What Do We Think About Climate Change

That part about GMO's makes them sound like lobbyist for monsanto. Probably the most powerful entity in the world. They have effectively monopolized the seed market around the entire world. He who controls the food controls the world.

 

So I hate mankind because I feel empathy for mother earth? Maybe I simply choose not participate in modern man's megalomania.

I have found the only way to reach mother earth haters is to speak to them down on their level. Do not mention the environment at anytime, only speak of saving jobs or creating jobs. And let them know If they do it this way they can get those gosh darn greenies off their back. Dont ya know

 

Well, they're definitely pro-big business. Look at who they defend: health insurance companies, tobacco companies, oil companies, Monsanto, etc. And look at their drivel about "free-market" solutions."

 

`actually I did not exaggerate at all, There is a picture posted in this thread somewhere of the tin shed I am speaking of and its got the two founders of the so called institute ( which has no students by the way ) where they warehoused and had there offices, If they recieved enough money from the oil and gas industry to move into an office building somewhere its news to me

given enough time I will eventually find that picture again however a significant component of that effort is the direct relationship between the amount of time I spend digging it up for you and whether it would make any difference at all in your believing the lies spread by the so called institute

once again it kinda looks like the deniers are asking that things that have been shown before be shown again, over and over

its another sad ploy to waist valuable time with one denier rather than educating hundreds of curious people
specially in the face of the BP handling of the gulf crisis ( lies lies and more lies )

 

I didn't say they pass themselves off as a scientific organization; I pointed out that climate change deniers habitually quote them as though they're some sort of scientific authority on global warming.

You yourself were just carrying on about the Heartland Institute "...having academic associates across the country in some of our country's leading universities," as though it gives their propaganda some sort of scientific sheen.

Eddy, that's as bad as people quoting Al Gore as scientific proof for their position...

 

Sheepy said that 30 years ago the "experts" predicted that sea level would rise several meters by now. Based on your comment above you agree with Sheepy 100%. Therefore, you also agree that the experts predicted that sea level would rise several meters by now. Since the "experts" made no such claim then you, along with Sheepy, are guilty of fraudulent (or at the very least grossly false and negligent) attribution of a position which the experts never took.

 

If I said they said it, they said it. If you want to see a liar polish your screen and turn it off.

 

Troy it is with genuine brotherly love that I invite you to kiss my onager.

 

Alan, I find your reaction on this matter uncalled for.

In the last 50 years there have been predictions and claims about weather, rainfall, temperatures, sea levels volcanic activity, tornados, aliens, life on mars, of all possible descriptions. Predictions of any kind including sea level rising can be found if you have the inclination to look for them, in newspaper archives.
Those making the predictions invariably anoint themselves to the level of experts, just like the modern day alarmist declare to be experts. Of course most likely neither are experts at nothing else but jumping on the bandwagon of public need of some hysterical quest and try to make something of it.

Your reaction and posts on this matter are childish, unnecessary and unproductive even to your cherished yet misguided quest.

I suggest you use some humour or other forms of more socialy acceptable methods to engage with others who happen to disagree with your opinions or choice of sources.

 

Actually Troy, when I could probably come up with a longer list than yours on institutions individuals governments and universities who have committed fraud and misused public funds to the tune of 100 times over or may be 1000 times over what the realist camp has done, you have missed my point.

I noticed in Alan's posts (he called his opinion), that the fact that a business is making money from selling fuel, automatically makes that business dirty corrupt and undesirable. It is this sort of unrealistic mentality that fuels the global warming alarmist. Coal is bad, Oil is bad, darling where is the key to the car? Have you switched the heating on? it's cold....

Our newspapers run stories of ****** picketing coal mining companies or trying to stop a new coal mine to open, and in the same sentence they say they will stop XYZ number of tons of CO2 to be pumped in the atmosphere.
Any person of average intelligence knows that CO2 ( let's just accept for a second that this is actually harmful) is directly proportional to the use of energy and not to the mining of fuel. And before anyone gets any ideas to organise a picket in front of an electricity generator, think again. If you switch off the grid, CO2 drops, so it is not the BAD oil companies, not the BAD coal companies but us the consumer should change habits, sell the car and the TV, disconnect from the grid, live in a cave and eat raw vegetables. Stopping a coal mine from opening, only shifts the revenue from selling coal to generate energy to a chinese company or a russian one.

Demonising successful companies and stating that they make billions or trillions of dollars as if the only mention of those figures is enough for everyone to nod gravely and instantly agree that such is a synonym of corruption and deceit, is just so childish I would have to write anther 5 paragraph extra just to describe it properly.

The root of making such instant connection between millions = evil is very common and the subject of many studies into human values and beliefs. I happen to have some interest in such studies and tend to recognise the symptoms easier than most.

 

Actually Troy, when I could probably come up with a longer list than yours on institutions individuals governments and universities who have committed fraud and misused public funds to the tune of 100 times over of may be 1000 times over what the realist camp has done, you have missed my point.

I noticed in Alan's posts (he called his opinion), that the fact that a business is making money from selling fuel, automatically makes that business dirty corrupt and undesirable. It is this sort of unrealistic mentality that fuels the global warming alarmist. Coal is bad, Oil is bad, darling where is the key to the car? Have you switched the heating on? it's cold....

The comparison with tobacco industries when handy in your case, it is not accurate. Electricity or fuel is not an addictive drug, but a necessity just like food or clothes. There is nothing stopping researchers from finding new sources of energy but technology challenges themselves. The alternative sources of energy that we found a long time ago, that is nuclear, is not progressing because the greens are stopping it not the oil/coal companies. An I dare to say that the enthusiasm at solar and wind and bio fuel and the rest of the ******** comes not from their alleged cleanliness but from their miserable mediocrity and inefficiencies. Oh yes, greens love the fool and the mediocre, lets all live on a hobby farm, make our own straw hats and fertilise the tomato with the baby's diapers....and for goodness sake don't make any money ever. There is social security for that, paid by those BAD companies who actually pay taxes.

Our newspapers run stories of ****** picketing coal mining companies or trying to stop a new coal mine to open, and in the same sentence they say they will stop XYZ number of tons of CO2 to be pumped in the atmosphere.
Any person of average intelligence knows that CO2 ( let's just accept for a second that this is actually harmful) is directly proportional to the use of energy and not to the mining of fuel. And before anyone gets any ideas to organise a picket in front of an electricity generator, think again. If you switch off the grid, CO2 drops, so it is not the BAD oil companies, not the BAD coal companies but us the consumer should change habits, sell the car and the TV, disconnect from the grid, live in a cave and eat raw vegetables.

Demonising successful companies and stating that they make billions or trillions of dollars as if the only mention of those figures is enough for everyone to nod gravely and instantly agree that such is a synonym of corruption and deceit, is just so childish I would have to write anther 5 paragraph extra just to describe it properly.

The root of making such instant connection between millions = evil is very common and the subject of many studies into human values and beliefs. I happen to have some interest in such studies and tend to recognise the symptoms easier than most.

 

'And thou'rt another' is but a poor defense for a knave.

Marco, the fact that others may also have done something wrong doesn't make it right.

You somehow managed to 'notice' something that isn't there. Alan did not say that making money from selling fuel automatically makes a business dirty, corrupt and undesirable.

I didn't compare the products of the tobacco industry with the products of energy industries. I compared their disengenuous actions in the arena of public opinion, against scientific evidence they consider a danger to profits. Both industries hired the Heartland Institute (and others like them, such as the Oregon Institute) to deliberately mislead government officials, politicians and the general public.

Standard rant; needs no response.

You're attacking a straw man. No one here has suggested we shut off the grid and go live in a cave. And we have an infinite range of possible actions between doing that, or doing nothing at all.

Another generic rant, attacking yet another straw man. No one here has said that simply making a profit proves a company is corrupt and deceitful.

But making a profit doesn't prove a company is pure, upright and favored by God, either.

 

Do you understand the difference between a recognized expert, and a self-proclaimed expert?

Despite what Sheepy claims, thirty years ago no generally recognized experts were predicting the sea would rise several meters and inundate the coastlines. Such nonsense may have popped up in newspapers and popular magazines, just like the claims of an impending ice age did. But sensational journalism is hardly the same thing as expert prediction.

