BF2S Forums Hey Climate Experts! Got an answer for this one?

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, this entire thread has been about the political and economic ramifications of the legislation they've proposed. Very little of it has been hippies whining about mother earths cries, so thanks for adding that bit. Read the last few pages, you might learn something valuable.

I was specifically referring to the last few posts by myself and yourself. Basically since the "conspiracy" was brought up.

But your right I was fairly dismissive there. Of course there will be a lot of political and economic weight surrounding this, but specifically regarding the accusation of conspiracy and trying to identify a motive for said conspiracy, I don't see how it can go far beyond a desire to reverse the course of global degradation.

JohnG@lt wrote:

djphetal wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, this entire thread has been about the political and economic ramifications of the legislation they've proposed. Very little of it has been hippies whining about mother earths cries, so thanks for adding that bit. Read the last few pages, you might learn something valuable.

I was specifically referring to the last few posts by myself and yourself. Basically since the "conspiracy" was brought up.

But your right I was fairly dismissive there. Of course there will be a lot of political and economic weight surrounding this, but specifically regarding the accusation of conspiracy and trying to identify a motive for said conspiracy, I don't see how it can go far beyond a desire to reverse the course of global degradation.

Because money is involved. A lot of money. It attracts weasels and wolves like moths to a flame. They get the scent of profit to be made and they'll be all over your little environmental movement in a heartbeat. They'll corrupt it so badly that those of you that actually believe climate change is happening will be sold down the river just like relic merchants preyed on the religiously devout in the middle ages and the way charlatans would sell medicine to hypochondriacs before the FDA was created. Question everything and trust nothing that the government proposes. Pelosi, Obama, Feinstein and all of their cronies stand to make billions of dollars if they can get their climate bills passed through the senate.

There is a fuckload of money to be made on the other side too. That coin falls both ways.

While climate change denial groups have to resort to patent nonsense such as "carbon dioxide is a fertiliser" to argue against CO2 emissions reductions, I won't believe they have any scientific credibility.

In any case you are making the mistake of believing that it is the scientists pushing the cap-and-trade scheme. They are not because they are well aware that it is a political decision left to politicians. In fact the furthest I have ever heard a scientist go is saying "we need action now" and maybe suggest that an emissions reduction target may be in order, so basically stating the obvious.

Last edited by Spark (2009-11-20 15:38:16)

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

djphetal wrote:

I was specifically referring to the last few posts by myself and yourself. Basically since the "conspiracy" was brought up.

But your right I was fairly dismissive there. Of course there will be a lot of political and economic weight surrounding this, but specifically regarding the accusation of conspiracy and trying to identify a motive for said conspiracy, I don't see how it can go far beyond a desire to reverse the course of global degradation.

Because money is involved. A lot of money. It attracts weasels and wolves like moths to a flame. They get the scent of profit to be made and they'll be all over your little environmental movement in a heartbeat. They'll corrupt it so badly that those of you that actually believe climate change is happening will be sold down the river just like relic merchants preyed on the religiously devout in the middle ages and the way charlatans would sell medicine to hypochondriacs before the FDA was created. Question everything and trust nothing that the government proposes. Pelosi, Obama, Feinstein and all of their cronies stand to make billions of dollars if they can get their climate bills passed through the senate.

There is a fuckload of money to be made on the other side too. That coin falls both ways.

While climate change denial groups have to resort to patent nonsense such as "carbon dioxide is a fertiliser" to argue against CO2 emissions reductions, I won't believe they have any scientific credibility.

When did I deny we as humans have an impact? This entire thread has been an argument against the way politicians and other people (including, yes the very scientists conducting the research) are trying to make a buck off of the climate change hysteria at your expense.

When the tobacco industry was hit with billions of dollars in fines after it lost a major class action lawsuit did it put them out of business? No. It just raised prices on tobacco products. So, who paid the fines levied by the government in the name of the people? The people themselves paid the fines. Government profited.

For the self described atheists in this thread to suddenly believe in what others say is true without conducting the research themselves is mind boggling to me. To bash religious faith and then to accept the dogma of the environmentalists on faith is baffling.

