• 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!

When Does Denial Become Fraud?

faithful_servant said:
No, we have this natural demand for science and facts. When there is reasonable cause to question something, we should be questioning it. Somewhere along the line, liberals forgot about this and started blindly trusting what they were told without questioning authority. There is FAR more than enough scientific evidence that gives us cause to question the research being done to justify asking if the research is truly valid and not just a tool for political gain and jobs for researchers (yes, LOTS of researchers are willing to compromise in order to keep their jobs).
Click to expand...

Just like many women are willing to compromise to keep their jobs as sex workers. On my island, it's called prostitution, sex or GW "research", except that the global warming prostitutes cost me a lot more and are not as much fun to be with.
 
longview said:
Very little money defends fossil fuels, there is no need, because they are necessary products.
There is still a need to conduct research on CO2, as the quantum portion of how CO2 is a greenhouse gas
is poorly understood, both the diurnal and seasonal asymmetry should not be as great as they are.
If you are still talking about solar and electric vehicles, you are missing the point.
The high density fuel is not really needed for personal transport, but for Ships, Tractors, and Jets.
You seem to think taxation will speed development, but it is unnecessary, the market will
dictate which alternative is viable.
Any bias induced by government pressure could easily lead to non viable solutions.
Wind turbines, and ethanol come to mind.
Click to expand...

LoLwut?

Very little money defends fossil fuels?

Here's an article for you. But its in a very well respected scientific journal you guys all have decided is incredibly good on every single issue but climate change. Because libruls, I guess.

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

And I dont know if you noticed, but high density fuel is BEING used for personal transport, as well as for electricity generation. In fact, the greatest use is small vehicles. That needs to stop, or at least decline rapidly.
transportation-ghg-emissions-sources.png
 
Threegoofs said:
LoLwut?

Very little money defends fossil fuels?

Here's an article for you. But its in a very well respected scientific journal you guys all have decided is incredibly good on every single issue but climate change. Because libruls, I guess.

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

And I dont know if you noticed, but high density fuel is BEING used for personal transport, as well as for electricity generation. In fact, the greatest use is small vehicles. That needs to stop, or at least decline rapidly.
transportation-ghg-emissions-sources.png
Click to expand...
I do wish you reading comprehension would improve, I said,
The high density fuel is not really needed for personal transport,
Click to expand...
not that it was not used, but it was not really needed, most personal use vehicles could be satisfied
by electrics and other alternatives like public transportation.
My point was the things that grow and transport our food supplies are not ready, and are rather important!
 
longview said:
I do wish you reading comprehension would improve, I said,

not that it was not used, but it was not really needed, most personal use vehicles could be satisfied
by electrics and other alternatives like public transportation.
My point was the things that grow and transport our food supplies are not ready, and are rather important!
Click to expand...

1) guess you'll just skip past your ridiculous statement that 'very little money defends fossil fuels'

2) the whole freaking concept to mitigation is to encourage the development of alternatives ASAP. They aren't ready because of #1.

We need to pay the environmental costs of these fuels now instead of deferring the cost to our grandchildren.
 
A while back I noticed that the GISS started putting out their temperature data in a .csv file also.
I thought it would be entertaining to demonstrate the seasonal asymmetry in the observed warming.
The measuring of temperatures as anomalies, is good for observing relative changes.
Just looking at the data, there appeared to be more warming in what is the cooler periods by hemisphere.
I averaged all the months between 1980 and 2015, and rendered the graph for the northern and southern
hemispheres.
seasonal_Asy.jpg
In the Northern hemisphere the Highest gains were Jan, Feb, and March (most of northern winter)
In the Southern hemisphere the highest gains were July, Aug, and Sept (most of Southern winter)
In the Northern hemisphere the asymmetry between winter and summer gains were drastic.
the gain in the (march) was 46% higher than the gain in summer (July)
So while the annual average temperatures may be increasing, the majority of the increase occurs
in the cooler cycle, of the hemisphere.
Perhaps CO2 goes on Summer Holiday!
 
Threegoofs said:
1) guess you'll just skip past your ridiculous statement that 'very little money defends fossil fuels'

2) the whole freaking concept to mitigation is to encourage the development of alternatives ASAP. They aren't ready because of #1.

We need to pay the environmental costs of these fuels now instead of deferring the cost to our grandchildren.
Click to expand...
There are no verifiable environmental costs!
Nothing needs to be done at all, much less ASAP!
My grandchildren will live in a better world than we have now.
 
I'm going to go with #3. We contribute, but are not the PRIMARY factors.

Having said that, anything we can do to be less polluters and more environmentally conscience, is a GOOD thing. The idea that all conservation is economic disaster in the making is asinine. As is the suggestion that we should only use one ply toilet paper per use. Balance is key. The needs of future generations must balance out with the economic security of our society in the now.
 
longview said:
I am closer to a 4. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but the consequences are not catastrophic;
Click to expand...

more on the 3 scale to be honest. but I would write it as such.

Human activity can create pollution however we do not know the exact requirements for starting a AGW event. there are other more
significant factors that can cause temperature increases or decreases.
 
Howler63 said:
I'm going to go with #3. We contribute, but are not the PRIMARY factors.

Having said that, anything we can do to be less polluters and more environmentally conscience, is a GOOD thing. The idea that all conservation is economic disaster in the making is asinine. As is the suggestion that we should only use one ply toilet paper per use. Balance is key. The needs of future generations must balance out with the economic security of our society in the now.
Click to expand...

nope responsible and reasonable conservation efforts have done a great deal in both protecting the environment and allowing businesses to operation with relatively
minor costs, however that means we are talking about rational logical people.

the AGW zealots are anything but reasonable or logical.
 
ludin said:
nope responsible and reasonable conservation efforts have done a great deal in both protecting the environment and allowing businesses to operation with relatively
minor costs, however that means we are talking about rational logical people.

the AGW zealots are anything but reasonable or logical.
Click to expand...


Sure, they can be a hard to take species. But so too can be the anti-AGW folks who claim that nothing can or should be done. Anyone who takes a militant stand on either side can be bereft of reason and/or logic.

Again...balance.
 
Howler63 said:
Sure, they can be a hard to take species. But so too can be the anti-AGW folks who claim that nothing can or should be done. Anyone who takes a militant stand on either side can be bereft of reason and/or logic.

Again...balance.
Click to expand...
I see the problem with the alarmist, is that they are not advocating for a solution,
but rather a path that may lead to a solution.
The thinking seems to be that, taxing carbon emissions will cause greater pressure to find a solution.
No real solution is identified, other than taxation will magically cause one to happen.
Man made hydrocarbons is a carbon neutral path forward that is a viable solution to our energy problem.
Synthetic fuels: Audi e-fuels > Product > We live responsibility > AUDI AG
Solving the energy problem will solve any CO2 issue, weather one exists or not.
We do need to Government to clean up the quilt work of photovoltaic solar regulations,
to bring electrical utilities to support the massive solar grid attachment necessary to move us forward.
Current net metering laws, strongly discourage utilities from allowing additional solar grid attachments.
The laws need to be changed to give some value add to all parties.
 
longview said:
There are no verifiable environmental costs!
Nothing needs to be done at all, much less ASAP!
My grandchildren will live in a better world than we have now.
Click to expand...

1) guess you'll continue to gloss over your ridiculous statement that 'very little money defends fossil fuels'
2) guess you'll go whole hog denier on us and pretend that there will be no environmental costs to increasing global temperatures by 3 degrees.
 
ludin said:
nope responsible and reasonable conservation efforts have done a great deal in both protecting the environment and allowing businesses to operation with relatively
minor costs, however that means we are talking about rational logical people.

the AGW zealots are anything but reasonable or logical.
Click to expand...

Love how following what the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying is considered somehow 'anything but reasonable or logical'.

Oh, wait. Scientists dont really believe this stuff. Just every single major scientific organization on earth, and every respected scientific publication ever. :roll:
 
longview said:
I see the problem with the alarmist, is that they are not advocating for a solution,
but rather a path that may lead to a solution.
The thinking seems to be that, taxing carbon emissions will cause greater pressure to find a solution.
No real solution is identified, other than taxation will magically cause one to happen.
Click to expand...

Worked for SO2. Forbes Welcome
 
Threegoofs said:
Love how following what the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying is considered somehow 'anything but reasonable or logical'.

Oh, wait. Scientists dont really believe this stuff. Just every single major scientific organization on earth, and every respected scientific publication ever. :roll:
Click to expand...

nope so far i haven't seen anything but doom and gloom and massive expenditures on something that has little or no net affect.
so no i have yet to see anything logical or reasonable, but i have seen a lot of appeal to emotion.

i thought we were supposed to be dead 10 years ago from global warming that the earth would be to hot to live on.
i guess that consensus fell flat on it's face.

i would believe it to if someone was paying me to believe it or threatening me and my job.
i would pretty much believe whatever they wanted, but then again that really isn't science.
 
