The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
|
Where the Real Money in Global Warming is
|
|
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/20...-money.php
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/07/on-global-warming-follow-the-money.php'>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/07/on-global-warming-follow-the-money.php</a> I'll take a hard look at those numbers a little bit later. Anyways, Fred Singer is a loon. What you posted is good example of how the deniers spend their money. That quote (with its poor syntax and misspellings) is credited to segment on some stupid website which is clearly just a vehicle for misinformation. <a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%26_Environmental_Policy_Project'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%26_Environmental_Policy_Project</a> But I will take a look at those numbers given that they are accurate. It will be interesting to see how much is spent on lobbying in comparison.
Quote:I'll take a hard look at those numbers a little bit later. I spoke with Fred Singer, worked with his postdoc, and he was anything but a loon. He was a highly respected solar physicist, one of the top people (maybe the very top) in his field in the 1980s. So take your ad homs elsewhere. As far as loons go, trying to milk the global warming scare after 17 years of flat temperatures, lower numbers of hurricanes and tornadoes, and record low temperatures in the US, is truly insanity (or criminality, take your pick). "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?" We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
To be honest, people are going to believe whatever scientists agree with what they happen to agree with.
Personally I find it difficult to find credible a man who's organization claims Global Warming is a myth that receives all kinds of funds from Exxon-Mobil, Shell, and other gas companies. I'm sure the other side will make the claim that scientists in support of global warming are getting funding from groups that would benefit. And I'm sure that's true. However, Singer was also a mouth piece for the tobacco industry, which makes it harder for me to believe what he says. Especially when he made the claim that second hand smoke was not dangerous to human health. I'm not sure the claims of 15 years of flat temperatures truly stands up to scrutiny or not. What I don't get is why your average person wants to believe that Global Warming isn't real so badly. A switch to a renewable energy source would be a good thing for so many reasons. Including the jobs that it creates, as well as the lower prices. Reliance on foreign oil, and oil at all is a problem, regardless of whether you believe in Global Warming or not. A more efficient source of energy would serve the average person in so many ways.
I was wrong about Trent Baalke.
Quote:To be honest, people are going to believe whatever scientists agree with what they happen to agree with. The 15 years thing doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Like most things coming out of a Republican's mouth it can be viewed as either misleading or a flat-out lie. What the 15 year thing is about is selective data points. 1998 was an exceptionally hot year and stands out from its surrounding sample points on a chart. Here's an analysis with the charts. http://grist.org/article/global-warming-...d-in-1998/ Anyone who doesn't understand climate and statistics comes away saying, "SEE, THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING, IT'S ALL A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY, FOLLOW THE MONEY." (I'm still not sure what huge monied interest there is on the side of the 97%+ of scientists who accept the theories of anthropogenic climate change, but it's certainly easy to see the ones that are against it, namely the fossil fuel industry) For those of us with a bit stronger education in mathematics there's a clear and frightening trend that can't be ignored. Quote:I spoke with Fred Singer, worked with his postdoc, and he was anything but a loon. He was a highly respected solar physicist, one of the top people (maybe the very top) in his field in the 1980s. So take your ad homs elsewhere.They don't call it global warming anymore because it no longer fits their insane agenda. They had to switch to something else in order to save face and not get laughed off the public stage.
What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
Quote:The 15 years thing doesn't stand up to scrutiny. First off, the fossil fuel industry money is insignificant compared to BIG government. You know, money taken by force from hard working people to give to cronies? Secondly, even limiting it to the fossil fuel industry, they have given more money to the believers than they have to the skeptics. As far as selective data points, don't believe the lies from the Climastrologers living off of money taken by force from hard working people. The start date wasn't selected. September 2014, the month of the last published measurement, is the only data point 'selected.' The analysis then goes backwards to find the earliest date where the temperatures have been flat. For the RSS satellite measurements (satellite measurements are the only really global measurements) that start date is August 1996. In the RSS data there has been no GLOBAL warming for over 18 years. The other data sets are shorter, but still over a decade, and 15 years is the average of them. Every one of 53 models (funded by money taken by force from hard-working citizens) has failed to predict this. With a (slightly) warmer climate there have been fewer tropical cyclones and fewer tornadoes. The US is now in the longest period in history without a cat 3 or higher hurricane making landfall, with no end in sight. The extra CO2 has boosted plant growth, including food production and greening at the edges of the Sahara. Truly CO2 has been a boon to the planet. Why would you want to go back to the 1970s climate? I remember the 1970s. It was cold and miserable. "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?" We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
Quote:What I don't get is why your average person wants to believe that Global Warming isn't real so badly. A switch to a renewable energy source would be a good thing for so many reasons. Including the jobs that it creates, as well as the lower prices. Reliance on foreign oil, and oil at all is a problem, regardless of whether you believe in Global Warming or not. A more efficient source of energy would serve the average person in so many ways. First off, so-called renewable energy is not really renewable. Solar panels have to be replaced every 15 years, and maintained regularly. Windmills are just as bad; try finding a working windmill over 10 years old that hasn't essentially been completely rebuilt. http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/04/weed-...years-old/ Solar and wind are also costly, from 2-4 times the cost of coal (even worse compared to natural gas). And that doesn't even include the fact that because they are intermittent they have to be backed up by normal (fossil fuel) plants running at at least half-power continuously. They are also more damaging to the environment. Google Chinese Neodymium Mining.' Neodymium is necessary for the magnets in the windmill generators. And windmills kill endangered eagles and bats. In the US there is only one legal way to kill a bald eagle, by using a windmill. While foreign oil is a valid concern, oil is not even a consideration in this discussion. 'Renewables' do not replace oil. You can't drive a car on solar or wind power. You can use them to recharge an electric ($50K or more) car but the energy density of batteries is far below that of gasoline, and solar is useless if you want to recharge at night. I'm all for research in improved battery technology, but let's not waste money taken by force from hard working people on electric cars until the battery problem is solved first. While we're on the topic of foreign oil imports, the Department of Energy was created in the late '70s with one goal, to make the US self sufficient in energy. After 35 years of failure, isn't it time to close it down? "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
There are more options than just Solar and Wind (and cutting down on reliance on Oil is a good idea in the first place)
Thorium is an example. It's abundant, cleaner, and safer, as well as efficient. If they can get it to work as a fuel, then it would greatly reduce the need for gasoline. The government is already taking our money for far less worthy causes than battery powered cars (or cars such as the Tesla, which released it's hold on it's patent as well). They spend a lot of money on Jets that they don't need (or want). They spend money to train foreign prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job. They have unused properties that they have to pay maintenance on. They spend billions on corporate welfare. I'm far more concerned about that money being spent, than on anything else that might actually be beneficial.
I was wrong about Trent Baalke.
I'm pretty sure climate change has been going on since Earth came into existence. Just putting that out there.
Quote:There are more options than just Solar and Wind (and cutting down on reliance on Oil is a good idea in the first place) I agree with most of this. Thorium is abundant, and it can't be used for bomb making. Development of a thorium-based reactor would be money much better spent. But it's not 'renewable.' Gasoline can be made from coal or natural gas , and the US has plenty of both. It's expensive, but not as expensive as $100 per barrel oil. Cheap gasoline and cheap electricity both greatly benefit the economy. I also agree that there's worse waste in government than on battery powered cars (I pointed out the Dept of Energy for one), but all waste is bad, and none should be tolerated. Subsidizing the purchase of electric cars is subsidizing the rich, since electric cars are beyond the price range of almost everyone. That tax the laborers to benefit the rich program very similar to the rest of the cronyism that is rampant in government. "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?" We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
The problem is that the most obvious waste -- nobody is trying to get the government to make those cuts. You never hear politicians talk about cutting spending on airplanes that the pentagon doesn't want or need. Or selling off properties that the government owns, maintains, but does nothing with. You only hear about cuts to the environment, healthcare, and other major programs. Money that at least sounds like it's doing something, even if it isn't.
I was wrong about Trent Baalke.
Quote:I'm pretty sure climate change has been going on since Earth came into existence. Just putting that out there. Just gonna leave this here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU Quote:Just gonna leave this here...LOL! You solved it with Youtube. Nobel prize for you..... Try again.
What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
Quote:Just gonna leave this here... Very interesting. Thanks. We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today! Quote:LOL! That guy has a PhD in Physics. The only thing I could possibly imagine you having a PhD in is willful ignorance. I've witnessed you posting an actual attempt at refutation exactly 0 times on this board. Try it sometime, maybe other people will actually respect you enough to have a decent conversation.
Quote:Just gonna leave this here...I think my husband emits quite a bit more than that when I make chili. Lol
Quote:That guy has a PhD in Physics. The only thing I could possibly imagine you having a PhD in is willful ignorance. I've witnessed you posting an actual attempt at refutation exactly 0 times on this board. Try it sometime, maybe other people will actually respect you enough to have a decent conversation. I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on the subject matter, but having a PhD in Physics doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about here. He's using data given to him to form an opinion. He's doing exactly what the opposing position is doing with the information given to them. MalabarJag made a good point earlier and no one addressed it. There are problems and inconsistencies with the studies on both sides. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.