Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

[Arthur]

What, politics?

No, again.

Politics is a great good. It is the necessary and lofty art and practice of social governance by the sovereign, however conceived. It deals with governance of the polis.

The sad thing is that it attracts venal, corrupt and feckless men, especially in a democracy.

The problem isn't politics. It's human weakness and concupiscence. That's us.

 

[Splinter]

. It's human weakness and concupiscence. That's us.

How many times do I have to tell you that your weakness, in trying to get a message across, is your insistence in showing off your vocabulary? If the audience does not understand your message; then they will just disregard what you have to say.

Unless it is just an "egos' thing...

 

[Xarog]

How many times do I have to tell you that your weakness, in trying to get a message across, is your insistence in showing off your vocabulary? If the audience does not understand your message; then they will just disregard what you have to say.

Unless it is just an "egos' thing...

It's almost like he doesn't care what you think...

 

[Arthur]

No, I'm touched by Splitner's solicitude and patience. It's not every day one encounters a critic so ready to point out the failings of others whilst so generous in the assessment of his own sagacity.

His exasperation is almost palpable, and I am sorry to occasion it.

 

[Splinter]

No, I'm touched by Splitner's solicitude and patience. It's not every day one encounters a critic so ready to point out the failings of others whilst so generous in the assessment of his own sagacity.

His exasperation is almost palpable, and I am sorry to occasion it.

Bleh. You wish

Not to point out the obvious, but you haven't replied to my question.

Edit: Questions.

 

[Splinter]

It's not every day one encounters a critic so ready to point out the failings of others whilst so generous in the assessment of his own sagacity.

Interesting. So you recognise I am pointing out your "failures"? But to move on, I am simply challenging your statements and asking you to substantiate them. Why do you have an issue with this?

 

[Xarog]

Interesting. So you recognise I am pointing out your "failures"? But to move on, I am simply challenging your statements and asking you to substantiate them. Why do you have an issue with this?

No, you just think you're pointing out failures. Well, actually, your words are pointing to a failure, but this is more of a self-referential thing.

 

[Swa]

Why listen to one scientist when you can listen to hundreds...
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/glob...d-impacts/global-warming-science#.WJTU4Py6I0M

Hundreds of scientists getting funding and prestige from their "findings." Sounds about right...

 

[Bryn]

John Oliver did an episode about how dodge scientific studies have become. There is truth in criticising it.

 

[Idiosyncratic]

... the hundreds of billions in taxpayer-sourced "climate research funding"...

There we go, follow the money... Now we have "conservation payments," more "carbon taxes" and all sorts popping up. Haven't seen much good use of these funds either (proportionally).

 

[Arthur]

OK, Slintper, my comment above referred to your repeated admonitions ("how many times do I have to tell you") about why I fail to communicate ("your weakness") that in your estimation uses words you struggle with. Sorry about that. My vocab is pretty normal, and I certainly don't intend to take most of my interlocutors for fools. Not a single other person has ever complained. You are one of a kind.

To answer your questions:

1. "Socialism and state controls": Almost (but not all) those agitating for or driving the AGW agenda through society also happen to be statist-collectivists, ie people who want more state control over the lives or ordinary people, especially in economic and commercial affairs. They support laws that mitigate private property and transfer that expropriated control to the state. Socialism.

2. Regarding environmental blighting through pollution: Current legislation is more than up to the task. We don't need more.

3. I don't quite buy your rather jaundiced view of business. It's far too sweeping, almost to the point of being false. It is certainly a false generalisation. I know many big and small businesses and big and small business owners who care strongly about very much more than the bottom line. They don't need legislation and state controls to teach them about fair employment practices, generous employee benefits, generous social spending, respect for the environment, and so on. In fact, quite contrary to your reductionist caricature, most businesses see these things as entirely consistent with their responsibility for the bottom line, especially over the longer term. And so do many perhaps even most of their shareholders.

4. "Cramp and limit the lives of billions": The regime of heavy taxes, controls, and subsidies beloved of climate saviours will limit the economic development necessary for human development. The bottom three billion will never get the chance to develop and benefit from modern, industrial societies. Stunted development is the intention and legacy of the AGWers, because their solar-powered carbon-reduced future is always that: in the future. It can only happen when vast resources are deflected from the infrastructural investments that made the West wealthy are poured into significantly more expensive"green" technologies. And I say that as someone who's house is solar-powered.

 

[SauRoNZA]

Oh, the planet might well be warming. Never denied that.

But I simply don't believe we humans have anything significant to do with it. IF it's warming, any putatively preventive action will be directly proportional to our agency in causing it, which is to say pretty close to zero.

It'll warm anyway, whether we act or not.

But if we follow the politicians' agenda, we'll cramp and limit the lives of billions for many generations'.

Okay then we are on much the same page.

It does appear to be a matter of fact that it is warming and climate change is happening.

But as you say whether we are responsible for it in any way or have any effect on it at all is the real debate.

After all historically the earth went through many climate cycles without us even being here.

 

[Cius]

I strongly recommend looking at the graphic in the link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/05/10/climate-spiral-rising-global-temperatures/84185746/

I kinda doubt that humans have nothing to do with that. We are pumping so much heat capturing gas into the atmosphere. Still, it won't go away until it is economically viable and that moment is comming soon. Within 100 years the vast majority of the world's energy needs will be generated from Solar power and the issue will go away largely by itself. The issue is that for the next few decades we are going to deal with some crazy weather as a result of the warming and we are going to have to figure out who takes responsibility for those most affected (like those living on the Marshal islands).

 

[Arthur]

Within 100 years the vast majority of the world's energy needs will be generated from [-]Solar[/-] Nuclear power and the issue will go away largely by itself.

My recipe for how to fix the energy problem.

It's what self-styled Greens would be pursuing if they weren't captive to the Lefty myths. France can show how.

 

[Neoprod]

^, agree with nuclear...not so much the other Belgian* you've been spouting, Arthur.


*prefer my waffles with less syrupy goop on them

 

[Arthur]

There's no accounting for taste. It just is.

Yes, I'm an inveterate waffler. Isn't that what forums are for? It saves me from being bitingly terse.

 

[cerebus]

It saves me from being bitingly terse.

Is that something you can do? I'd love to see some biting terseness from you.

 

[Sl8er]

I've posted this about 3 or so times on this forum...and I'm going to post it again. Sure it's a couple of years old now, but it's still pretty much the same picture.


[video=youtube;4Ew05sRDAcU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ew05sRDAcU&index=1&list=PLl3GnZaFftS18JcUpzMOqnIA81RLXRxEo[/video]


Citations can be found here: http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/top-6-climate-change-problems/

 

[Xarog]

My recipe for how to fix the energy problem.

It's what self-styled Greens would be pursuing if they weren't captive to the Lefty myths. France can show how.

I think we'll eventually find a reasonably clean form of nuclear power, but we aren't there yet.

Solar power technology is going to undergo dramatic upswings in efficiency in the next two decades. I also suspect we're going to discover more durable methods of storing solar energy as well. If you give every private individual a means of collecting a surplus of solar energy relative to their personal energy needs, then effectively we can ensure that the basic human needs of every person on the planet is met and paid for. Given that 3D printing and automated production is set to wipe out most of the human labour involved in goods production, then most of the essential aspects of economic survival can be reduced to calculations of harvested energy relative to surface area utilised to produce the essential human necessities.

With a high enough energy input we could even reach 100% recycling. Now that would be a technological marvel. Arranging the economy of your society around energy wealth makes so much more sense from a social perspective than the material wealth paradigm we're currently using.

 

[Arthur]

Solar power technology is going to undergo dramatic upswings in efficiency in the next two decades. I also suspect we're going to discover more durable methods of storing solar energy as well. If you give every private individual a means of collecting a surplus of solar energy relative to their personal energy needs, then effectively we can ensure that the basic human needs of every person on the planet is met and paid for.

We can only hope.

I've been closely following all the imminent breakthroughs for decades. Still waiting. My three solar arrays are only incrementally more efficient than the earliest PV cells from four decades ago, though prices have come down significantly. We're not even at 50% efficiency despite billions in taxpayer research funding. The International Energy Agency (intl NGO) optimistically projects solar power's contribution in 2050 at 16% of global energy consumption. Important, but hardly game-changing.