Threegoofs said:
1) guess you'll continue to gloss over your ridiculous statement that 'very little money defends fossil fuels'
2) guess you'll go whole hog denier on us and pretend that there will be no environmental costs to increasing global temperatures by 3 degrees.
Click to expand...
No glossing over, any funding looking at actual CO2 sensitivity is minimal compared to the vast
government funding of the "consensus"!
As to the environmental, again the 3 C you speak of is from faulty models, and have been declining.
There are quite a few papers out which place the ECS closer to 2 C, and these are predicated
on us actually doubling the CO2 level.
 
Threegoofs said:
Worked for SO2. Forbes Welcome
Click to expand...
Again sulfur dioxide is a poor analogy.
It is possible to produce energy from hydrocarbons while minimizing the sulfur dioxide emissions,
I am not sure the same could be said of CO2, it is much more integral to the chemical reaction.
 
longview said:
No glossing over, any funding looking at actual CO2 sensitivity is minimal compared to the vast
government funding of the "consensus"!
As to the environmental, again the 3 C you speak of is from faulty models, and have been declining.
There are quite a few papers out which place the ECS closer to 2 C, and these are predicated
on us actually doubling the CO2 level.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know. It's a conspiracy.

And you found a few papers that disagree with higher rises, and you'll stick with them because you like those numbers.
 
longview said:
Again sulfur dioxide is a poor analogy.
It is possible to produce energy from hydrocarbons while minimizing the sulfur dioxide emissions,
I am not sure the same could be said of CO2, it is much more integral to the chemical reaction.
Click to expand...

Sulfur dioxide cap and trade is an excellent analogy.

The people in the industry said at the time that it was a terrible idea and wouldn't work, too.
 
LowDown said:
https://ricochet.com/when-does-denial-become-fraud/


Here’s a list provided by the author of beliefs in descending levels of dissent:

  1. Global warming is a complete hoax;
  2. The planet is warming, but due to natural causes;
  3. Human activity contributes to global warming, but is not the primary driver;
  4. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but the consequences are not catastrophic;
  5. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but there is nothing we can do to stop it;
  6. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming, but adaptation is more economical than trying to stop it;
  7. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming and there may be something we can do to stop it, but we don’t yet know what that is; and
  8. Human activity contributes significantly to global warming but, we don’t know yet how to stop it and, until we do know, we shouldn’t implement “solutions” that might only make things worse

Which of these statements constitutes the minimum standard for fraud?

For those interested, my level of dissent is approximately level 3 to 4, but it tends to fluctuate depending on the specific argument.
Click to expand...

If you conceal something that is not public knowledge but is harmfull from you counterparty, ....
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes, we know. It's a conspiracy.

And you found a few papers that disagree with higher rises, and you'll stick with them because you like those numbers.
Click to expand...
No conspiracy, most researchers just want to keep winning grants,
The vast majority of NSF RFP's carry the assumption that AGW science is settled,
when science is never really settled.
We really do not have a complete understanding of CO2 in our atmospheric system.
Think of the deficiencies?
Why has the diurnal asymmetry not decreased, Hansen said it would, in 1995.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
Finally, we note that the claim made by "greenhouse critics" in the popular
press, that global warming is a "benign" nighttime phenomenon, is incorrect.
The temperature changes, as we have shown, represent the combination of an
overall warming and a damping of the diurnal cycle. We can safely predict that
on the long run the effect of the diurnal damping on maximum temperatures will
be small,
Click to expand...
Here we are 21 years later, and the ratio of Tmin to Tmax is about the same.
How about seasonal asymmetry, where most of the warming occurs in the cooler months?
Any quick interpretation why CO2 would choose to exhibit most of it's insulation qualities,
when the delta temperature between earth and space are lower?
seasonal_Asy.jpg

There is much we do not know about how CO2 works in our atmosphere,
Why has our government chosen to stop asking questions about it?
 
Threegoofs said:
Sulfur dioxide cap and trade is an excellent analogy.

The people in the industry said at the time that it was a terrible idea and wouldn't work, too.
Click to expand...
The reason it is a bad analogy is chemistry.
A company can procure low sulfur fuels, or scrub Sulfur dioxide from the exhaust,
it is not a requirement in the hydrocarbon burning cycle, CO2 is part and parcel
of the combustion event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom