• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Why are people who take the scientific view of AGW accused of...


Húrin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
415
...wanting to centralise the government of the world?

Why do those who deny AGW theory confuse science with politics?

Does it ever occur to them that people can agree about the science but disagree about policy responses?

My opinion is that the hardline deniers (not the same as sceptics mind you) are trying to force reality to fit their narrative that AGW is trying to be the new communism, centralising political power into a world government state.

Those who do not agree with such policies are ignored because they are inconvenient, just as the science itself is ignored in favour of ideology.
 


'orebel

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
20,532
Why not stick this in the climate change thread and stop clogging the homepage with this tripe?
 

cheg2010

Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
29
...wanting to centralise the government of the world?

Why do those who deny AGW theory confuse science with politics?

Does it ever occur to them that people can agree about the science but disagree about policy responses?

My opinion is that the hardline deniers (not the same as sceptics mind you) are trying to force reality to fit their narrative that AGW is trying to be the new communism, centralising political power into a world government state.

Those who do not agree with such policies are ignored because they are inconvenient, just as the science itself is ignored in favour of ideology.
A direct tax on people of the world:
The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet.

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

31,487 American scientists have signed a petition rejecting AGW.
John Coleman is an American TV weatherman, noted for founding The Weather Channel. He described the current concern over global warming as "a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam." . In 2008, Coleman gave a speech before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, blaming the global warming scam and environmentalist lobby, for rising gas and food prices.
Cap and trade could cost families $1,761 a year

Cap and trade--or emissions trading--is an approach to reducing pollutants by offering companies financial incentives to clean up their acts. The current bill focuses specifically on reducing greenhouse gases linked to climate change.

One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill could be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family.

Commentary: Cap and trade could cost families $1,761 a year | Politics and Law - CNET News

Coleman has also declared the scam "a threat to our economy and our civilization." Coleman recently published an article entitled "The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam" in which he describes how many scientists and politicians have been embroiled in fraudulent activity based on incomplete science and a political motive for a world government. In January, 2010, Coleman produced a special report entitled Global Warming: The Other Side, in which he forwards evidence of a deliberate manipulation of world temperature data by NASA and others.

Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?

You have to be careful when talking about “One World Government.” Sooner than you can say “Bilderberg”, you’ll find yourself bracketed with all the crazies.. Lord Monckton believes that climate change hysteria is being exploited by the green liberal left – to usher in a form of one world government. ''the evidence of this was in a draft treaty, due to be signed off by world leaders at this December’s Copenhagen climate change conference.''

Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government? – Telegraph Blogs
 

Húrin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
415
Why not stick this in the climate change thread and stop clogging the homepage with this tripe?
Because it is not a climate science thread.

A direct tax on people of the world:
The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet.

*copied and pasted*
Do you have any opinions of your own?
 

cheg2010

Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
29
Yes i do, i base them on my knowledge of the world and i have been convinced agw is a fraud pushed for an agenda.. The consensus has been bought and paid for. There is mass opposition from independent scientists. A good indication is the attacking of the opposition - usually when that happens - is a give away as to who's in the right. It has become a world government contract.. how lovely a present for our current economic conditions would carbon taxes be??? Oh thats just one effort in the all out attack on the world economy...
 

'orebel

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
20,532

PAD1OH

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
2,752
Yes i do, i base them on my knowledge of the world and i have been convinced agw is a fraud pushed for an agenda.. The consensus has been bought and paid for. There is mass opposition from independent scientists. A good indication is the attacking of the opposition - usually when that happens - is a give away as to who's in the right. It has become a world government contract.. how lovely a present for our current economic conditions would carbon taxes be??? Oh thats just one effort in the all out attack on the world economy...
what were the key bits of evidence that convinced you of this?

I'd like to read it.
 

Nermal

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,327
The reason you see this is a descending set of assumptions:

a - the earth is warming in the past few decades
b - human activity is primarily responsible
c - this will soon result in catastophic consequences
d - the best way to avoid these consequences is reduction of carbon emissions
e - the cost of solution (d) is exceeded by the cost of doing nothing to stop the consequences in (c)
f - the benefits of the spend involved in doing (d) to stop (c) exceed those gained from all other ways of spending the same resources

Now (a) and (b) simply seem to be contentions of fact, and no matter if you disagree with them or not the fact is the vast majority of experts do.

(c) is far more questionable - environmentalists have routinely greatly exaggerated the likely impact, cost and timescale of climate change.

(d) & (e) & (f) are most definitely up for discussion. There are many ways to control climate. Cutting carbon emissions is only one and is an extraordinarily expensive one. It has never been shown the cost of doing so will outweigh the costs of climate change. There are certainly plenty of other ways of spending the same money to achieve other benefits for mankind, are we certain that cutting carbon beats them?