Sheepy obviously pulled that one straight out of his butt; I'm not sure why you and Hoyt are defending it so strenously. Particularly since the last time I checked, you were both claiming the experts had been predicting an ice age instead. Ice ages don't flood the coast....

 

Sorry, Hoyt. I only kiss cute ones.

 

Oh come on Troy, tell me who has the most self proclaimed experts? I think that the warming camp has such an army of self proclaimed experts that it dwarfs any other possible group put together, by millions.

However I put forward one debatable point that you did not take up.
Lets assume for the sake of the argument that Man made CO2 is actually harmfull and that we must do something about it.

There are a lot of people who think so and that "we must do something"
However the "we" is always someone else. Usually the bad oil/coal industry, the government, the mining giants etc. but the only people who are directly responsible for man made CO2 emissions are the consumers, that is me and you.
Yet all you hear is the demonisation of fuel and energy producers and no one actually switching off anything at all. If you listen to the greens, it is all the others that must switch off, and possibly die as well so that they can enjoy a scarce populated planet and crank up the air conditioning without feeling guilty.

See, despite knowing for a fact that there is no harm in man made CO2 in the foreseeable future, I have actually installed a solar hot water heater and a 2.5 KW/H electricity system on my roof.

Why you say? Simple business sense. I had to replace my hot water system anyway at a cost of $1000. I opted to get a solar hot water heater at the cost of $4500, that after several state and federal government rebates (all perfectly genuine mind you) came to cost me $1000. My hot water electricity bill has now gone from $50 a quarter down to zero. Do I need to save $50 a quarter? Not for a minute yet at no extra cost, I have done the logical thing. My exercise has cost the government $3500 plus loss of $50 a quarter to the power company. Made the manufacturer richer and done nothing at all for the environment after you take the energy used to produce the whole shebang.

Electricity solar panels. Our (smart labour) government has announced an Emission Trading Scheme (no it is not a choice to bottle our own farts) but does not have the numbers to pass it yet the electricity company who are not idiots, have increased the cost of power supply by 22% in one go and announced 60% increase in the next 2 to 3 years to compensate for the devastating effect of an ETS. They probably had a 5 minutes board meeting and said unanimously NOW OR NEVER, IDIOTS LIKE THIS GOVERNMENT WILL COME ONLY ONCE IN 100 YEARS.

When the ETS did not eventuate and was abandoned, they said they reduced the predictions to 40%. Can you imagine anyone on this planet getting away with that, short of Cuba Haiti or Zimbabwe? No right?
Well they did because no one stopped them. The dearer the electricity the better you see, less CO2! The fact that business use electricity too seems to be too far fetched for them.

So the government has come up with the following hair brained idea. THEY will pay us 62 cent per kilowatt and buy ALL we can produce via a special meter they supply free of charge.... and bill us for what we use at $18 cent. Furthermore THEY will subsidise the installation of panels at a cost of $15,000 each and I have to pay $4000. Of course the cost of the system is barely $5000 all up but the subsidies have tripled the price straight away.
So I now have a panel, courtesy of Mr Kevin Rudd that gets me $2000 a year back from my $3000 electricity bill and will be paid off in two years from my side and I have a 7 years contract to get me some nice earnings.
Do I need that money?
No,
Have I done anything for the environment?
No. I have made the solar panels company rich, got the government into a very large debt and done absolutely nothing for the environment since this panels have a relatively short life and need replacing at a once again large energy cost. The only reason I got it is because I think it is unjust I have to subsidise the one that have panels by paying inflated prices.

This "schemes" exist only because governments around the world know they collect votes for re-election from those dumb enough to believe this is the solution to our fossil fuel problems. Not that they don't know that the current easy solution particularly for us who have the largest reserves of Uranium in the world is nuclear. We also have vast reserves of natural gas yet we choose to sell it to China for a fraction of the price we would get if we pump it into our own cars and give the middle east the finger.

Not all is what appears to be.

Anyway it does not matter what you or me think, this is the downside of democracy. Mayority rules.
Did you try to make the ricotta cake?