The World Has Already Ended, and the News Media Is Keeping It From Us

ocean515 said:

If "conspiracy theory" is the only place you can go when all I'm doing is citing the exact agenda and action the UN has stated in writing, then I have nothing else to offer.

Why am I not presenting evidence? What more do you need?

You've devoted a significant amount of time and energy over a very long period of time explaining why adjustments and other issues regarding the science and theory don't change anything.

I've focused as much, or perhaps even more time, looking into the proposed solution. I haven't offered any opinion, only facts that you claim are conspiracy. As such, I guess you think the whole UN effort is a conspiracy because it's their words and their actions.

UNEP - Climate Change - Finance - Home

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/tssts-ts-12-3-implications-of.html

Opening Statement

Invest Trillions Today to Keep Climate Change at Bay: IEA - Scientific American

Click to expand...

As I've already pointed out (repeatedly), arguing that the existence of a proposed solution proves there is no problem is like arguing that nuclear non-proliferation commitments proves there are no nukes.

You don't like those proposals. Okay, I get that. Despite your hyperbole, I really don't think they're ideal either. If you only want to talk about the politics, more power to you.

Just try to understand that it has no effect on the science which prompted it in the first place. Recognition of the global warming potential of carbon dioxide goes back to the 19th century, for crying out loud! Over the course of 120 years it's been considered by the scientific community, dismissed, re-evaluated in light of new knowledge, refined throughout the 50s to 70s, increasingly accepted by a better-informed generation of scientists and stood the test of time. So if you're not willing to back up your regular insinuations against the integrity of the world's climate scientists, you should probably stop making such accusations.

Lord of Planar said:

How is doing what is best for one's career and money, a conspiracy?

Click to expand...

Pretty much all conspiracy theories have the protagonists doing what's best for their career and money... so you must believe that the 9/11 truthers aren't proposing a conspiracy theory, right? :roll:

Most people aren't drawn to science because it makes people rich and powerful. They're drawn to it for the love of knowledge and understanding.

Most jobs in climate science don't have as a description "Uphold the theory of anthropogenic global warming." Understanding global and regional climate patterns is very important regardless of anthropogenic impacts.

So you're suggesting... what? That the commonest motivation for a career in science suddenly gets thrown out the window by virtually all scientists, en masse, simply because each individual scientist might have some merest, faintest possibility that their job would become eventually redundant if they disproved some facet of the temperature data, or some aspect of the paleoclimatology research, or some detail of atmospheric physics. In fact more likely, conclusively disproving 'accepted' science would get them a lot of attention and Nobel Prize prospects, but even if we pretend that were not the case the argument looks extremely thin... not to mention completely lacking in any kind of evidence.

Mithrae said:

Pretty much all conspiracy theories have the protagonists doing what's best for their career and money... so you must believe that the 9/11 truthers aren't proposing a conspiracy theory, right? :roll:

Click to expand...

A conspiracy requires individuals to agree to defraud.

I wouldn't try to pin conspiracy on most of the climate scientists. If there are conspiracies, it is limited to small groups that would include the likes of Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, but then, I think they are actually acting individually, for their best interest. I don't think they communicate things like "how can we deceive the public today."

Mithrae said:

As I've already pointed out (repeatedly), arguing that the existence of a proposed solution proves there is no problem is like arguing that nuclear non-proliferation commitments proves there are no nukes.

You don't like those proposals. Okay, I get that. Despite your hyperbole, I really don't think they're ideal either. If you only want to talk about the politics, more power to you.

Just try to understand that it has no effect on the science which prompted it in the first place. Recognition of the global warming potential of carbon dioxide goes back to the 19th century, for crying out loud! Over the course of 120 years it's been considered by the scientific community, dismissed, re-evaluated in light of new knowledge, refined throughout the 50s to 70s, increasingly accepted by a better-informed generation of scientists and stood the test of time. So if you're not willing to back up your regular insinuations against the integrity of the world's climate scientists, you should probably stop making such accusations.

Click to expand...

:roll:

I have no where to go with this stuff you've posted here. It's nothing more than proof of what I stated in an earlier post. The typical gatekeeper of the AGW agenda has a total disconnect from what the whole effort is about. As a result, the typical response is insult, accusation and denial.

Have a nice warm day. eace

Russell797 said:

There is no argument that people today should live much less well so that people not yet born can live better. What difference does it make to you where the energy comes from to power your electrical outlets? The other big elephant in the room is transportation and that will be powered by electricity too. The technologies exist to do this on a massive scale. What is lacking is the desire.

Click to expand...

Lots of people seem to worry about where the energy comes from. There is a difference. And by not rushing into the alternatives like they did in Germany, the technology we are installing is much less inefficient than it used to be. The decision seems to have been right. Some of the generation is now cheaper than conventional technology. If we start turning off existing plant or investing large amounts of money in up-grading it, that will increase the costs of everyone's electricity, as it has in Germany. Subsidies do the same thing either directly as fee added on the price or through the back door of the fiscal budget.

But that is not really, where the large hits to our living standards would come, if we rush to carbon neutrality quickly and at today's technological reality.