The big climate-change myth

[spacecowboy342]

there's actually nothing stopping you from paying more for your energy, just telephone your energy company provider and tell them you wish to pay double. if they laugh at you, send them a cheque in the post.

Actually, if you don't think you pay enough just wait a little while. The rates will go up

[Little Fish]

Actually, if you don't think you pay enough just wait a little while. The rates will go up

so please explain how the science critical of dangerous global warming is just a conspiracy of big business (as the poster has been suggesting). The first rule of business (especially big business) is to add value to your product, which is what is happening. I can see the oil executives pulling their hair out licking their lips over the escalating price of their product. how did the green movement ever let itself come to this, railing against the one gas that greens the planet and using their energy to put money into the pockets of the oil barons. the world is insane.

[spacecowboy342]

so please explain how the science critical of dangerous global warming is just a conspiracy of big business (as the poster has been suggesting). The first rule of business (especially big business) is to add value to your product, which is what is happening. I can see the oil executives pulling their hair out licking their lips over the escalating price of their product. how did the green movement ever let itself come to this, railing against the one gas that greens the planet and using their energy to put money into the pockets of the oil barons. the world is insane.

The world is indeed insane, but can you not see how the idea of switching from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy and limiting co2 emissions is going to affect the pocketbooks of businesses and oilmen? Reducing sulfer dioxide emissions cost billions (though, I think. less than was predicted) And switching from CFC's to HCFC's and finally to HFC's drove some Heating and AC companies out of business and the new EPA rules cost the rest a lot of money. Oil prices are going to rise, no matter what as supplies dwindle while demand steadily increases. We spent trillions on the Iraq war, which despite claims, I believe was over oil. Had we spent that money on solar, geothermal, fusion, or any other renewable resource, I can't help but believe we would be better off though those in the oil bidness will never go quietly. Edited October 13, 2013 by spacecowboy342

[Little Fish]

The world is indeed insane, but can you not see how the idea of switching from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy and limiting co2 emissions is going to affect the pocketbooks of businesses and oilmen? Reducing sulfer dioxide emissions cost billions (though, I think. less than was predicted) And switching from CFC's to HCFC's and finally to HFC's drove some Heating and AC companies out of business and the new EPA rules cost the rest a lot of money. Oil prices are going to rise, no matter what as supplies dwindle while demand steadily increases. We spent trillions on the Iraq war, which despite claims, I believe was over oil. Had we spent that money on solar, geothermal, fusion, or any other renewable resource, I can't help but believe we would be better off though those in the oil bidness will never go quietly.

if you tax a business, you are taxing it's customers through the resultant price increases. this is why electricity price is constantly going up, because the energy companies are forced to buy the more expensive renewables.

if you double the price of oil and half the consumption, those that sell oil will make the same money for less effort, i don't see how that hurts the evil oily people.

if there is an evil plot it is to drive up the price of oil to protect the US currency which is backed by oil. they did the same in the 1970s with the staged arab-israeli wars and oil embargoes. they needed a quadrupling of oil price to protect the dollar which they got. all oil is traded in dollars, it's well documented. the iraq war was (mainly) about reversing Saddam's decision to sell oil in euros back to the dollar, and also keeping oil off the market.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Little Fish

[spacecowboy342]

if you tax a business, you are taxing it's customers through the resultant price increases. this is why electricity price is constantly going up, because the energy companies are forced to buy the more expensive renewables.

if you double the price of oil and half the consumption, those that sell oil will make the same money for less effort, i don't see how that hurts the evil oily people.

if there is an evil plot it is to drive up the price of oil to protect the US currency which is backed by oil. they did the same in the 1970s with the staged arab-israeli wars and oil embargoes. they needed a quadrupling of oil price to protect the dollar which they got. all oil is traded in dollars, it's well documented. the iraq war was (mainly) about reversing Saddam's decision to sell oil in euros back to the dollar, and also keeping oil off the market.

You make valid points but here in central Texas, where I live our electricity comes mainly from hydro-electric, yet the price keeps going up and up and up, I think just because they can. I mean, it's not like we can go to the electric company down the street. I'm not sure how you can claim the Arab Israeli conflicts were staged though as they seem to have rel problems with each other. As far as the oil embargo, if my memory serves, it pretty much stifled our economy, except in Texas where high oil prices always means a boom, although less so now as we have gone to a lot more hi-tech manufacturing for jobs than the old days.

[Von Bismarck]

LF

Co2 level increase was 1.55ppmv pr year in the past. Now it's 2.75 ppmv. And there's no signs of a decrease in the future.

I suspect you are looking at old data.

[MonkeyLove]

there's actually nothing stopping you from paying more for your energy, just telephone your energy company provider and tell them you wish to pay double. if they laugh at you, send them a cheque in the post.

It's the other way round: banks earn by lending more money. That's what used to buy more expensive oil, among other things. Governments earn from increased sales of goods and services.

[MonkeyLove]

so please explain how the science critical of dangerous global warming is just a conspiracy of big business (as the poster has been suggesting). The first rule of business (especially big business) is to add value to your product, which is what is happening. I can see the oil executives pulling their hair out licking their lips over the escalating price of their product. how did the green movement ever let itself come to this, railing against the one gas that greens the planet and using their energy to put money into the pockets of the oil barons. the world is insane.

It's not a conspiracy but a need for continuous economic growth, which is part of a global capitalist economy. The main drivers of that are profit and interest on loans or returns on investment. The manufacturing and food production base that leads to that are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for energy and for petrochemicals.

When people are told of peak oil, global warming, environmental damage, and more economic problems due to increasing debt, then they tend to cut down on expenses, practice greater resiliency, and become less dependent on business and government. That's not a good idea for the latter two as they need more sales of goods and services to earn. It also doesn't help when mainstream media are dependent on corporate sponsors that need more sales of goods and services.

Thus, these predicaments are ignored, reported as hoaxes, or watered down, and that in turn encourages the public to be less concerned with these predicaments and to borrow and spend happily.

This explains the varying and contradictory conclusions espoused by deniers, e.g., there's no global warming but there will be an ice age, there's global warming but it's natural, there's global warming but it can be solved through technology, market forces, etc. The suggestions are all related to each other: do nothing, study the matter further, or rely on businesses and governments to solve any problems (in case they aren't hoaxes).

This also explains why governments aren't preparing for peak oil despire warnings from the IEA, not agreeing on global warming despite warnings from top science organizations and the problem of environmental damage, and propping up banks through increased credit injection to keep the borrowing and spending binge going. Business as usual is at stake, not only for governments that need to maintain control and pay for that through tax revenues, but also for businesses that they work for that need to profit through continuous economic growth, as well as a growing global middle class that will support pro-business governments and accept credit from businesses to buy more goods and services.

The catch is that no matter how much denying they employ the predicaments continue and work against them. As governments bail out the financial elite they pass on the costs to the public and receive fewer cents on every dollar borrowed due to soaring debt. Increased resource consumption has led to peak oil, and with that high food and oil prices, in turn making the economic situation worse. Meanwhile, environmental damage coupled with the effects of global warming are taking their toll on water supplies, food crops, etc., in turn contributing to high prices.

[Little Fish]

It's not a conspiracy but a need for continuous economic growth, which is part of a global capitalist economy. The main drivers of that are profit and interest on loans or returns on investment. The manufacturing and food production base that leads to that are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for energy and for petrochemicals.

When people are told of peak oil, global warming, environmental damage, and more economic problems due to increasing debt, then they tend to cut down on expenses, practice greater resiliency, and become less dependent on business and government. That's not a good idea for the latter two as they need more sales of goods and services to earn. It also doesn't help when mainstream media are dependent on corporate sponsors that need more sales of goods and services.

Thus, these predicaments are ignored, reported as hoaxes, or watered down, and that in turn encourages the public to be less concerned with these predicaments and to borrow and spend happily.

This explains the varying and contradictory conclusions espoused by deniers, e.g., there's no global warming but there will be an ice age, there's global warming but it's natural, there's global warming but it can be solved through technology, market forces, etc. The suggestions are all related to each other: do nothing, study the matter further, or rely on businesses and governments to solve any problems (in case they aren't hoaxes).

This also explains why governments aren't preparing for peak oil despire warnings from the IEA, not agreeing on global warming despite warnings from top science organizations and the problem of environmental damage, and propping up banks through increased credit injection to keep the borrowing and spending binge going. Business as usual is at stake, not only for governments that need to maintain control and pay for that through tax revenues, but also for businesses that they work for that need to profit through continuous economic growth, as well as a growing global middle class that will support pro-business governments and accept credit from businesses to buy more goods and services.

The catch is that no matter how much denying they employ the predicaments continue and work against them. As governments bail out the financial elite they pass on the costs to the public and receive fewer cents on every dollar borrowed due to soaring debt. Increased resource consumption has led to peak oil, and with that high food and oil prices, in turn making the economic situation worse. Meanwhile, environmental damage coupled with the effects of global warming are taking their toll on water supplies, food crops, etc., in turn contributing to high prices.

i don't really understand what you are saying. you are effectively lobbying for higher energy prices, and then blaming the energy groups for doing what you are asking them to do. "business as usual" is better them something worse than "business as usual", you are not proposing anything better. where is this evil economic "growth" you are talking about? the only growth is in banking which means a growth of debt. seems to me you are using global warming mantra for a political cause which seems to be anti "capitalist", using it to to further a socialist or communist agenda. your argument in response to scientists skeptical of gw is a priori reasoning and name calling, you are looking for psychological reasons behind scientists motivation which enables you to dismiss evidence without even looking at it. I think you hold a dogmatic GW belief because it suits your politics, you have only put forward appeals to authority, science is not done by governmental science "organizations". the heads of governmental organisations are employed by politicians, those politicians can decide whether they keep their jobs, get promotions and prestige or not, and those heads decide what work is done within that organization, those "reports" you keep waving are subject to journalistic editing. you need to look at the science and figure out what is good science and what is bad science, this is something i have put effort into and my conclusion falls into the skeptical camp, there is no evidence that there is a problem with co2, the science being touted is junk and often fraudulent, if anything co2 will have a net benefit.

[MonkeyLove]

i don't really understand what you are saying. you are effectively lobbying for higher energy prices, and then blaming the energy groups for doing what you are asking them to do.

I am not lobbying for higher energy prices. I am arguing that Big Business obviously does not want people to lower resource consumption as that means lower profits. That's why Big Business and government partners do not want to talk about predicaments like global warming.

"business as usual" is better them something worse than "business as usual", you are not proposing anything better.

I was never trying to propose anything better.

where is this evil economic "growth" you are talking about?

You're looking at it right now. You have to read up on the long-term effects of global warming, environmental damage, peak oil, and debt-ridden economic systems.

the only growth is in banking which means a growth of debt.

You are not contradicting my arguments. Guess what is needed to keep that afloat?

seems to me you are using global warming mantra for a political cause which seems to be anti "capitalist", using it to to further a socialist or communist agenda.

Global warming is not a "mantra." Continuous economic growth, especially needed to maintain that "growth of debt," is the mantra.

The issue has nothing to do with being "anti-capitalist" or supporting some "socialist or communist agenda" but whether or not that "growth of debt" can be propped up by increasing production and consumption of goods leading to more environmental damage. Physical laws say otherwise, but the financial elite with their government partners disagree.

your argument in response to scientists skeptical of gw is a priori reasoning and name calling, you are looking for psychological reasons behind scientists motivation which enables you to dismiss evidence without even looking at it.

No, it's not. The closest that deniers have achieved in coming up with an independent, scientific study of the matter was by funding BEST. But even that turned against them. Now, they're resorting to repeating the same arguments using cherry-picked information and web log comments. The results given by BEST alone show that claims of "psychological reasons behind scientists' motivation" are completely baseless.

I think you hold a dogmatic GW belief because it suits your politics, you have only put forward appeals to authority, science is not done by governmental science "organizations". the heads of governmental organisations are employed by politicians, those politicians can decide whether they keep their jobs, get promotions and prestige or not, and those heads decide what work is done within that organization, those "reports" you keep waving are subject to journalistic editing. you need to look at the science and figure out what is good science and what is bad science, this is something i have put effort into and my conclusion falls into the skeptical camp, there is no evidence that there is a problem with co2, the science being touted is junk and often fraudulent, if anything co2 will have a net benefit.

Completely wrong. The results released by the IPCC and confirmed by NAS are based on science. The non-action taken by governments working for businesses is based on politics.

The claim that "governmental science" is involved definitely applies, as seen in underestimating the effects of global warming:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years

Again, the logic is simple. The same politicians are funded by Big Business through tax revenues, which is why results have to be ignored or watered down. The same applies to peak oil and other predicaments.

That's why governments are not agreeing on what to do regarding global warming, or even environmental damage. That's why they're also quiet when it comes to peak oil. The real junk science, which uses cherry-picked evidence, is employed to encourage more people to continue borrowing and spending.