• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris [W:131]

Deuce said:
We can't trust scientists who get paid!
Click to expand...
Well, every working professional gets paid.

But then, what is the motivation of those spending the money?

That was my question: Why do it?

Many people against CC have specific complaints, but I don't see a motivation at the top (supposed) conspiratorial level.

You know, the guys *running* the conspiracy?

Who? Why?
 
Chomsky said:
You know, I think that a might be a halfway acceptable argument, perhaps.

But that still doesn't explain what would be the motivation for this vast conspiracy?

Many accusations, but where's the motivation?

That's where my problem is with this.
Click to expand...
Money.

Think about the amount of money, effort and political power in play in all this. What are the RESULTS? That's where I call shenanigans. The presumed warming, and the presumed "warming averted" numbers make no sense. 2-5 C of warming and less then 0.5C averted with these deals. (maybe 0.75C if EVERYTHING goes though).

How does that make sense?

There is a lot of institutional inertia moving the AGW movement. It's not that there are dishonest committees LYING, it's that there are a lot of people with a lot vested into an idea, so much so that they can't stop now. The politicians see $$ and political gain, the researchers see grant, money and "be the hero".

The whole thing is a disaster, it's proof people are, collectively, stupid.
 
Renae said:
Money.

Think about the amount of money, effort and political power in play in all this. What are the RESULTS? That's where I call shenanigans. The presumed warming, and the presumed "warming averted" numbers make no sense. 2-5 C of warming and less then 0.5C averted with these deals. (maybe 0.75C if EVERYTHING goes though).

How does that make sense?

There is a lot of institutional inertia moving the AGW movement. It's not that there are dishonest committees LYING, it's that there are a lot of people with a lot vested into an idea, so much so that they can't stop now. The politicians see $$ and political gain, the researchers see grant, money and "be the hero".

The whole thing is a disaster, it's proof people are, collectively, stupid.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the scientists that support the idea if man-made climate change Some how have more money and influence than the oil companies, coal companies, and all of the industrial corporations in the world?
 
The Paris Agreement has about the same value as toilet tissue. It is non binding. It is another case of Obama going it alone in regards to US participation because he knows it would never be ratified by congress. This president has no respect for the concept of representative government.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Are you saying that the scientists that support the idea if man-made climate change Some how have more money and influence than the oil companies, coal companies, and all of the industrial corporations in the world?
Click to expand...

Yes, there is FAR more being spent by government's then by "big oil". Because big oil, for all their profits, have limited funds, governments tend to ignore budgets.
But that's not the point, there is political inertia, (and politicians make the laws... )

Think about all the causes of the last 30 years.

"Save the RAIN FOREST!"
"Stop the OZONE HOLE!"
"Prevent Y2K!"
"End Hunger World Wide!"
"Save Haiti!"
They all had the same things involved, lots of money, lots of political backing, lots of money spent with, in the end lots of corruption and little in the way of results.

CC is merely the... end game of all of this. The emotional pleas, the save the "____ insert saved entity here" call to action, the political gains, the monetary gains.


It's not that the original scientist were liars, they probably did believe their data, and were honestly thinking they were doing good. But their movement their idea, the whole thing just got hijacked into a monster. Group think, powered by greed and a false belief you are part of something heroic, something grand... and you get stupidity writ large. That is AGW summed up.

The solutions are highly dubious, cost enormous amounts of money, and have little return for what?

That is where I start asking questions. "Okay, you believe something must be done to avert this terrible thing, what is your solution?" And the solutions do not jive with the claims. The very ACTIONS of those saying we must save the earth, flying around in jet's, living the high life, dining "unsustainably" a "Do as we say not as we do" behavior. Really, you'd think if every little bit helps, how come they don't lead by example?
 
Renae said:
Money.

Think about the amount of money, effort and political power in play in all this. What are the RESULTS? That's where I call shenanigans. The presumed warming, and the presumed "warming averted" numbers make no sense. 2-5 C of warming and less then 0.5C averted with these deals. (maybe 0.75C if EVERYTHING goes though).

How does that make sense?

There is a lot of institutional inertia moving the AGW movement. It's not that there are dishonest committees LYING, it's that there are a lot of people with a lot vested into an idea, so much so that they can't stop now. The politicians see $$ and political gain, the researchers see grant, money and "be the hero".

