Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

[Arthur]

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/

Thanks. Never seen this before. Useful.

 

[Xarog]

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-carbon-free-energy-solar.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-scientists-materials-artificial-photosynthesis.html
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-team-combines-quantum-physics-photosynthesis.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-team-perovskite-solar-efficiently-power.html

And we shouldn't rule out the possibility of geothermal energy, either...
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-firm-believes-potential-geothermal-energy.html

The fact of the matter is that we'll happily swallow 25% solar energy conversion efficiency if the solar panels we build to do so are so cheap you can cover the entire roof of an average house with panels at a price that is affordable to anyone building such a house.

 

[Sl8er]

Thanks. Never seen this before. Useful.

You bet.

Here's another interesting one:

[video=youtube;5c4XPVPJwBY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY&t=942s[/video]

 

[Nanfeishen]

The fact of the matter is that we'll happily swallow 25% solar energy conversion efficiency if the solar panels we build to do so are so cheap you can cover the entire roof of an average house with panels at a price that is affordable to anyone building such a house.

Roof tiles/Shingles are certainly the way to go
http://dodeca.co.za/solar-roof-tiles-are-the-future-of-eco-homes-and-friendly-to-home-budget-2/

http://www.tradekorea.com/product/d...-Solar-tile---PV-tile---Solar-roof-tiles.html

Or combination glass/pvc/plastic roof tiles and roll out solar panels

http://www.minimalisti.com/architec...ecture/01/glass-roof-tiles-solar-heating.html

New Rollable Solar Panels Make Roof Installations a Snap!
http://inhabitat.com/new-rollable-solar-panels-make-roof-installations-a-snap/

The tech exist, the materials all exist, the products all exist, its the legislation, bureaucracy, trade limitations and the profit mentality that requires change.

 

[Arthur]

Roof tiles/Shingles are certainly the way to go
http://dodeca.co.za/solar-roof-tiles-are-the-future-of-eco-homes-and-friendly-to-home-budget-2/

http://www.tradekorea.com/product/d...-Solar-tile---PV-tile---Solar-roof-tiles.html

Or combination glass/pvc/plastic roof tiles and roll out solar panels

http://www.minimalisti.com/architec...ecture/01/glass-roof-tiles-solar-heating.html

New Rollable Solar Panels Make Roof Installations a Snap!
http://inhabitat.com/new-rollable-solar-panels-make-roof-installations-a-snap/

The tech exist, the materials all exist, the products all exist, its the legislation, bureaucracy, trade limitations and the profit mentality that requires change.

Yeah ... in the perfect utopian future with an unlimited government grab of other people's money.

 

[Nanfeishen]

Yeah ... in the perfect utopian future with an unlimited government grab of other people's money.

Boils down to choice.

As a species we have had the technology to uplift humanity in many varied ways for decades, from the most undeveloped countries to the most developed.
We have the science and the means to do so many times over and yet we dont.

Its not that we cannot , its that we choose not to.

 

[Bobbin]

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.

With one caveat. If the aim of said politics is to get to the truth and not for mere social merit. I suppose this is why you mention corruption especially in a democracy though. Agreed Actually it now makes me wonder in my naivety on the subject if socialism is an inevitable outcome of democracy... seems obvious

 

[Bobbin]

Boils down to choice.

As a species we have had the technology to uplift humanity in many varied ways for decades, from the most undeveloped countries to the most developed.
We have the science and the means to do so many times over and yet we dont.

Its not that we cannot , its that we choose not to.

I'm slowly starting to come to the conclusion that there is no 'cure'. Give people food, they will continue to overpopulate and demand more food - for example.

We also cannot function without currency and by nature we cannot escape the Pareto distribution of wealth as we will always move in that direction.

Also by accepting no delusions of "equal capability" and/or the human effort required to empower all others - We must accept that not all men can offer equal value to the economy and there will always be groups/people who suffer.

And for society to function as it does we require all classes of people. From street sweepers to successful entrepreneurs. From low wage farming communities to bustling cities.

It just seems like helping undeveloped countries is essentially a rabbit hole.

The only true escape from all this I've found is the Venus Project or Resource Based Economy which at least has potential to solve the whole climate thing as well - but even that has its problems and seems like a pipe dream. My other thought is that there is just too many darn people in this world - even if we are technically not overpopulated by resources we are indeed overpopulated by complexity.

But we still need to continue breeding to keep the taxpayer numbers up. More industry, more production, more expansion, more needs etc...

I just don't see a way at all. Nothing It's a bad and frustrating picture in my mind.

 

[Splinter]

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. .

I know

But please don't fib here - you love showing off your vocabulary. You know it, I know it, and anybody else who happens to wade through your posts knows it.

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.

Strange. Here I thought socialism was on the wane. You of course know better, and can prove it no doubt.

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

What did I question about this?

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.

That's ok. I don't quite buy your grandiose notions either. While more and more businesses are jumping on the PR spin from environmental responsibility, they are not the warm and fuzzy entities you portray with lines such as, "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".

It's all about the bottom line for the vast majority of corporates.

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.

Huh? You make it sound like "climate savers" control most of the Wests economies. What waffle. And you are mixing capitalism and mans innate greed and lack of real concern for the poor, with climate warming?

 

[Swa]

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).

Just because we are pumping those gases doesn't mean we are causing anything, except asthma perhaps. There are many unanswered questions:
If we are causing warming then why hasn't it stopped with a reduction in atmospheric so-called greenhouse gases?
If the earth is warming then why has there been even warmer years? The current statistics only start counting from when it cooled down again.
Why does the global temperature graph look the same as the solar activity graph?
And the biggest one, why was there a silent shift from global warming to climate change without an acknowledgement of it's predictions being incorrect?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

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.

We are.

The "it's not us" and "it's changed before" are common myths.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I see David Rose/Mail on Sunday are lying about climate scientists again. Par for the course.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists

 

[Swa]

We are.

The "it's not us" and "it's changed before" are common myths.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

LOL

 

[Geoff.D]

@ Arthur:

There is at least one forumite who always enjoys your posts. So please do not stop.

@Splinter:

The simple thing to do is use that dictionary that should be right next to you anyway and look up the words you do not understand. It is called on-going education.

As to the Global Warming/ Climate Change debate:

I have never subscribed to the belief that mankind has made any significant impact on the natural cycles the Earth goes to beyond maybe a small ripple imposed on a much more significant "natural cycle". Therefore nothing we can do now is going to do much to change anything.

BUT at the same time, mankind should be moving on and making use of the technology as and when it is invented/discovered etc. So there is nothing wrong in improving the way we use natural resources and work towards cleaning up our mess.

BUT to believe that these efforts are going to do anything about climate change is delusional and super arrogant. The earth will continue to exist regardless of our efforts. The larger cycle will continue on its path regardless. What may happen is that mankind goes the way of the dinosaurs but in the larger scheme of things --- so damn what.

 

[Swa]

@Splinter:

The simple thing to do is use that dictionary that should be right next to you anyway and look up the words you do not understand. It is called on-going education.

I use WordWeb

 

[Bryn]

I use WordWeb

So do I. Awesome app - I use it every day.

But how many times have you flown in the last year?

 

[Xarog]

Yeah ... in the perfect utopian future with an unlimited government grab of other people's money.

How about we give the government space to create its own manufacturing processes and a means of generating the energy to pay private companies for the materials they require so that our social contract just fscking works for the basic necessities and we leave it to people to sort out their luxuries for themselves like grown-ups?

Can anyone explain to me why this proposal is unworkable?

 

[Arthur]

Depends what you mean by "workable". Given enough impetus, virtually anything can be made "workable", even by Austrian corporals.

My objection is not a utilitarian one, but on principle:

Government's job is to protect and vindicate citizens' lives and rights against those who threaten or violate them by force or fraud. To perform that task, Caesar uniquely exercises the power of the sword.

It is NOT the job of Caesar to become engaged in commercial ventures in competition with citizens. The State already possesses a monopoly on the legal use of force. To also place economic power in its hand is too great a concentration of power. Further, because the third prong of the State's trident is judicial, how can Caesar impartially judge in commercial disputes when he himself is a player in business?

Sorry, but your proposal would result in a further distortion of the political economy. It's already bad, and I can't go with more fuel on the furnace. Too much pollution. It would further blight an already blighted political landscape.

 

[Swa]

Depends what you mean by "workable". Given enough impetus, virtually anything can be made "workable", even by Austrian corporals.

My objection is not a utilitarian one, but on principle:

Government's job is to protect and vindicate citizens' lives and rights against those who threaten or violate them by force or fraud. To perform that task, Caesar uniquely exercises the power of the sword.

It is NOT the job of Caesar to become engaged in commercial ventures in competition with citizens. The State already possesses a monopoly on the legal use of force. To also place economic power in its hand is too great a concentration of power. Further, because the third prong of the State's trident is judicial, how can Caesar impartially judge in commercial disputes when he himself is a player in business?

Sorry, but your proposal would result in a further distortion of the political economy. It's already bad, and I can't go with more fuel on the furnace. Too much pollution. It would further blight an already blighted political landscape.

The problem here is not that of Caeser intruding in the lives of individuals but him intruding in unwanted ways. You assume that his role is to exercise judicial control when his role is supposed to be whatever we decide it to be. That to me is the principle here.

If we assume yours correct then we should all go back to medieval rural ways. No water, no sanitation and no electricity to speak of unless you can provide it yourself. We have allowed government to provide all those so I see no reason it can't enable green energy. As always it's just politics.

 

[SauRoNZA]

We are.

The "it's not us" and "it's changed before" are common myths.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

The very first statement on that page already contradicts itself so I didn't bother reading any further.