So when I see a person jump from accepting (a) & (b) to immediately assuming (c), (d), (e) and (f), I figure they've either got a vested interest or they simply haven't thought the matter through.
 

PAD1OH

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
2,752
The reason you see this is a descending set of assumptions:

a - the earth is warming in the past few decades
b - human activity is primarily responsible
c - this will soon result in catastophic consequences
d - the best way to avoid these consequences is reduction of carbon emissions
e - the cost of solution (d) is exceeded by the cost of doing nothing to stop the consequences in (c)
f - the benefits of the spend involved in doing (d) to stop (c) exceed those gained from all other ways of spending the same resources

Now (a) and (b) simply seem to be contentions of fact, and no matter if you disagree with them or not the fact is the vast majority of experts do.

(c) is far more questionable - environmentalists have routinely greatly exaggerated the likely impact, cost and timescale of climate change.

(d) & (e) & (f) are most definitely up for discussion. There are many ways to control climate. Cutting carbon emissions is only one and is an extraordinarily expensive one. It has never been shown the cost of doing so will outweigh the costs of climate change. There are certainly plenty of other ways of spending the same money to achieve other benefits for mankind, are we certain that cutting carbon beats them?

So when I see a person jump from accepting (a) & (b) to immediately assuming (c), (d), (e) and (f), I figure they've either got a vested interest or they simply haven't thought the matter through.
I'd like to be clear on a few things..

when you say "experts" who do you mean exactly and where does it show the "majority" disagree?

What has the claims by "environmentalists" (whatever that means) got to do with the policy/science of climate change?

"It has never been shown the cost of doing so will outweigh the costs of climate change."

stern report - [ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury


there is nothing in your thought exercise that shows me why you assume that a reduction of carbon emissions amounts to a vested interest any more so than a call to keep emitting carbon (i.e. oil, coal etc) is driven by a vested interest?
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
44,349
why not stick this in the climate change thread and stop clogging the homepage with this tripe?
+ 100000000000000000.
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,908
Because natural market forces would move to cheaper renewable energy equilibrium quicker than contrived technocratic interventionalists acting as a negative market externality, by using fossil fuels to develop the capital materials involved in renewable energy technology.

Because there are many influences on climate change, manmade AGW is a minor endogenous factor, solar variance is a huge exogeneous factor.

The science has been politicised and shadowy and instruments such as Carbon Tax, Cap and Trade and Carbon trading derivatives are a deadweight loss to our total welfare.
 

Akrasia

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
1,128
...wanting to centralise the government of the world?

Why do those who deny AGW theory confuse science with politics?

Does it ever occur to them that people can agree about the science but disagree about policy responses?

My opinion is that the hardline deniers (not the same as sceptics mind you) are trying to force reality to fit their narrative that AGW is trying to be the new communism, centralising political power into a world government state.

Those who do not agree with such policies are ignored because they are inconvenient, just as the science itself is ignored in favour of ideology.
When your only tool is a hammer, all the problems start to look like nails.

The hardcore denialists are like every other kind of fundamentalist, they filter everything through their narrow world view. It's no different to christian fundamentalists blaming homosexuals or other assorted 'godlessness' in New Orleans for causing the Hurricane, no explanation that leaves out god is acceptable to them, similarly the climate change denialists are usually NWO conspiracy theoriests or Market fundamentalists, (or both) so anything that happens has to be explainable by conspiracy or niche versions of capitalism, and anything that doesn't fit into those categories is forced to fit through denying the facts in favour of fantasy.
 

kerdasi amaq

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,685
"Global warming" is a "global" problem and needs a "global" government to deal with it. That is the essence of the global warming CON.

Ireland should be allowed to increase it emissions by a factor of 5. It is absolute incompetence by the government to agree to cut Ireland's CO2 emissions.
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,908
I don't understand your use fo the word externality here. can you explain it?
Taxes and cap and trade when they are not required, increasing the costs for both consumers and producers and reducing total welfare. A deadweight loss on society.
 

Akrasia

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
1,128
Cs's definition of externality above above looks like a bunch of mutterings from a derranged person.

CS's faith in the free market to introduce renewable energy fast enough to prevent the worst impacts of global warming is irrational, seeing as the future costs of global warming are not built into the commercial decisions of any of the actors in the current energy market unless they are forced to be accounted for through taxation or regulation

CS is using her own unique definition of Externality in order to avoid facing the reality that her markets have no mechanism to deal with externalities without introducing regulation or government intervention.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,625
Website
www.google.com
...wanting to centralise the government of the world?

Why do those who deny AGW theory confuse science with politics?

Does it ever occur to them that people can agree about the science but disagree about policy responses?
One of the problems is that some of those who are noisiest in the field appear to bundle up the causation, effects , with possible responses - and claim all is scientifically settled

They keep tritely referring to an overarching "consensus" , which in fact does not exist

Also "scientists" such as Pauchauri, strayed far to far into the policy field, and oft had the temerity to refer to such as science (e.g. the "two degrees target")

People seem to forget that there are 4 big questions:

  1. To what extent is climate change occurring ?
  2. To what extent might it be man made ?
  3. What will be the effects (good & bad) of climate change ?
  4. What mitigations can be undertaken re the bad effects ?

Many folk on these boards claim the mythical "scientific consensus" : they are either lying through their holes - or else rather dim, not merely is there no academic consensus on 3 & 4 : fields other than the natural sciences , such as say economics, are vital to analysing those areas

cYp
 

Akrasia

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
1,128
The scientific consensus that we refer to is the overwhelming consensus of expert opinion that global warming is happening and it is in our best interests to do something about it.

Where there is debate, is in the details of how much, how fast, and what measures to take. This is legitimate debate that uses scientific and rational methodology, and it in no way detracts from the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus that we need to tackle global warming. (it's like saying a 'debate' about tactics for playing in the world cup takes away from the consensus that the primary aim of each team is to score more goals than the other side)

When denialists claim there is no consensus, they are just doing what denialists always do as their first strategy is to create doubt and uncertainty where it is not legitimate to do so
 

bogmanjoe

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
98
From the EPA framework document for the up-coming CC bill.

6.1 Co-ordination of activities in implementing the National Climate Change Strategy 2007-
2012 is carried out under the auspices of a specially established Cabinet Committee on
Climate Change and Energy Security which in turn is assisted by a Senior Officials
Group drawn from the key relevant Government Departments and State agencies.
6.2 The Senior Officials Group is tasked with addressing the challenges posed to Ireland in
achieving its greenhouse gas emissions targets and informing and implementing policy
in this regard, while a separate Technical Advisory Steering Group, which includes
representatives from relevant agencies, principally EPA and SEI, provides the modelling
expertise which underpins the analysis required to support climate change policy
development and implementation. An Informal Expert Advisory Panel comprising
national and international experts on climate change has also been established by the
Cabinet Committee to provide an overarching advice and guidance role.
6.3 In developing the approach to proposed legislation consideration has been given to
the further strengthening of the existing institutional arrangements through the
establishment of a statutory based Climate Change Committee. The Committee will be
supported by a new Office of Climate Change within the Environmental Protection
Agency, and will report periodically, and on request on specific items, to the Cabinet
Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. In particular, it will have a formal
role in relation to the National Climate Change Strategy and the Carbon Budget as set
out above. Given the central importance of Government collectively, and sectoral
Ministers individually, in leading necessary action to address climate change, the
Committee will be required to play a wide-ranging advisory and supporting role to
Government and Ministers.
6.4 It is proposed to establish such a committee with an essentially advisory role and to
structure it as follows:
The Committee will:
• be supported by the proposed Office of Climate Change in the Environmental
Protection Agency;
• have an independent Chairperson;
• have in addition to the Chairperson not less than five and not more than 7 other
members;
• be made up of high calibre persons with relevant expertise and experience
(private/ public sectors) in the areas of business, economics, environment and
science, and development;
• two of the members of the Committee (other than the Chairperson) shall be from
the Agency and SEI and will serve on an ex officio basis;
• be appointed via an independent statutory process similar to that for appointing
Directors of the EPA2
Page 10 of 18
6. Climate Change Committee
2 Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 Section 24;
Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, Section 24
6.5 The existing functions carried out by the Informal Expert Advisory Panel on Climate
Change would be subsumed into the new Committee. The Committee would operate
on the basis of a five-year term, the first commencing following enactment of the
legislation in 2010. The Committee will also be empowered to establish subcommittees
to advise on specific technical issues as these arise. This will be particularly
relevant to adaptation.
6.6 The role of this committee would be to monitor and assess Ireland’s progress in
addressing climate change. The main functions of the committee would be to provide
independent advice to Government including functions to:
• advise on the National Climate Change Strategy (including meeting legally
binding national and international targets under the proposed Bill and
transposed/ ratified EU/UNFCC legislation/treaties),
• advise on the National Climate Change Adaptation Framework,
• advise on measures to be taken in areas where the required progress both for
climate change mitigation and adaptation is not being made, including measures
contained in carbon budgets,
• advise on the extent to which carbon budgets should be met by domestic net
emissions reductions versus net emissions reductions achieved overseas,
• provide guidance on the identification and carrying out of independent research
and analysis into climate change, both in terms of climate change mitigation and
adaptation, and
• report annually to Government on Ireland’s progress towards meeting its legally
binding targets on reducing GHG.
Page 11 of 18
7.1 Regardless of future emissions reductions current elevated greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere will result in climate impacts; a National Climate
Change Adaptation Framework is therefore required.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top