The whole thing is a disaster, it's proof people are, collectively, stupid.
Click to expand...
I could see political gain, but that would still seem to still be somewhat at a micro sense - that being the pols are reacting to the people's desire, which then still leaves the idea that the people have to have gotten their information from somewhere to desire this. And that still leaves open the wonder why would non-political sources conspire to this?

As to the money motive, it would seem the large corps, industrial concerns, and petro-chemical & energy companies have a great deal of money & motivation to conspire.

Which is why I (as a pure layman at this) tend to believe man-made climate change is real, since I only seem to see one side having motivation (energy companies & polluters).
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah, I see anti-science skeptics and their statements all the time, but I don't see what the motivation for a grand conspiracy would be, which is why I asked.

The only guy that responded posted an image of $100 bills, with no further explanation, evidence, or argument.
Click to expand...

They say the environmentalist pay off all the scientists in the field to come up with findings they like. Funny the oil companies have more money than a bus load of Al Gores. So uh, I dont buy it...anymore.
 
imyoda said:
Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-change-accord-paris.html?_r=0

LE BOURGET, France — With the sudden bang of a gavel Saturday night, representatives of 195 countries reached a landmark climate accord that will, for the first time, commit nearly every country to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave off the most drastic effects of climate change.
Delegates who have been negotiating intensely in this Paris suburb for two weeks gathered for the final plenary session, where Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius of France asked for opposition to the deal and, hearing none, declared it approved.

With that, the delegates achieved what had been unreachable for two decades: a consensus on the need to shift from carbon-based fuels and a road map for the 195 nations to do so.

Though the deal did not achieve all that environmentalists, scientists and some countries had hoped for, it set the table for more efforts to slow the slide toward irreversible changes to the Earth’s climate.

A demonstration near the Arc de Triomphe in Paris on Saturday to show support for actions against climate change.
President Obama said on Saturday from the Cabinet Room at the White House, “The American people should be proud” of the landmark climate accord because it offered “the best chance we’ve had to save the one planet we’ve got.”
Click to expand...




And with the rap of a gavel, the Bandar-log monkeys banished the cuprachabra by all pledging to cut off their left paw... sometime... when they get around to it. Later.



https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Jungle_Book/Road-Song_of_the_Bandar-Log
 
clownboy said:
Except it doesn't. You can claim to the contrary all you want but the president, by constitution cannot ratify treaties, nor does he hold the power of the purse. Congress must agree or this is just a meaningless deal between this one executive and a foreign group of powers.
Click to expand...

Not a treaty, read the articles and extension of one already signed by the US.
 
Chomsky said:
I could see political gain, but that would still seem to still be somewhat at a micro sense - that being the pols are reacting to the people's desire, which then still leaves the idea that the people have to have gotten their information from somewhere to desire this. And that still leaves open the wonder why would non-political sources conspire to this?

As to the money motive, it would seem the large corps, industrial concerns, and petro-chemical & energy companies have a great deal of money & motivation to conspire.

Which is why I (as a pure layman at this) tend to believe man-made climate change is real, since I only seem to see one side having motivation (energy companies & polluters).
Click to expand...
You should probably go look at the real money going around with this, if you really think the only motivation is monetary... the numbers are NOT with the big companies "to fight climate change".

Forbes Welcome here, a Forbes article to get you a different perspective, even if you in the end disagree with it, you might find it enlightening.
 
mak2 said:
They say the environmentalist pay off all the scientists in the field to come up with findings they like. Funny the oil companies have more money than a bus load of Al Gores. So uh, I dont buy it...anymore.
Click to expand...

Forbes Welcome

Actually, no, the numbers are not on your side. It helps to do a little research before typing.
 
MolonLabe said:
o-CASH-MONEY-DOLLARS-facebook.jpg
Click to expand...

Exactly.

It's really not surprising the leftists sign up to and support AGW.
That they do confirms they very basic instincts they hold near and dear in their ideology:

  • The Western world and Western civilization is fundamentally evil and in need of punishment
  • Businesses are evil, and in need of punishment
  • The Western middle class have it too good, and need to give up their standard of living
  • Brown people are incapable of doing it themselves, we have to do it for them / they need our help

The first 3 need to be punished by being given away the fruits of their labor on some dubious wealth redistribution scheme, this time to 2nd and 3rd world countries (just so long as they aren't affected all is good).

When 'A' spends 'B's money for 'C's benefit, there's something seriously rotten in Denmark.

'Why do it in a known to work, cheap and effective way, when there's an experimental, more expensive way to do it?'

