Climate change is real says 97% of scientists

because it is irrelevant

 

yeah sure Bower. Not irrelevant of you are a politician getting kickbacks from the green energy corporations. Not irrelevant for those corporations getting those billions in tax payer dollars. Not irrelevent for the people who have to decide between food and power because thos policies just increase energy prices.

I guess it is irrelevant though in terms of lowering carbon. So far all the efforts of the last 20 years of carbon taxes have been useless except to the elitist Malthusians and people who want to destroy the western way of life. In fact as I have pointed out many times, kill everyone in the world and it would not lower carbon enough to make a darn for a couple of hundred years

 

So your conspiracy theory is - "millions" of $$$ in secret funding"?? And these millions dwarf the $billions in grant money?

Last time I checked billions was more than millions... you guys have changed those terms as well have you??

Cooling is actually warming, and millions are more than billions?? Is that about where we're at now?

 

Most relevant of all is that Warmies are led by the children of the rich, who'd be ignored losers without their Daddy's Money. So this is a class war on the majority. Preppy Progressives (other kinds are just followers) shut off the development of resources in order to create artificial scarcities so their Daddies can extort us with obscene profit margins. Also, this carbon-credit market--the 1% is going to control that, as usual.

Because Heirheads never admit that the majority of people have limited means, they view the high cost and job-killing aspects of their elitist delusions as unimportant. After all, with their trust funds, they don't need jobs, so why would job loss matter to them? This whole class must be smashed mercilessly, whether its cliques pretend to be Liberal or Conservative.

 

baby needs a new Maserati, who cares if the peons freeze because their power was shut off

http://www.poverty.org.uk/67/index.shtml


and for the socialists

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/22/fuel-m22.html

 

If this ain't the pot calling the kettle black!!
How many kickbacks are being paid by the big oil and coal lobbies now?

Even though I am against a carbon tax...because deep down in my heart I know it will be another tax that solves nothing and hurts the least fortunate of us ...do not accuse the other side for doing what your side does all the time.

Besides...as Bower said...it is irrelevent to the subject.

 

How is $billions being transferred from the public treasury to special interests, who are perpetuating a demonstrable fraud, how is that irrelevent to the subject? It is the subject!!

From the beginning AGW has been about ideology, money, and power - I don't know about you, but I don't take kindly to being lied to and ripped off. Just b/c you are gullible enough to buy the snake oil, doesn't mean I have to go quietly along.

Honest people, and concerned citizens stand up against fraud and tyranny whenever it is in front of them - opportunists, dupes, fools, and snakes in the grass find it all too easy to go with the flow.

There's a reason 'low information voters' vote Democrat - they're easily misled and don't have the mental or intellectual tools to see thru the deceptions. AGW is one such deception that anyone with a computer and internet connection can easily refute with just a small amount of point and click effort - oh, and they would have to read too... so I guess that knocks most of them out of the box.

And btw - the money on either side of the "debate"?? Not even close - literally $billions and $billions going to all things green. It is a wonderful vehicle with which to steal money and seize power.

 

The only thing hurting the least fortunate is the power company's refusal to switch over to using less carbon in methods like geothermal or concentrated solar radiation to boil water instead of 100% relying on carbon to do so. The carbon tax is a disincentive program to force power companies to use the methods and designs we already have that use vastly less carbon to achieve the same goal. Even if you live in an area where the sun only shines for 300 days a year, with the other 65 stormy or cloud covered, that's 300 days your power company isn't paying for and burning expensive carbon fuels. So your power company by switching over could at the same time increase its profits and decrease the cost to the consumer.

This isn't an exaggeration. It's a fact. Free fuel to create energy in the form of geothermal steam or concentrated solar radiation is going to increase profits by reducing overhead. And taxes for any given year will be lower because of the stunning decrease in reliance on carbon as the random backup instead of the main power source.

 

What "grant money"??

When ever I challenge anyone to actually show how the poor schmuck freezing his patootie off in Antarctica counting snowflakes is somehow living on easy street the denialists start bleating about grant money to solar industries. That is like saying ecologists earn a living off money being given to oil companies or that pastry cooks get paid by shoe manufacturers

- - - Updated - - -

But you have NEVER shown a direct link between climate scientists and the alternate energy industry

 

My post has nothing to do with fuel poverty. Try addressing my post instead of again deflecting.

 

Nothing at all. Evidence suggests that the FF industry has been doing that for years. Unfortunately for you there is no evidence that climatologists, glaciologists and oceanographers have such a game plan.

 

You brought up grant money, lol... try to keep up

They're both feeders at the public trough. So-called 'scientists' like Mann and Jones are raking in big bucks - and not just from their salaries, and grant money that I'm sure finds its way to paying "expenses"; they also make good money from greenie groups, books, and speaking engagements. The higher their profile, the more money they make.

As I pointed out in another thread - one of your accused 'Big Oil' hos, The Heartland Institute, had a budget of $388,000 for their NIPCC (Non-InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change), while the Obama Administration had $2.5 billion set aside for AGW research; and of course that is just the tip of the money dripping ice berg.

What are the AGW budgets for "scientists" in Germany's budget? France? Australia? UK?

Bower, the $$ isn't even close - the big money is in scaring people, offering a solution, and robbing their treasuries.

AGW is big, big money. What's the point in denying it... if anything, you should be trying to justify it - since, according you and them, we're all going to burst into flames any day now.

 

If water vapor is a greenhouse gas, then every drop of water that evaporates adds to warming, and every decaying leaf, or forest fire adds to green house gas, and warming. But how much green house gas is absorbed by and countered by the planet's natural climate mechanics? Certainly our scientists don't know, hell, they are sitting on their hands not knowing if we will be heading into a El Nino or La Nina, both of which will effect our temperatures the coming summer, fall and winter.

Meanwhile:

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.
Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

 

When you jump on the man-made global warming train, you get FREE MONEY, that's right free (*)(*)(*)(*)ing money from the tax payers, in the form of grants, subsidies, tax loop holes, donations, waivers from laws, exclusive contracts, preferential treatment, it truly never ends, and it's all free. that's why so many people jump on the gravy train, because who doesn't like FREE?

 

Concentrated solar? Yeah, for only a few hours a day. It's fairly useless because it's not cost effective and cannot replace fossil fuels or nuclear power plants.

 

Sorry to disagree but power costs to the consumer will never go down.

I have lived long enough in this world to know better. They want to increase the cost of carbon to make alternatives "more affordable".

That tells me costs to the consumer will never go down as long as they are "on the grid". The price of carbon will just be too expensive.

The best thing to do would be to reduce consumption.

 

And for the pacifist weakling appeasing girlymen who would oppose occupying the oilfields and confiscating the price-gougers' source of jihad funding.

 

Before a game starts, there's no requirement for a coach to announce his game plan. That proves coaches don't have game plans?

The coach doesn't have to tell it to nosey reporters even during the game, not that the media are nosey about the plans of Warmies. Accuse me of conspiracy theory if you want, but during halftime the team meets behind closed doors!!!

 

What's wrong with giving pimple-faced nerd misfits a chance to be celebrities?

 

I get it! Another meaningless rant that has nothing to add.
any sane person can see the conspiracy theory angle in your post.

 

And not a shred of evidence in sight

Heartland was just ONE of the so called think tanks - there were are are hundreds of similar ones. It is cheaper to fund a disinformation campaign than it is to fund research into prime causes. But once again you are confusing cause and effect. Funding for alternate energy is NOT going to that poor schmuck in the Antarctic. It is not poring into the Woods Hole Oceanographic Society, it is not pouring into the various bureaus of meteorology around the world - the money Obama spent was to go to America not Europe

So your conspiracy does not hold up once you take a look at the global context

 

question for you Bower. Considering that 20+ years of effort has not lowered co2 by more than a half a percentage point and even if we stopped ALL man made co2 tomorrow in 50 years it would not lower it enough to affect temperature a tenth of a degree whats the point of your ceaseless arguing