Is/was the ozone hole an alarmist agenda also?

[Robor]

being "alarmist" by itself has no material gain. Advocating control of co2 in ways that dictate every single aspect of human life has huge gains to stalin wannabes.

Just check out the various alarms and solutions and you'll see the broad spectrum of control that is intended to be placed on people. Don't dive a combustion engine, don't use electricity, don't eat meat, etc. You know, when the solution to "climate change" is to control the emissions from cows you know the other side needs to be stopped at all costs.

Controlling cfcs didn't require us going back to the stone age, to control our cows, or for us to stop exhaling the way co2 does.

fud

 

[PokerGuy]

The CFC ban did not involve screwing up the economy and jacking up energy costs to push a radical sierra-nutter agenda.

 

[sandorski]

The CFC ban did not involve screwing up the economy and jacking up energy costs to push a radical sierra-nutter agenda.

At the time you would have thunk so listening to those Opposed.

 

[sao123]

Yes you did, you're arguing that what climate scientists have is something MUCH less than fact, something we're stupid if we pay attention to.

There is NO question about their scientific methodology...climategate is entirely about what scientists said to each other in private conversations. That's not science, even if it's scientists talking. I've looked, and I have yet to find ANYONE actually looking at the data and saying specifically either what was wrong with it, or what was wrong with the analysis.

The personal attacks you're talking about are because you people persist in commenting on scientific concepts you obviously no nothing about, with no scientific backing for your arguments. You invent conspiracy theories and muddy the waters a great deal, but when it comes to actual scientific debate of the facts and theories involved, you have nothing to say. That's irritating, because while you argue that you're just in search of the truth, your methods suggest anything but.

We have peer reviewed scientific evidence...you don't. From my point of view, that pretty much settles it right there, the rest is just noise. My only "religion" here is science, and on that front, you guys have absolutely nothing. Surely if there was some merit to your position, there would be at least a handful of peer reviewed articles, or papers, or anything, supporting it. Instead, it's all OP-ED pieces and blog posts and angry guys on TV. My "side" has it's share of windbags like Al Gore, who wouldn't know science if it knocked on their front door, but that's not ALL we have.

You come up with clever names to call us, and conspiracy theories involving every scientist and scientific publication on the planet, and anti-intellectual bullshit about how people with expertise in a field are elitist if they claim to understand it better than random gomers on the Internet...but you don't have a very good scientific argument. Which is why you NEED to call AGW supporters "believers" and whine that they are calling you "stupid" (I don't really remember saying that, but hey, who am I to argue?).

your wrong... climategate is about scientists who admitted to performing, and instructing other scientists how to FALSIFY & MISREPRESENT DATA to make it fit the desired trends and hide the undesirable ones, then all your peer reviewed studies go out the window, because they dont mean crap.

 

[halik]

Other than billions of dollars being thrown at climate research.

Who has the incentive to fund research that specifically shows the consensus opinion (aka the "alarmist" position)?

 

[rudder]

I've been watching this whole "debate" on global warming from afar and I really don't understand how this became a political issue.

Never let a good crisis go unused. It became a political agenda because it was something that could be used to enact programs that would otherwise be a tough sell. Politicians have been doing this crap for a long time.

 

[BoberFett]

You should be fined for abusiong the word Stalinist so badly.

What's next, anti-smoking laws are Hitlerist? Speed limits are Moaist?

Being Craig is Corkyist?

 

[BoberFett]

Fail.

And who would recognize failure better than you? It must suck to be you.

 

[sandorski]

And who would recognize failure better than you? It must suck to be you.

It certainly does, when there's so much Fail around.

 

[werepossum]

The CFC ban never had a "Government is the only answer, attach a tax is the only option" stigma attached to it. Global warming became a political issue, because somebody decided to make it one.