You want to put an end to carbon emissions? Go invent a new form of transportation and new ways to heat homes and new ways to produce electricity. The government getting involved only hurts you, the consumer. It doesn't help you in any way unless you're a hippie living off the grid in the sticks and driving a car that runs on waste oil from a chinese takeout place. Then you can gloat.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-20 15:45:24)

Dilbert_X wrote:

So, who paid the fines levied by the government in the name of the people? The people themselves paid the fines.

They had a choice not to.

Really? You ever tried quitting smoking? Billions of smokers on this planet have failed. You want to be more smug?

djphetal wrote:

It is commonplace for those in a minority, whose opinion cannot be backed by facts or research, to allege mass conspiracy.

Take a deep breath and stop looking over your shoulder. Nobody's gonna kill ya.

The world is not like that. No matter how much you want to believe there is a phantom force of fact-forgers and decision-makers colluding to um... wait what exactly is the point of this conspiracy again?... There is not. It would take nearly universal compliance from every climate scientist in the world. And keep in mind these are quite intelligent people. It is very hard to convince a very large group of very smart people - whose field of expertise is irrefutably humanitarian - to do something so uselessly corrupt and misleading.

Where did I allude that somebody was going to kill me?  However there was that e-mail obtained were the scientists were happy one of their peers that disagreed with them was dead, but whatever.  Start with the OP and answer that one first before you try and paint me as a conspiracy theorist.

But since you want to go there actually Yea... If legit, these emails obtained from yer' buddies show your described similar scenario has happened at a major institute.  One would think that now since this is debunked and we're all not about to catch on fire, this would be good news.  Why try and hide it?  Pride? Denial? Lose yer grants?  Push your own agenda?

As to being the majority?  At one time the majority thought the world was flat too.

djphetal wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

djphetal wrote:

I was specifically referring to the last few posts by myself and yourself. Basically since the "conspiracy" was brought up.

But your right I was fairly dismissive there. Of course there will be a lot of political and economic weight surrounding this, but specifically regarding the accusation of conspiracy and trying to identify a motive for said conspiracy, I don't see how it can go far beyond a desire to reverse the course of global degradation.

Because money is involved. A lot of money. It attracts weasels and wolves like moths to a flame. They get the scent of profit to be made and they'll be all over your little environmental movement in a heartbeat. They'll corrupt it so badly that those of you that actually believe climate change is happening will be sold down the river just like relic merchants preyed on the religiously devout in the middle ages and the way charlatans would sell medicine to hypochondriacs before the FDA was created. Question everything and trust nothing that the government proposes. Pelosi, Obama, Feinstein and all of their cronies stand to make billions of dollars if they can get their climate bills passed through the senate.

Thank you for describing corruption to me. Now apply it to the topic at hand and explain to me where this money is coming from and how exactly it will end up in the scientists' and/or politicians' pockets.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 0#p2896750
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p2896848
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 4#p2896964
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 2#p2897012
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 4#p2897234

There ya go, now you're all caught up.

Dilbert_X wrote:

No the govt changing the balance of advantage from old polluting technology to new clean technology helps the consumer by subsidising the switch and giving the consumer a planet to live on.

Really? I could've sworn that people dictate what they buy, not the government, not the corporations, people. They're the ones that decide that they'd really like to own a car or a computer or a tv. They'd also be the ones that would decide to buy an alternative to these things, or to set up solar panels on their roof or a wind turbine in the backyard. So, you want government to make peoples decisions for them then? Force them to buy green technology and pollute less? I'd sure love to own one of them green technology companies when the government starts forcing people to buy my products.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And equally if you owned a business based on coal or oil you'd be funnelling millions of dollars to the govt to prevent it happening.

Now please explain how you'd like DDT, leaded petrol and CFCs reintroduced so consumers can have more 'freedom'.

No, I'm saying you keep government out of the mess and you run ads telling people the benefits of your product without the need for government subsidies. There's been an ad running on tv lately about an efficient energy star washer/dryer combo that tells you that over the life of the product, the money saved on electricity will pay off the dryer. That's effective advertising. It's also effecting a change. Selling carbon credits and other garbage does nothing but make the people who create the extra layer of beurocracy wealthy.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Thing is the incumbents are getting an effective subsidy now because they are causing damage and not paying the true cost.
There is a wrong way to go about it, like carbon credits.

