BF2S Forums Global cooling? Mini Ice Age? Nowai!

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

IMO the entire GW debate IS the implementation of new governmental revenue streams and the creation of carbon markets. The rest of the debate deflects analysis of those issues. And what is absent from the debate is any discussion on alternatives to more taxes and the creation of a new energy asset bubble all of which will result in artificially higher energy costs that you and I will pay for.  There is absolutely zero debate on those issues. That's the reality of the GW science debate, its a red herring.

People are lazy and are being fed a prepackaged debate based on the "science" and we are being told to take their solutions as a given. So, now I've got figure out a way to generate a profit on all this gullibility... any ideas?

But it's not the entire AGW debate as long as people are denying that humans are having an impact on carbon cycles.  There is one debate - that of AGW.  If and when carbon trading comes up you can bitch and moan all you want about it.  Carbon credit/cap and trade <-- that is the red herring to the AGW 'debate'.  It's another issue altogether.  It may be the only thing you are worried about regarding AGW, but it's not the focus of the debate for most...at least not yet.

@JonG@lt: Have fun purchasing your forest in NH.  Perhaps you could build a lean-to and pound out a manifesto on the ills of a technological society while you're waiting for your investment to pay off.

Now why would I do a silly thing like that? I happen to like our technologically driven capitalistic society thank you very much

What "extreme weather" has there been "globally"? That's a misnomer of epic proportions. Climate change is just fine. It's defensible and not alarmist.

ghettoperson wrote:

I find it amusing that the people who don't 'believe' in global warming trust everything else science tells us.

I also find it amusing that it only seems to be conservatives that disagree with it.

Conservatives are old timers who still use type writers...fucking fools never open up or grow up.

FatherTed wrote:

Seems to me the issue of climate change has become too political; it's touted by one side as global warming, and well because one side says it, the other has to automatically write it off as liberal lies and slander.

pathetic imho.

Well climate-gate revealed that scientists are willing to smudge the numbers for their agenda, whether man-made global warming is true or not. Credibility is in question and honestly a lot of us just want the truth.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

IMO the entire GW debate IS the implementation of new governmental revenue streams and the creation of carbon markets. The rest of the debate deflects analysis of those issues. And what is absent from the debate is any discussion on alternatives to more taxes and the creation of a new energy asset bubble all of which will result in artificially higher energy costs that you and I will pay for.  There is absolutely zero debate on those issues. That's the reality of the GW science debate, its a red herring.

People are lazy and are being fed a prepackaged debate based on the "science" and we are being told to take their solutions as a given. So, now I've got figure out a way to generate a profit on all this gullibility... any ideas?

But it's not the entire AGW debate as long as people are denying that humans are having an impact on carbon cycles.  There is one debate - that of AGW.  If and when carbon trading comes up you can bitch and moan all you want about it.  Carbon credit/cap and trade <-- that is the red herring to the AGW 'debate'.  It's another issue altogether.  It may be the only thing you are worried about regarding AGW, but it's not the focus of the debate for most...at least not yet.

@JonG@lt: Have fun purchasing your forest in NH.  Perhaps you could build a lean-to and pound out a manifesto on the ills of a technological society while you're waiting for your investment to pay off.

No Ken, the GW debate is the red herring and its meant to set up the next asset bubble.
Just like freeing up the mortgage market was meant to get the poor into houses they couldn't really afford was a red herring. What that was about was creating an asset bubble. The same is true of GW. GW science is supposed to save the globe. In reality, we will get another asset bubble. That's the real debate and its better to have that debate now rather than after the this all gets set up.

Turq, it might be paranoia, but I see a pattern here and I really don't like the idea of paying 3 to 5 times the amount for electricity. I see shads of the ERON scam on this one. Fact is that I'm a cynic, and to level to which I am jaded has increased several fold since 2008. And really if people are too dumb to look out for their own welfare on issues like this, I should just join in and make some money too.

Galt, your forest idea is interesting, do you think I could help you set up some carbon credit asset management company where we could run derviatives off of your carbon credits, leverage them up about 50 times, repackage the whole thing into toilet paper CDOs, sell them to the asset group of a coal electric generating station, who will in turn sell the asset to the generating station at a 50% mark up, and which the generating station will happily send along as an increased cost of production to the consumer. Who knows, we might even get a bailout.

Anyway, does everyone see where I'm going with this... I should hope so because if the debate continues to be framed as a scientific one where the GW deniers are shouted down as heretics, then this is what we are going to get very soon. Better to shift the debate to what this is all really about before its too late.

Spark wrote:

Anyway, does everyone see where I'm going with this... I should hope so because if the debate continues to be framed as a scientific one where the GW deniers are shouted down as heretics, then this is what we are going to get very soon. Better to shift the debate to what this is all really about before its too late.

But it is... I think the political debate should be kept separate. The scientists' job is to say that the conditions now are A, if B happens then the result will be C.

It's up to the politicians to pass judgement, assess and then take action - hell, even to take no action at all, just don't try to be a scientist.

Mind you, this rubs both ways. Far too many good scientists have been caught out trying to be politicians. That's probably where many have gone wrong.

How can you seperate the debate? people are saying that the science is 100% correct. That GW is going to cause a catastrophe. GW is being used to push for political action, I say being pushed to create an asset bubble. Seems to me that when this gets to the politicans, they are not going to have much of choice, are they?

So, fine, assume everything the scientists are saying is absolute truth. People should be thinking about what if anything should be done and the sooner these "solutions" are talked about, the better. Before we get some really bad scheme that amounts to nothing more than fleecing our wallets.

Here is some food for thought.
You know that if carbon credit markets are created, there will actually be some incentive to pollute more not less where a company's asset groups can purchase credits, up the price and sell it to the electric generator at a marked up price and they pass it on to the consumer who has no choice but to pay the increased costs. They won't care how much they have to pay for the credits, they will simply mark it up and pass it along to the consumer. There will be no incentive to pollute less because there will be no profit in it.


It really is time for the people who believe in GW to wake up and see how they are being used to implement changes that will do nothing to save them from the GW boogie man. and in that regard, their faith is really being power brokered just like in major religions.