Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it strange that people who listen to these conservative commentators when it comes to this issue don't see the hypocrisy behind the party who supports the very wealthy Oil & energy industries.
What financial gain & interest do lowly paid scientists have regarding this issue?
None.
I see the hypocrisy.
But what you're not seeing is we're being played from both sides.
Think of it as a big 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle.
The goal is to centralize control piece by piece. The right wing works on the right side of the puzzle. The left wing works on the other side. Most people don't see how the pieces fit together until the puzzle is almost done. That's often because the populace is deliberately divided against itself. Divide & conquer.
I find it strange that so few people question the established views of so-called authorities.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 05-31-2017 at 10:18 PM..
It's not "conspiracy talk". It's conspiracy fact. Unfortunately, "everyone" doesn't know about it. And those who do get written off as kooks for questioning authority....as usual.
And for those who think it's just conservatives and Alex Jones saying this stuff, think again. This woman is a liberal Democrat who has extensively researched the true agenda behind climate change and Agenda 21. Interesting how the name was changed from "global warming" to "climate change". The term "climate change" is so vague it can mean anything they want it to mean. I'm sure you won't bother since it disrupts your worldview, but perhaps others with more open minds will:
Trying to reverse climate change is going to negatively effect a lot of people economically (think coal miners, oil field workers, etc.), decades before any discernible positive effect. The fear and anger of those people are a powerful political tool. Trump wielded it expertly.
Many of the scientists advocating CAGW have been PROVEN to be involved in collusion to provide false results by using false data and or proven statistical anomalies that produce a "hockey stick" regardless of the data input into the equation. These are irrefutable FACTS found by reverse engineering the statistics and data used as well as the email communications between these scientists, which were hacked from Angola, proving their collusion beyond any shadow of doubt.
When scientists make this political, in order to push an agenda, hiding the fact that not a single analytical theory has withstood a 10 year comparison to measured data, much less longer, so then these very same scientists are found manipulating (changing) actual measured data from the early 1900's through the late 1900's, just so their models could more closely resemble their DESIRED output ("hide the decline"), etc.
How is it possible to suggest the the entire CAGW theory is not political when every single step of the way, nearly every theory has been rebuked in its entirety because the data has been willfully manipulated, the statistics has been willfully manipulated and the email communications trail has shown willful collusion during the ENTIRE process? Who made it a political issue... the people questioning the science or those who willfully manipulated the supposed science from its inception?
Even the absolutely insane claim (as if science is EVER settled) that 97% of all climate scientists agree, a claim based upon PROVEN manipulation of the number of responses to a stupid poll designed to create a specific result, yet when it didn't produce the result the author of the paper sought, he was PROVEN to have manipulated the results by eliminating a majority of responses.
AGAIN... which side is making this political?
Everything I've stated in this post is 100% factual and can be verified by the numerous post by myself and others on here with the numerous links we've provided on the subject. The very premise made by the OP here is that with so many people being outspokenly supportive of the CAGW cause, how could the science of CAGW possibly be wrong, so if it isn't wrong then it must be political is utter nonsense. Just because people with good intentions were duped by charlitans, causing them to support something does not change what actual scientific method requires which is that any scientific theory must be able to withstand all scientific challenges and CAGW simply does not do this. It cannot and will not withstand scientific scrutiny especially given all the PROVEN willful manipulation of data, willful manipulation of statistics and willful collusion.
I find it strange that people who listen to these conservative commentators when it comes to this issue don't see the hypocrisy behind the party who supports the very wealthy Oil & energy industries.
What financial gain & interest do lowly paid scientists have regarding this issue?
None.
Au contraire, my ill-informed colleague. Climate research is big, big business. It has been ever since the mid-1980s, when the word went out from the federal government: "We don't hand out research grants for studies that might prove that climate change is mostly a natural phenomenon. We only hand out grants for studies that will serve to further our position that climate change is an imminent disaster, and that only massive taxation can arrest the increasing temperatures."
How big is the climate research business? About $107 billion over the seven years from 2003 to 2010, with additional incremental billions having been expended between 2010 and the present, one must surmise. At this point, if you include the disastrous taxpayer financed "green energy" ventures of the Obama era, we're probably well north of $200 billion by now.
