Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Climate change.

Recommended Posts

My problem with the "academics are making it up to get rich " theory, is that in other fields (economics, business, political studies, to name a few) big corporations have spent billions to corrupt those academics to create legislation and environment that allows them to make more money.

If big business stands to loose from this they would surely pay off more and bigger and "own" the academics - who would then write papers saying climate change is good for us.

Exactly. A perfect example of how the denial movement has managed to poison the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Exactly, on one side we have 90 scientists saying "climate change bad", on the other 10 scientists saying "climate change good".

What is more likely, 1) 90 scientists are making sh*t up in the hope of getting some govt funding 2) 10 scientists have been slipped a quiet couple of mill by big oil to write a scientific sounding paper that will muddy the waters and allow them to keep making billions for a couple more years???

You choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
My problem with the "academics are making it up to get rich " theory, is that in other fields (economics, business, political studies, to name a few) big corporations have spent billions to corrupt those academics to create legislation and environment that allows them to make more money.

If big business stands to loose from this they would surely pay off more and bigger and "own" the academics - who would then write papers saying climate change is good for us.

Exactly. A perfect example of how the denial movement has managed to poison the debate.

Is there a denial 'movement'? I think it's more a pile that have yet to be convinced it's all the drama many are trying to make out it is. Besides coin can, will and has corrupted both sides of the fence. Don't forget big business stand to both win and lose out of this just as many in the scientific community also are as their lively hoods do rely to a large degree on what they say. When there are are many billions of dollars involved as there is in this any and everyone can be corrupted to assorted degrees.

 

If nothing else you can certainly say the Pro-humans did it team are just as quick to throw in wobbles and crap as the No the humans don't team. To think one side is squeaky clean and the other knot so is being seriously naive.

 

90 verses 10??? It wasn't that long ago the pro-humans mob were claiming 2000 scientists said doom and gloom? Where did the other 1910 go to??? Did they change their mind or did the many who said their name was put on that list unbeknown to them in a very dodgy manner prove to be correct?

 

And yet again we are back at who do you believe?

 

And it's knot is it or isn't it changing, it is changing it always has. It's why is it changing, the usual cyclic changing, human induced changing or a combo of both? That is the only question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KM, as far as I can discern the only "institutional" climate change skeptics (as opposed to individuals) are all funded by corporations with many billions of dollars to lose. The very fact we're having this debate at all is testament to the vastly successful spin-doctoring that has taken place to try and make the issue go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
KM, as far as I can discern the only "institutional" climate change skeptics (as opposed to individuals) are all funded by corporations with many billions of dollars to lose. The very fact we're having this debate at all is testament to the vastly successful spin-doctoring that has taken place to try and make the issue go away.
The main mob driving the pro-humans are doing it and at times by using stuff and the exact same methods the anti-human team are very often accused of, are dealing with sums near billions to prove the pro-change argument. If it was found to be a crock of crap this afternoon would mean a lot of people won't be getting that billion odd bucks. It's called the IPCC.

 

Also there are a multitude of private companies making some serious coin due to the pro-human thinking with machines, plans, devices and etc. Why can't these mobs be paying to influence things like the anti-humans are often accused of doing?

 

Both the Pro and the Anti have a lot to lose and to gain in financial and face saving. One cancels the other so yet again we come back to who do we believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares SB?? Well I do when it comes to some Company or Politician trying to extrude yet more money from me, or trying to limit my freedom or trying to tell me how to live. If it was black and white and no one stood to make profits from the situation, then I am more than happy to have all those restrictions etc. But so far I have not been convinced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A candidate for public office in any contemporary.........Seeing it seems to be the thing to do to back up your argument I'll put the link to the random website that came from.......... Oppps maybe this one is knot quite so random - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

 

Who are people to believe?

 

For what it's worth, Ivar Giever is a semi conductor researcher, not a climate scientist, and I believe that applies to most of the other 16 people listed as well.

 

That article is 1 year old, and has been thoroughly dealt with since (including the one who is supposedly quoted in the article). You might be interested to read the extensive section concerning the lead author of the opinion piece. see for example here:

http://

http://ravingscientist.wordpress.com/20 ... ure-doubt/

 

and here:

 

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2012/01/31/is-a-misleading-climate-change-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-really-news/

 

On the other hand, the guy whose blog I quoted is a climate scientist at ECN which appears to be a Dutch energy research institute:

http://

http://www.ecn.nl/units/bkm/our-experts/verheggen-bart/

 

I found his blog post when I saw someone quoting that the sea level has risen an average of 3mm per year since the last Ice Age (and so 3mm rise per year now is normal). Being naturally curious I wanted to understand what that was about - it sounded to me like another "everything's ok" talking point (like: "the earth's not actually warming the way IPCC predicted" which appears in the WSJ op-ed but is actually completely false). Bart's blog (and many others) provided a well grounded explanation backed up by data. This showed that the "3mm per year average since the last ice age" includes the major deglaciation period that ended 6000 years ago. It also showed that 3mm per year is very abnormal in the context of the last 6000 years.

 

In other words, I read someones unexplained dabating point, did some research, and found that they were talking out of their ass.

 

Something it appears you have not bothered to do with the WSJ op-ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

As the consensus seems to be that we don't really know what's going down surely the best answer is to not take any personal responsibility, buy a big f*ck-off V8, live as far from work or boat as possible, bitch about investment in public transport infrastructure, drive 1 hour to take a yacht sailing (and claim we are environmentally sensitive because we're sailors).

Or, we could just start giving a sh*t about our planet. What's the worst case scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As the consensus seems to be that we don't really know what's going down surely the best answer is to not take any personal responsibility, buy a big f*ck-off V8, live as far from work or boat as possible, bitch about investment in public transport infrastructure, drive 1 hour to take a yacht sailing (and claim we are environmentally sensitive because we're sailors).

Or, we could just start giving a sh*t about our planet. What's the worst case scenario?

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...