All roads don't always lead to the IPCC. The Ozone hole could be responsible for recent cooling trends in the Antarctic.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/h...ayer-could-heat-antarctica-20091202-k6e6.html

Nice data set shows ozone healing underway. Notice the lack of data showing present total global man-made production and use of CFC's. (My thought are that it has likely increased in the last 2 decades)

http://cfc.geologist-1011.net/

If we would have used a cap and trade scheme to phase out CFC's The industrialized nations would still be producing and using them, while sending money to developing countries for their allotments,,,,while developing countries continued to produce and use them, with no good documentation, just as they do now.

It really doesn't matter if you believe, or not believe. Regulating Man-made contibutions to climate change, politically,,,,and effectively,... on a global scale is not possible.

This isn't really about climate, it's about moving Western wealth to non-Western nations and cementing government control over every facet of our lives. The people pushing this truly believe that it is not fair for other nations to be so poor, so we need to move manufacturing from Old World/New World countries with clean and efficient energy plants to third world countries with dirty and inefficient energy plants. Even if we end up increasing CO2 production in the name of reducing CO2 production, it's still worth doing for economic justice. In other words, cap and trade will transfer wealth from poor people in rich nations to rich people in poor nations while also giving government a chance to determine winners and losers among industries and even companies. We are headed for a centrally managed, crony capitalism such as the ChiComms enjoy.

 

[sandorski]

This isn't really about climate, it's about moving Western wealth to non-Western nations and cementing government control over every facet of our lives. The people pushing this truly believe that it is not fair for other nations to be so poor, so we need to move manufacturing from Old World/New World countries with clean and efficient energy plants to third world countries with dirty and inefficient energy plants. Even if we end up increasing CO2 production in the name of reducing CO2 production, it's still worth doing for economic justice. In other words, cap and trade will transfer wealth from poor people in rich nations to rich people in poor nations while also giving government a chance to determine winners and losers among industries and even companies. We are headed for a centrally managed, crony capitalism such as the ChiComms enjoy.

Fail

 

[sao123]

This isn't really about climate, it's about moving Western wealth to non-Western nations and cementing government control over every facet of our lives. The people pushing this truly believe that it is not fair for other nations to be so poor, so we need to move manufacturing from Old World/New World countries with clean and efficient energy plants to third world countries with dirty and inefficient energy plants. Even if we end up increasing CO2 production in the name of reducing CO2 production, it's still worth doing for economic justice. In other words, cap and trade will transfer wealth from poor people in rich nations to rich people in poor nations while also giving government a chance to determine winners and losers among industries and even companies. We are headed for a centrally managed, crony capitalism such as the ChiComms enjoy.

this is exaclty what copenhagen is all about. our leaders are morons if they support a single letter of this treaty.

 

[halik]

Never let a good crisis go unused. It became a political agenda because it was something that could be used to enact programs that would otherwise be a tough sell. Politicians have been doing this crap for a long time.

That very well might be, but that still doesn't pay for grants. There's no economical distortion that would create pro-consensus research, however there is enormous economical incentive to produce research to counter the consensus. My whole point is that science has no monetary agenda.

 

[jonks]

I've been watching this whole "debate" on global warming from afar and I really don't understand how this became a political issue.

Coming from Economics background, the only conclusion I can draw is that in the last 20 years companies have learned how to use PR firms and special-interested orgs to manage public option more efficiently. I don't remember the CFCs debacle having anywhere near as much opposition, so there must've been a revolution in public image management. Energy companies and industrial have an obvious economic incentive to spread disinformation and I can't think of anyone that gets the upside for being "alarmist"

Well tobacco had the best people in the business working on the "debate" over the "alleged" health effects of smoking. But in the late 90's the tobacco co's settled with the states ag's and as part of the deal for not getting sued anymore by the states, they agreed to admit tobacco killed people. They knew folks would still smoke, and hey, they were right.

But the settlement freed up all those creative thinkers who had been busy spinning tobacco studies as "inconclusive", etc. So where is a guy who is good with creating false debate in the public sphere when essentially none exists in the scientific community going to find steady work....? aha!

 

[IGBT]

it's a cyclic event just like the seasons. How come the eco-KOOKS don't talk about the earths rotational wobble and it's effects on cooling/warming?? because they can't blame humans for it. it doesn't fit the action lines of their eco-KOOK agenda.