With the benefit of hindsight do you think the govt should have taxed gasoline to control consumption and stave off the day you'd be dependent on imported oil? Just think, if your cars had averaged 50mpg instead of 15mpg over the last 50 years maybe you wouldn't have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq right now.
The free market isn't always the solution, and bureaucrats get stinking rich off that too BTW.

Sure, if you want massive inflation. Raise the price of fuel and everything becomes more expensive that gets transported via truck... which is everything. It's a good way to make everyone poorer because wages never keep up with inflation.

The market fixes stuff, you just have to have patience and faith in it. People are buying those 50 mpg cars now because fuel costs have risen on their own, or they've become environmentally aware. There has to be demand first before a supply can form.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-20 20:26:02)

Spark wrote:

There is a fuckload of money to be made on the other side too. That coin falls both ways.

While climate change denial groups have to resort to patent nonsense such as "carbon dioxide is a fertiliser" to argue against CO2 emissions reductions, I won't believe they have any scientific credibility.

In any case you are making the mistake of believing that it is the scientists pushing the cap-and-trade scheme. They are not because they are well aware that it is a political decision left to politicians. In fact the furthest I have ever heard a scientist go is saying "we need action now" and maybe suggest that an emissions reduction target may be in order, so basically stating the obvious.

Its true that the coin may drop in both directions but let's look at who is on those sides.

On one side are industrialists who actually produce physical products that we consume. Now they might be fighting because they don't want to upgrade or may be they fear being put out of business when the price of their products are pushed beyond what consumers are willing to pay for them. Their goal is keep their profits and to stay in business.

On the other side are market whizzes, financial gurus, hedge funds, the ultra rich, corrupt politicians etc etc who are pushing carbon credit trade to line their pockets with cash. These guys produce absolutely nothing and their goals is to create an absolutely new market from which to profit. They will be a parasitic drag on the economy, they will be middle men who will work as a bottle neck on the economy and who will skim profit off of productive industries and the consumers that use them.... and that is going to be for everything from electricity to gasoline, to plastics, everything that has carbon in it will be subjected to this skim.



May be you can answer a question or at least speculate... What do you think Al Gore is doing by trying to start up the Chicago Climate exchange, while at the same time he owns a coal fired electric generating plant? Isn't it an odd thing for an environmental crusader to be doing? What are his goals? What is Al Gore doing?


AND Al Gore may not be a scientist, anymore that the tobacco executives, but there were scientists backing those guys up too.
You look at those tobacco guys and you can see how grant money and employment opportunities can affect scientific judgment in a not so subtle ways. All these guys want to do is get published, get tenure, get grant money for traveling, and make wild predictions that may or may not happen after they retire and are dead. I doubt they will give a crap if they are debunked after they are retired and or dead.



BTW I really enjoyed reading http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr … cked#63657
You really get a feeling for how this rotten sausage is being made. Right now people are happy to eat it and think that they are doing something positive by being a believer, but the problem is I don't think people are going to be too happy when the horrible after affects hit them later.... when they are hit with outrageous prices for goods necessary to sustain themselves and they feel they have been scammed. I know because when I think about it now it makes me want to puke.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Sure, if you want massive inflation. Raise the price of fuel and everything becomes more expensive that gets transported via truck... which is everything. It's a good way to make everyone poorer because wages never keep up with inflation.

Nope, put up tax on fuel, reduce tax on something else eg sales tax.
Encourages people to use less fuel, and avoid those products which require a lot of fuel to make them, net inflationary effect zero.
Its worked perfectly in most countries apart from the US for many decades now.

The market fixes stuff, you just have to have patience and faith in it. People are buying those 50 mpg cars now because fuel costs have risen on their own, or they've become environmentally aware. There has to be demand first before a supply can form.

The market is too slow, and consumers too self-centred and poorly educated.
The market did not fix DDT, CFCs or leaded petrol, nor would it have, govt did.
The market won't find solutions to geological timescale problems when the horizon of the average CEO is the next quarter's profits and hence his bonus.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-21 01:01:18)

Harmor wrote:

"Climate Change" is a synonym of "Transfer of Wealth"

K.