According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn't count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for "green energy."
We have thousands of kooks calling themselves "climate scientists," all no doubt well-intentioned practitioners of their art, of course, each angling for their own piece of this gargantuan financial pie.
If you don't see a financial motive at work here, you're probably the only one who doesn't.
Only ~8 years ago, these were not controversial things to say or believe. Now as a Republican, this could possibly lose you an election. That is a dramatic shift in rhetoric in a very short amount of time.
I find this shift very fascinating, and would love to better understand it. I realize this is all a part of the large growing political divide in this country (see: Political Polarization in the American Public - PEW Research for more info) - but I find it very interesting how this very specific issue became so partisan.
For clarification, I'm not talking about climate change skepticism (which, on its own, is a healthy thing to have!), or even reasonable debates about policy. I'm talking about the straight up denials/rejection of the science/theory that has more and more become quite common among Republican politicians and Republican supporters.
I don't want this to be a debate about whether climate change is really happening or not (we have enough threads on that already) - I want this to be about why this shift has happened. What is driving the shift?
I believe one more question should also be asked. Why does the republican party deny man-made global warming, and what is the republican party's incentive to deny global warming?
Answer: Combating global warming would decrease profits for the large corporations that fund the republican party.
These corporations also did things like hiring former tobacco company workers (who in the past told the public cigarettes don't cause cancer in order to protect the tobacco companies profits.) https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-sway-public1/
And after many years of all these corporate paid global warming deniers working together, there is now a huge network of corporate paid groups denying global warming. And these groups have been given a public stage at corporate media outlets like Fox news and Rush radio, and now today we have huge numbers of republican voters believing "global warming is a hoax." https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...machine/191545
The following is a timeline of climate change denial that might answer some of your questions.
I remember this happening - when it became political - and even thought at the time, this would prove to be interesting in a controversial way.
Basic timeline likely with some inconsistencies as I have no desire to fact check every single thing:
1. We start hearing about things like acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, and greenhouse gases. We're told to change our hairspray (funny enough - this was the thing I recall the best. Eh - I was young). We're told to buy more gas efficient cars and to try and cut down on smog. In general, people were like 'yeah, okay, I like the environment, I can do that small part'. It was even advertised as such - do your small part to save the ozone layer. People largely embraced it because it wasn't changing our lives too much and what harm could it do after all.
2. As greenhouse gases starts dying down as the buzzword/phrase, we start hearing about global warming. This confuses some people because we were previously told a decade earlier we were headed for another ice age. But okay, they kind of linked it to the ozone layer and greenhouse gases. So okay, good to know but mostly people didn't do too much. People were more concerned with saving the rainforests and preventing deforestation during this era as it was the cause du jour at that time.
3. Al Gore. Al Gore lost in his run for the White House. He got fat, disappeared for a while and then, he's back. And he's back with a movie. Hollywood goes nuts over it. Teachers show it in classes. It's on the lips of all the pro-environment groups as they talk it up and up and up. It's all so entertaining and wow, this is even BIGGER than greenhouse gases. It now has an official name: global warming. Plus bonus, they hate Bush and think he stole the White House from Gore so it makes them feel good to back Gore.
4. Enter the politicians. At first, it was the usual, hey, go your part to help with global warming. Give money to x, y, or z foundation, charity, or research group. We saw Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi do a PSA together on a couch outside the Capital building telling us all "do your part to help with global warming". At this point, carbon footprint and the like hasn't really entered the conversation.
5. Enter the hockey stick graph. OMG, we just found out this is an EMERGENCY. See this hockey graph, it says we are just KILLING the Earth with our carbon dioxide emissions. We must do something NOW, right NOW, not later. This is just a total emergency. Europe gets involved, the politicians, particularly the Democrats start making a lot of noise. Because what's a politician's instinct when faced with something like this? TAX IT and make new laws! At this point, most people except for diehard environmentalists are saying 'woah, that escalated quickly but still don't quite understand it all other than what they saw in Al Gore's movie. So you don't have a lot of buy in on the whole emergency nature of it yet - at least from the American public.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
