not to kill off the humans in order to save the planet.

What about research? Or is that part of the left wing conspiracy?
Here is a visual www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57

This is a simple article explaining the information. If you need more click the advanced tab www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm

The research the graph is taken from
1. articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?2000ESASP.463..201T&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
2. journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
3. journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1
4. www.skepticalscience.com/lean-and-rind-estimate-man-made-and-natural-global-warming.html The actual research on this one is in the text under Lean and Rind (2008).
5. thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf
6. thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/improved-constraints-on-21st-century-warming-derived-using-160-years-of-temperature-observations.pdf



If the radical environmentalists really wanted to "do something" about global warming, then they would be calling for funding projects that explore countermeasures and methods to adapt to it. What we see instead is the same kind of religious fanaticism and holy fervor that the left so despises in the fundamental right. What they really want is power over people.

Adapting to the effects will cost more than changing over to a new type of energy source.
Here is a visual www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=11

here is a link to research comparing the two options

www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43084.de/diw_wr_2005-12.pdf

and

digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29337/m1/1/


Theirs is basically a totalitarian agenda in which they, the "elites", will dictate how people should live on this earth.

For some time there has been a struggle between the totalitarians of the right and the totalitarians of the left to dominate. All the major conflicts of the last century occurred when one or the other tried to take control over the world.

The Marxist left always based its claim for socialist leadership on "scientific principles" ....including technology....which they assert "proves" that socialism works.... except of course, that it didn't. Which is why the left has adopted the "new and improved" doctrine of radical environmentalism (which asserts that technology is evil and destructive)....insisting that human society and progress are "destroying" the earth. Of course, they cleverly invoke "science" as a justification for their beliefs....a strategy that is identical to that adopted by the creationists in their "Intelligent Design" arguments (which, of course, the left has complete contempt for).

Neither represents real science.

The "elites" have never abandoned their dreams of imposing a socialist paradise, and one of their basic strategies is to undermine capitalism by using the talking points of their "environmental religion".

I suspect that they truly believe that if humans would abandon capitalism and technology; go back to the cave and live the "simple life", then their ideology would finally work in the real world and their dreams of a religious international socialist paradise would finally be realized.

Watch for new, improved environmental fantasies to be foisted on the public, even as the old one's are exposed as distortions and delusions. This is easy to do, since the real goal of these fantasies are not really about helping humans....or the planet.... they are rationalizations to exert control, dominance, and why not make a little money on the side...

Show the distortions. The only distortions are the ones made up by oil funded think tanks to continue on business as usual.

It is strange that not one person supporting business as usual, on this thread, have been able to support their statements with any type of credible evidence on climate change. Yet you accuse scientists of distortions. Sounds like the delusional finger should be pointing back at yourself.

[jobs1stb4polarbear]

you are not reading....

"Bo862 I could go to websites and post everything from articles, peoples opinions to numerous incidents like climategate that would help me support my reason for my beliefs,but I and you know that no matter what you believe you can find info that supports whatever you want to believe." -----Bulldognuts

Read more: scottrlap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=election&action=display&thread=11548&page=1#ixzz1ltEcRy7J

[bo862]

That shows your unwillingness or inability to comprehend the difference between opinion and evidence.

It is you parroting the denialists opinion that the scientists twisted the science to show what they wanted. The problem with that is after 8 investigations later AND being made public for everyone to search for any wrong doing, there has been nothing found. That makes the claim an opinion. This is your opportunity to be the hero that ends the “climate change hoax” for good by searching through every email to find the wrongdoing and sending those scientists to prison.

The links that I provide are not opinion pieces, they are peer reviewed research. Stop sucking in everything the oil industry spews out to read a few, and see what is going on in reality. If they are wrong or inaccurate feel free to write a rebuttal that can discredit them. That is the way the peer review works.

[bulldognuts]

Hey Bo,there is no point discussing whether or not the science is settled about global warming.The point that concerns me is the course of action we should take.

I have stated before that the scientist can only guess about what is going to happen and I have shown that they have been very wrong about their guesses in the past.