This entire thing has all the hallmarks of one great big con game / scam.
 
Chomsky said:
I could see political gain, but that would still seem to still be somewhat at a micro sense - that being the pols are reacting to the people's desire, which then still leaves the idea that the people have to have gotten their information from somewhere to desire this. And that still leaves open the wonder why would non-political sources conspire to this?

As to the money motive, it would seem the large corps, industrial concerns, and petro-chemical & energy companies have a great deal of money & motivation to conspire.

Which is why I (as a pure layman at this) tend to believe man-made climate change is real, since I only seem to see one side having motivation (energy companies & polluters).
Click to expand...

I believe it was Exxon that did heavy research in the 70- early 80's and it was found to be substantive then. Later the company changed positions, a complete 180 against GW being man made. One reason if I recall correctly they are being sued for misleading investors. Think the case is n NY. Not 100 % sure. old, memory ain't great.
 
eohrnberger said:
Exactly.

It's really not surprising the leftists sign up to and support AGW.
That they do confirms they very basic instincts they hold near and dear in their ideology:

  • The Western world and Western civilization is fundamentally evil and in need of punishment
  • Businesses are evil, and in need of punishment
  • The Western middle class have it too good, and need to give up their standard of living
  • Brown people are incapable of doing it themselves, we have to do it for them / they need our help

The first 3 need to be punished by being given away the fruits of their labor on some dubious wealth redistribution scheme, this time to 2nd and 3rd world countries (just so long as they aren't affected all is good).

When 'A' spends 'B's money for 'C's benefit, there's something seriously rotten in Denmark.

'Why do it in a known to work, cheap and effective way, when there's an experimental, more expensive way to do it?'

This entire thing has all the hallmarks of one great big con game / scam.
Click to expand...

odd how Conservatives are against it.
 
Dark money. Yeah, it might also pay to get out of the noise machine once in a while.
 
Chomsky said:
I could see political gain, but that would still seem to still be somewhat at a micro sense - that being the pols are reacting to the people's desire, which then still leaves the idea that the people have to have gotten their information from somewhere to desire this. And that still leaves open the wonder why would non-political sources conspire to this?

As to the money motive, it would seem the large corps, industrial concerns, and petro-chemical & energy companies have a great deal of money & motivation to conspire.

Which is why I (as a pure layman at this) tend to believe man-made climate change is real, since I only seem to see one side having motivation (energy companies & polluters).
Click to expand...

It is about power and control. That is the one thing all governments want.
 
Pollycy said:
Carbon Dioxide, which is a natural compound necessary for life on this planet, makes up less than 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere!
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
Is there something about this fact that you believe disproves the whole thing?
Click to expand...
Considering H2O is a far more powerful greenhouse gas and that about 71% of the earth’s surface is covered in H2O and that H2O accounts for about 0.02% of the earth’s entire mass, I’d say it puts things into perspective for the average person who probably doesn’t know much about climate science. It’s also, IMHO, one of the primary reasons most of the climate models have been so flawed in their predictions. A model is only as good as the values input to it. GI-GO (garbage in = garbage out), as we say in the modeling industry.
 
Renae said:
You should probably go look at the real money going around with this, if you really think the only motivation is monetary... the numbers are NOT with the big companies "to fight climate change".

Forbes Welcome here, a Forbes article to get you a different perspective, even if you in the end disagree with it, you might find it enlightening.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I'll get to it soon.
 
fmw said:
Why? They don't want to give up power and control to the left.
Click to expand...

We have raped the planet, poisoned the air, land,water and caused mass extinctions of species. Mother Nature only takes so much.
 
fmw said:
It is about power and control. That is the one thing all governments want.
Click to expand...
Yes, but why this issue?

The gov only has so much money to spread around, and this issue doesn't make sense to me, compared to let's say more surveillance or military or police, etc. etc.

There seems to be better places to invest limited funds, if control is the name of the game.
 
mak2 said:
Dark money. Yeah, it might also pay to get out of the noise machine once in a while.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of sites discussing the money disparity. Would you like more? I'm sure there are few sites that you would visit that would point out since 1989 the US Federal Government has spent:

A: 1Bn
B: 10Bn
C: 32BN
D: 50BN

In climate science...

I'm sure that you know the answer, being well versed on this with your very balanced and honest sites. And further more, could you show us how much "Big oil" is spending?

I'm sure you can do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom