Global warming scam exposed!

[Hiro Protagonist]

1. The basic problem is that if climate change is correct then the only really realistic way to combat it is a world government. And the thought of that doesn't make me giddy with glad feelings.

 

2. Actually, reducing pollution is expensive, and the burden fall heavily on those nations which are still industrialising. Therefore it means prolonging their poverty. Which is a big deal if it's just so we can get in a flap at posh dinner parties.

 

3. Even for those nations which can adjust their pollution status, in the West, it still means spending vast sums of cash on projects which might otherwise go to education or health, or helping the third world, or space travel.

 

I agree with Wals. Especially with point 2. Reducing pollution is incredibly expensive.

 

Here in Australia, if you want to put solar panels on your roof, you're looking at around AU$10,000 plus extra costs to put these on your roof and you'll get about $3500.00 in a one off rebate from the Government on installation. You'll still be out of pocket around $6500.00 and it's been suggested here that it will take about 7 years for the money saved by getting energy from the sun plus yearly rebates to equal the amount of money you would have spent from the electricity grid. So after 7 years, you'll be saving money. The average home owner probably won't do that.

 

To suggest that businesses and consumers will have a choice to reduce thier carbon output is laughable. In many cases both business and consumers don

[Hiro Protagonist]

Oh and the hybrid cars I find laughable when it comes to cost. A brand new Toyota Prius here in Australia costs $44,000.00 but I can buy a Brand new $20,000.00 car and spend around 3 years supply (~ $24,000.00) in petrol and still will probably be cheaper to run before I even drive the Prius out the door.

[Gorgon]

I find it a bit strange that we have a minister for the climate. What does she do all day, fly around to various conventions where people decide they either aren't doing anything, or promise to do too little to have any impact.

 

It seems to me that we have to invest heavily in new energy sources, solar panels aren't going to do it, in the best case scenario they only account for single digits of the whole usage. So, for now, nuclear it is. It's always a chance, but I think we have to take it.

[Moose]

Let's assume climate change doesn't exist - we're still going to have to invest in alternative power. Oil's finite.

[Walsingham]

Mooso, if we survive long enough as an industrialised civilisation to use up all the oil we're doing better than I currently predict. We're simply too fragile as we are. Our eceonomic and industrial systems are capable of enacting change at a pace which far outstrips our political and social mechanisms. And that's before you consider all the organisations intent on wrecking the status quo communists, jifascists, radical greens, foreign powers etc etc. They're all like people fighting on the flight deck of an airliner.

 

IMO the best we can hope for is to spread to other global systems so at least their is a degree of redundancy.

[213374U]

I find it a bit strange that we have a minister for the climate.

That's nothing. We have a Minister for "Equality".

 

 

Let's assume climate change doesn't exist - we're still going to have to invest in alternative power. Oil's finite.

The power problem has a relatively easy solution. Technology exists to make alternative sources possible, and production costs will be the determining factor for change.

 

But look around you - everything is made from oil derivatives. And for that, we don't really have feasible (from an economic pov) alternatives.

[Lare Kikkeli]

I just read today that japanese scientists have made a small amount of plastic using bioengineering with no organic (read: oil) material used. It would be possible to get rid of oil and coal and their derivatives and it wouldn't be horribly expensive considering the crazy amounts used for example warfare, but it would need global cooperation which seems very unlikely.

 

Oh well, the **** won't probably hit the fan until after we're all dead.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[Walsingham]

Oh well, the **** won't probably hit the fan until after we're all dead.

 

Or very shortly before.

[Moose]

Maybe the answer is in recycling.

[Walsingham]

Don't get me wrong. I'm in favour of sensible emissions reductions just on general principle - not to mention neregy security. But I do think that some fanatical drive to destroy polluting is misguided on a purely practical level.

 

One thing which I think gets not nearly enough press is solar-cookers. A solar cooker is like a normal slow cooker. It doesn't use any tech like solar panels. It just uses simple metal reflectors or a focussing lense, plus insulated utensil pot thing. Slow energy in, but very little out. Cheap to make, free to run. Almost removes the need for deforestation in many areas, and also alleviates the poverty induced by fuel shortages. Plus you can use them for boiling water. Obviously it only works in hot countries, but coincidentally that's where they need them most. My uncle had one in Africa and it was great. He used to make bread in it.

[Gorgon]

Mooso, if we survive long enough as an industrialised civilisation to use up all the oil we're doing better than I currently predict. We're simply too fragile as we are. Our eceonomic and industrial systems are capable of enacting change at a pace which far outstrips our political and social mechanisms. And that's before you consider all the organisations intent on wrecking the status quo communists, jifascists, radical greens, foreign powers etc etc. They're all like people fighting on the flight deck of an airliner.

 

IMO the best we can hope for is to spread to other global systems so at least their is a degree of redundancy.

Do you really see those factors as capable of overturning industrial civilization itself. Honestly they are nothing compared to the tests of modernity, Dickensian squalor, Marxists revolutions and war attrition it has already absorbed. Besides, we don't know any other way to be.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Mooso, if we survive long enough as an industrialised civilisation to use up all the oil we're doing better than I currently predict. We're simply too fragile as we are. Our eceonomic and industrial systems are capable of enacting change at a pace which far outstrips our political and social mechanisms. And that's before you consider all the organisations intent on wrecking the status quo communists, jifascists, radical greens, foreign powers etc etc. They're all like people fighting on the flight deck of an airliner.

 

IMO the best we can hope for is to spread to other global systems so at least their is a degree of redundancy.

Do you really see those factors as capable of overturning industrial civilization itself. Honestly they are nothing compared to the tests of modernity, Dickensian squalor, Marxists revolutions and war attrition it has already absorbed. Besides, we don't know any other way to be.

 

Yes I do. To use my favourite quotation from the much missed 11xhooah "Freedom, Peace, and Security are not crapped out of a rainbow". Of course we know other ways to be. Give us one week without power, water, or prepacked ready meals and there would be rioting. Give us three weeks and you'd need martial law. Give us three months and we'd be back to warlords, cavorting druids, and the foreign policy of Judge Hades.

 

Western civilisation is predicating on a bewilderingly complex balancing act, between multiple high energy interdependent systems. To an extent it is self-righting due to the tremendous speed it works at, but you wouldn't need much to make people panic. A fact which LoF won't have missed, hence - I suspect - his user name.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Desperately seeking Global Warming: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,662092,00.html

 

Also the trick explained:

Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/...e_the_fix_is_in

[alanschu]

Tsk tsk climate change people. Tsk tsk.

[kirottu]

Tsk tsk climate change people. Tsk tsk.

 

There

[Wrath of Dagon]

Temperatures fluctuating in different parts of the world is nothing unusual, it's always happened. The point is the actual temperatures are not following the alarmist climate models, on which the whole concept of "Global Warming" is predicated.

[alanschu]

Although is this "that" new? I thought that they had changed to "Climate Change" because it wasn't necessarily "Global Warming."

 

I have always been rather skeptical of it personally.

[Purkake]

Climate change skeptics unite!

[alanschu]

Haha, my skepticism doesn't have me being dismissive either though

[Gorgon]

Point of order.

 

I seem to detect that some people believe global warming isn't happening, it most certainly is. The polar ice caps are melting, you don't need to be an insider in the climate cadre to establish that. If this turns out to be a case of duking the stats for political motivations that would seriously undermine their credibility, but you are taking the conclusion too far here.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Gorgon

[Wrath of Dagon]

To the extent they are melting, which is also not established, that would be local temperature fluctuations, not "global". The global temperature has been stable for over a decade. The problem is the so-called evidence for global warming is always being played up, while evidence to the contrary is suppressed, both by the biased scientists and their allies in the media.

[kirottu]

Wait, you

[alanschu]

Point of order.

 

I seem to detect that some people believe global warming isn't happening, it most certainly is. The polar ice caps are melting, you don't need to be an insider in the climate cadre to establish that. If this turns out to be a case of duking the stats for political motivations that would seriously undermine their credibility, but you are taking the conclusion too far here.

 

 

My skepticism is regarding any causes for change in climate.

[213374U]

Local extremum and dynamic equilibrium are nice concepts to understand, among others, before pontificating about this like some folks do. Not to mention making predictions.

 

 

The polar ice caps are melting, you don't need to be an insider in the climate cadre to establish that.

Um, but you do. And even then, you should be careful. Because, apparently, "melting" is misleading - some areas are melting, and in some others, the ice is becoming thicker.

[Gorgon]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...1023esuice.html

 

 

 

The trend is well documented, now I can't be arsed arguing about it, just saying, it's not really contested.