I believe we agree on several things when it comes to alternative energy and believe that those alternatives should be explored.
I think we will most likely disagree on what should be done in the immediate future.

I believe that we should explore all carbon based energy possibilities that are at our disposal.We should exploit all possible sources of oil available to us.We should drill off the coast,we should drill in the gulf the same as many of the South American countries are currently doing.

We should drill in Alaska,Including ANWR.We should allow the Keystone pipeline so that we can get oil reserves from Canada.Oil that Canada will sell to China and have said as much if the pipeline isn't finished or any other country that is willing to buy it.

Now Bo, before you start accusing me of being a shill of those Big Bad Oil companies or of being sucked in by their wily advertising,or corrupted by their stealth ways on the web you need to understand that I am not advocating that is all we do.

I believe we should start using natural gas as much as possible.A resource that is in abundant supply here in the good ole U.S. of A. and a resource that is very clean burning.

I think that the United States should start a alternative energy initiative similar to the Manhattan project exploring all possible sources of energy, especially hydrogen.If we set our minds to it I believe that we would be able to develop reliable alternative sources within a decade.

Currently many of the alternatives that is being pursued will not likely be able to meet our demands or allow for growth.There have been many problems with solar and wind alternatives that I am not going to go into but I believe you are also aware of.

I believe that if a person whether it be the President, a group of Congressmen,and Senators came out and pushed for exploring all carbon based sources of energy at our disposal to help stabilize oil prices,and simultaneously announced that we are going to launch a energy initiative like the Manhattan project where we would invest whatever amount of resources necessary to develop alternatives that would actually meet our needs,the majority of Americans would support this approach to the changes that we need to make.

Instead we have a group of people who tell us that we have to lower our standard of living.I and Polar have pointed out that there is an ulterior motive in the agenda that many of the people who are pushing the Idea of Global Warming.

I know that you will most likely take exception to that last comment but I believe it and am not likely to change my mind.Much like you believe if it wasn't for the oil companies all would be right in the world when it comes to climate change.

[jobs1stb4polarbear]

Bo862, maybe your problem is, that you are not following your websites advice....not to worry, here is a link to your favorite website you keep bringing up(and getting info from)...so you can re-educate yourself on how to convince us with BS...

www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf

How to debunk myths (by Skeptical Science):

1. Lead off with the facts. You need to state the facts, not the myth. Otherwise, the myth gets reinforced.
2. If you have to explain the myth, precede it with a warning.
3. State the myth. Then, provide an alternate explanation.
4. Three facts are better than twelve.
5. Use simple, clear language. The power of myths is that they are usually simplistic. Your facts need to be able to replace the myth. Shoot for an explanation simple enough that they can repeat it.
6. Focus on the undecided; there will always be an unswayable minority especially if it runs contrary to their core beliefs.
Use graphics.

Here's an example of myth-busting done right that I found:
....if your website would follow its own advice..


{ 97 out of 100 climate experts agree humans are causing global warming} --->Core fact communicated in headline

{Several independent surveys find 97% of climate scientists who are}
{ actively publishing peer-reviewed climate research agree that }
{ humans are causin global warming. On top of this overwhelming }
{ consensus, National Academies of Science from all over the world also }---> Core fact reinforced in opening paragragh, fleshed out with additional details.
{ endorse the consensus view of human caused global warming, as }
{ expressed bythe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) }

{ However, movements that deny a scientific consensus have always}
{ sought to cast doubt on the fact that a consensus exists. One}
{ technique is the use of fake experts, citing scientists who have}--->Explicit warning cueing reader that misinformation is coming and indicating the nature of the
{ little to no expertise in the perticulat field of science.}misinformation.

{ For example, the OISM Petition Project claims 31,000}
{ scientists disagree with the scientific consensus on }---------->The myth
{ global warming.}

{ However, around 99.9% of the scientists listed in the}
{ Petition Project are not climate scientists. The petition}
{ is open to anyone with a Bachelor os Science or higher}
{ and includes medical doctors, mechanical engineers}
{ and computer scientists.}------------------------------------------------>The gap created by this debunking is the question "how can there be
{ }a 97% consensus if 31,000 scientists dissent?
{ }This gap if filled by explaining that almost all the scientist in the Petition
{ }Project are not climate scientist.
{ }The misleading nature of the Petition Project is reinforced with a graphic.
{ }
{ }
{ }
{ }
{ }
{ }
{ }
{ }
{ }
{ <------Climate Scientist

Bo862...time to go back to Skeptical Science University!

[bulldognuts]

Hey Polar that's funny.I had not taken the time to check out Bo's links.

Now that I have it makes it that much funnier after all of his righteous Bullshit about biased links,and websites sponsored by oil companies.

I think this thread has run it's coarse,especially since Bo is the only one who is trying to debunk us ignorant deniers.

[jobs1stb4polarbear]

Amen to that.....

[ktpelec]

I want to know who is this "we" that needs to expand all this oil drilling Bulldog? It's certainly not the US population or government. It's global oil companies like Exxon/Mobil, BP, and Chevron, they profit from the exploration and refinement of oil. No matter where the oil is found or refined, it is sold on the global market, so the idea that if they drill and find more oil, it will result in cheaper fuel prices for US consumers isn't true. Oil production has increased dramatically for years, so have gasoline prices. The idea that its "our" oil is ludacris.
Using less is the only thing that has shown to reduce prices for the US consumer.

[bulldognuts]

ktp you are correct about oil companies doing the drilling,but when you state that less consumption is the only factor in determining oil prices you could not be more wrong.Less consumption does help ease the price.But what happens ,oil producing nations in opec and others lower production output to help reduce supply,and raise prices.

There are several factors in oil prices,one of them being speculation.When opec farts oil prices go up.China,India has no intentions of reducing oil consumption and I have read that China will soon surpass the U.S. in oil consumption.Are they running around telling the world that we should not drill.No they are looking to buy oil contracts any where they can.I have read that Chinese oil companies are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.While U.S based companies are prohibited from new drilling.

You state that there is more drilling for oil than ever before,that may be true, but not domestically and as I have already stated you are correct about oil being drilled here being sold on the world market and If the U.S government started allowing drilling domestically it would have an immediate impact on oil prices due to speculation in the market.It would also lessen everybody's dependence on oil from the middle east.So that when opec starts reducing output, the effect on prices would not be as severe.

Also you did not speak to the Keystone pipeline that is being blocked,it is going to be a direct pipeline to the refineries on the gulf of Mexico that would impact the price of gas in the U.S. I also believe that it is being blocked by the Obama administration to help keep prices as high as possible.Obama's Sec. of energy Steven Chu has said that we need to get gas prices up to $7.00 a gallon so that we can get people to accept some of the changes that need to be made.President Obama said that he did not mind seeing gas prices go up but just at a more stable pace.He has said that with cap and trade it would be to expensive to keep using coal for electricity.There are numerous examples of the Obama Administration purposely attempting to keep energy prices high.

Another is the fact we have not built a new refinery for over 30 yrs. due environmental regulations that make it to costly to build refineries domestically.If new refineries were built domestically it would help to stabilize prices also.

I could go on, but do not believe it would make a difference .My mind is open to alternative sources of energy that will allow the U.S to continue to be economic leader but until that source is available [read my previous post above] we should use the cheapest and most readily available source. OIL,COAL,NATURAL GAS!!!!

If wind and solar could do this I say LET'S DO IT.But it can't, and the Radical Environmentalist know this,this is why we are being told we must lower our standard of living to save the planet.I will go back to where all of this started Global Warming is about redistributing wealth and controlling people's behavior.

