Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 21 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 201

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

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    415
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

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

    ...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.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member 'orebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    In corrigible
    Posts
    20,279
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    Why not stick this in the climate change thread and stop clogging the homepage with this tripe?

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Húrin View Post
    ...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/ja...lobal-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

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    415
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'orebel View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by cheg2010 View Post
    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?

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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...

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member 'orebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    In corrigible
    Posts
    20,279
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Húrin View Post
    Because it is not a climate science thread.

    Of course it is.
    I note you don't refute it's tripe.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,015
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'orebel View Post
    Of course it is.
    I note you don't refute it's tripe.
    Haha very good

    Indeed though.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member PAD1OH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,754
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cheg2010 View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,326
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member PAD1OH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,754
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nermal View Post
    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?

Page 1 of 21 1234511 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •