What's the modivation behind "global warming"

[Zebo]

Is it all the money that gets pumped into research and corps who otherwise would be unemployed since they produce nothing?

Is it dragging the first world down to agrarianism like third world with motive as fairness?

Do you believe it? Even if you do, and it's true, can we police the world? Or is it a case of - if we don't use xyz someone else will costing us immediately by not enjoying resource and long term by stagnation.

 

[Zorkorist]

A lot of it is making us feel bad about ourselves.

Feel bad, for feeling good.

-John

 

[Schadenfroh]

Is it all the money that gets pumped into research and corps who otherwise would be unemployed since they produce nothing?

Well, once you latch onto the federal teat, you try your best not to let go. Federal grant money is paying for my graduate education, insurance and salary as it does for many students working on government funded projects as they attend school. Just because it pays the bills does not mean that you are dedicated to "the cause" just for the grant money. But, my research does not involve climate change, so I am certainly not qualified to make judgments on it.

Is it dragging the first world down to agrarianism like third world with motive as fairness?

Some of the more radical legislation would likely cause the US to lose the bulk of the remaining manufacturing jobs, but on the flip side... the removal of all legislation would cause us to be like China. I doubt that either side wants either result, but they do not believe it will happen.

Do you believe it?

Yes, but I doubt that humans are responsible for the bulk of it.

can we police the world?

I doubt it, most developing nations would not be willing to give up their polluting, yet job producing, industries.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

The motivation is data, /thread

 

[Zorkorist]

Data was an android. I hope you know that.

-John

 

[sandorski]

Motivation? For that you'd have to ask GHG's and as far as I know, apparently like Deniers, they have no Conscious Thought capabilities.

 

[Zebo]

The motivation is data, /thread

Fair enough, we can argue about erroneous and selective data all day and true believers like Al Gore consuming 50x average Americans carbon footprint, but would you care to answer the idea about who's first and who polices?

 

[Vic]

Trade protectionism against polluting developing countries like China.

 

[monovillage]

It depends, for some people like Hansen it's a radical environmental agenda, for others like Jones and Mann is money, power and prestige. In all honesty there are some scientists and people that think that CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is well balanced science, but for others it's more a political movement then a scientific hypothesis. Just look at people like sandorski that attempt to use semantics to connote a comparison to people that are skeptical of AGW to Holocaust deniers, for them it's all spin politics plain and simple.

 

[Zebo]

Trade protectionism against polluting developing countries like China.

Interesting...Good one Vic!

 

[drebo]

Is it all the money that gets pumped into research and corps who otherwise would be unemployed since they produce nothing?

Is it dragging the first world down to agrarianism like third world with motive as fairness?

Do you believe it? Even if you do, and it's true, can we police the world? Or is it a case of - if we don't use xyz someone else will costing us immediately by not enjoying resource and long term by stagnation.

Whether the climate is changing for better or worse, no one knows. Current "climate change advocates" are after one thing, though: power. That's all. They're not interested in "saving" the planet. They're not interested in "solving" the "problem." They're after one thing only: power.

With that power, they will push their overwhelmingly liberal adjendas, such as global redistribution of wealth and a further push toward global government. Both of these are not good things.

Additionally, there are those such as Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi who stand to make billions of dollars by pushing government funding and regulation toward so-called "green" energy and "green" jobs. It's all about power and greed.

I personally believe that the climate will change regardless of any policy or behavioral changes we as humans make. Our worlds climates and tides and currents are more influenced by the natural cycles of the sun and the moon than we could ever hope achieve, and I believe we display an arrogance of the highest order by believing we could ever attempt to change such in any kind of meaningful way.

That said, there's no guarantee or proof or even hypothesis that climate change will be a net negative at all. There are many benefits that would go along with slightly higher average global temperatures, and there aren't many real negatives (reports of beachfront property in Kansas are highly exaggerated). Sure, we'd lose some species of life, but we would also see new ones pop up. Isn't Darwinism and evolution some kind of creed among liberals...you know, survival of the fittest? As far as slight warming causing massive drought, famine, war, and death...I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[First]

Yeah, your threads are terrible.

 

[soccerballtux]

Power. It's always power.

 

[soccerballtux]

Yeah, your threads are terrible.

aaaaaaaaaaand this adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. It's not even a thinly veiled political baiting attempt. It's just troll. Learn from Craig234. He's quite good at getting us going

 

[First]

^ I was merely stating fact. The thread itself isn't worth debate any more than conspiracy theorists, evolution deniers, or gold kooks are.

 

[soccerballtux]

it is kinda rant-ish.

 

[daniel49]

Its been raining so much here, I have been thinking about starting a global wetting scare. I have some desert property and could sell photosynthesis credits.

 

[mav451]

DC had 50 and 57 degree days this past week. I'm not gonna go nuts and say "proof!" but I think it's silly to discount all environmental mitigation solutions over politics. The right wing spent so much time discounting alternative energy solutions in the early 90's that until the high gas prices 2 years ago, they finally came around to considering other sources of energy.

So while I'm glad that they flip-flopped (finally), that was nearly a decade with nothing happening. Better late then never I guess.

 

[monovillage]

Except the best alternative we have....nuclear.

 

[bamacre]

"What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. This message must resound throughout the entire Interlink! I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man, woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos. I want everyone to remember why they need us!"

 

[monovillage]

A few articles about James Hansen and his political/advocacy slanted science. He's currently running NASA GISS. He's happy to break the law for eco political reasons, but won't slant the data at GISS?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...uy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/hansen-of-nasa-arrested-in-coal-country/

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Power. It's always power.

Yep, Power, control, and $

 

[yllus]

Is it all the money that gets pumped into research and corps who otherwise would be unemployed since they produce nothing?

According to most of the initial drafts of the Copenhagen Agreement:

18. Parties commit to enable the accelerated large-scale development, transfer and deployment of environmentally sound and climate friendly technologies across all stages of the technology cycle, respecting IPR regimes including protecting the legitimate interests of public and private innovators. Developed country parties commit to work towards doubling aggregate public investments in climate related research, development and demonstration by 2015 from current levels and quadrupling the efforts by 2020.

The initial idea was to have "developed" nations be required to pay 2x to 4x today's research costs.

Is it dragging the first world down to agrarianism like third world with motive as fairness?

There's definitely an element of "technology is sin" at work, but I wouldn't go that far. This is mostly about fleecing the West for cash under the guise of environmentalism.

 

[piasabird]

Free research money for all the cooks with no real jobs.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Except the best alternative we have....nuclear.

Ya right! Nuc-power. We have a world wide supply that will last forty-five years at present consumption and all that supply is imports.