[ktpelec]

Well known respected scientists all over the world have given input to global climate change, suggesting they are all just "radicals" is far from true. The science is far more complex than the average person can understand. I'm certainly not an expert but, as I stated before, I believe that billions of humans burning fossil fuels for more than a century has had an atmospheric effect.
The Keystone pipeline has a long story also. It will transport a mix of synthetic crude and bitumen, some of the dirtiest and hardest to refine oil there is. Much different than the oil imported from the middle east that is easier to process. The majority of this processed oil is slated for export, adding to the profits of the oil companies, not helping US consumers. The oil companies are now exporting gasoline to foreign countries. Adding this oil to the US refining process will probably raise gas prices for US consumers. It isn't just enviromentalists that don't want more refineries. The majority of refineries are located in coastal areas, and no state legislature wants to allow this industry to kill its tourist numbers by locating there.
Industry experts say the number of jobs this pipeline will produce is way over blown. I am for adding any jobs but, 5 to 6 thousand jobs as the pipeline is built, and many less to maintain it is an accurate number. No one has produced any plan that actually shows the production of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
US consumers have long depended on oil based fuels, it is easier to produce, transport, and store compared to every other energy source available now.

[bo862]

“so you can re-educate yourself on how to convince us with BS” jobs1st


Show me the BS and the bias on that website or my posts.

I provided evidence supported by research on all of my arguments. You on the other hand could not provide any credible sources. In fact, after each claim was debunked you switched to a different myth, because you could not support your statement. Constantly changing the focus of the argument shows you have an ideological viewpoint and are unwilling to consider anything that does not support your original view.

Nice little graphic, but in keeping with your ideological viewpoint and willingness to put anything forward that may be misinterpreted you provide a comparison of the amount of climate scientist to the overall number of scientists. This, again, changes the subject from the discussion on climate change science.

If you want to find the bias on that site
skepticalscience.com/

look on the left on the home page, you will see the top ten arguments that are used by deniers and accepted by the general public. Click on "view all arguments" if you need to see a larger list. Or, you can search for whatever you think disproves climate change try entering, “they changed the name from global warming” to see what the scientific research on that subject is. If there were any bias, that is where it would be. Good luck.

[bo862]

“Hey Bo,there is no point discussing whether or not the science is settled about global warming.The point that concerns me is the course of action we should take.” bulldog

Agreed, your concern is with the level of government control.

“I have shown that they have been very wrong about their guesses in the past.” bulldog

You have shown that you believe that two scientists should not disagree. Also, that if they were wrong on one issue then they are flawed and nothing any scientist says can ever be trusted. If that were true we would not have the technological or medical breakthroughs we have today.

“I and Polar have pointed out that there is an ulterior motive in the agenda that many of the people who are pushing the Idea of Global Warming.” bulldog

Your level of paranoia is your own. If the push against the evidence of science were removed, we could discuss levels of acceptable risk of converting over to a sustainable mix of energy sources that would reduce or remove the likelihood of giving up freedoms. Unfortunately, that will not happen until the oil companies run out of money.

Btw, oil, coal, and natural gas were subsidized with $409 billion in 2010. Between that, the healthcare, and environmental costs from pollution, fossil fuel is a lot more expensive than what you pay at the pump. You are right; as long as fossil fuels are supported by taxpayers, renewable energy will not be able to compete. Talk about government wasting taxpayers’ money.

www.allgov.com/US_and_the_World/ViewNews/Government_Subsidies_of_Fossil_Fuels_Outdo_Renewable_Subsidies_6_to_1_120210


The keystone is set to run through the middle of the nation directly over an aquifer that supplies the majority of water for everyone east of the Rockies and west of Illinois, and from Texas up to about S. Dakota. We discussed the potential effects the drought just in the southern portions of the u.s. could have on us. Not if, but when that pipeline has a major catastrophe it will likely contaminate the aquifer that sustains the people in the region, the cattle, and crops that feed us.

scottrlap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=election&action=display&thread=11222

If that is not an issue of national security I don’t know what is.

[cal50]

Global warming / climate change still has its following of believers.
If that works for you then go for it.

Next up is methane cow emissions depleting the ozone layer. I am hoping for en engineered cow that dispenses chocolate milk ,can heat my house and fill lighters with, stay tuned!

[lap65]

Feb 7, 2012 14:50:56 GMT -5 ackspac said:

The earth is Bi-Polar.

Now that's funny.