Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[Jose Fly]

Worldwide socialism is a conspiracy, global warming is just one of their demagogic tools for manipulation, like bread and circuses.

Please post your direct evidence that shows climatologists are pushing climate change to install socialism.

Yes, some climatologists sell their souls for research grants, but they're still just useful idiots for the socialist establishment power elite. A few libs drive Ferraris, but most do the limo shtick or SUV convoys.

Please post your direct evidence that climatologists are pushing climate change to acquire grants.

Yeah, well I don't see the hypocritical liberal elite powering their limos and Lear jets with windmills and solar panels.

Are you denying that fossil fuel companies have deliberately sowed doubt about climate change among the public?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nobody said they won't, but it's equally irrational to put a date on when that will happen because mankind has continually been able to find more and find ways to be more efficient.

when I was at school in the 70's I was told I wouldn't be driving a gasoline car, because oil was going to run out, and besides burning it was causing runaway global cooling.

By the time I got my licence, oil was selling for $10 a barrel, 80c a gallon at the pump, and global cooling was already falling out of fashion.

We could have banned fossil fuels 100 years ago for the same 'finite source' rationale and missed out on a century of growth and prosperity. Any supply crunch has always been 100% political in nature, 0% geological, we have vast reserves of pre-collected and stored solar energy right under our feet. Of course politicians are going to try to get their sticky fingers on as big a cut as possible, even if they have to claim it angers the weather gods, that's in their job description.

 

[Yerda]

What is misunderstood, misrepresented or lied about in those climategate episodes?

That they jiggered the data, how do you get any further than that.

Did they? If you could present the evidence or point me towards it would be much appreciated.

 

[siti]

nice start!

Thank you - I'm glad you liked it. But OK - let's stick to the science then...I take your point about correlation and causation btw - however in this case, we need a mechanism to explain atmospheric effects (such as the current warming trend) - in that context, it seems to me, the composition and physical chemistry OF the atmosphere would seem to be reasonable area to look for significant correlations that might give us a clue to causation.

Now you're on the right track, the GH effect is what makes life possible on this planet, and it's driven primarily, overwhelmingly by water vapor, not CO2...

...water vapor. the principle driver of the GH effect, is measured in tens of thousands of ppm, so it should be obvious, and to scientists it is, that 1 or 2 extra per 10000 CO2 makes no significant addition to this.

No, not really. Water vapor does indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect - about 60% of the effect is attributable to water vapour trapping heat (as it were). However, the concentration of water vapour is not a 'driver' of warming but an effect of warming. The warmer the surface temperature, the more water vapour there is in the atmosphere. The warming effect is triggered by fluctuations in the concentrations of non-condensable gases - principally CO2 - in the atmosphere. So you are partially correct in the sense that more water vapour in the atmosphere does contribute to warming but the question you need to ask is why the concentration of water vapour is increasing when the water cycle is in a dynamic equilibrium. And the answer is that we have increased the amount of non-condensable greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that has triggered a spiralling effect - more CO2, more warming, more water vapour, more warming, more CO2... In the end, it may be that the increasing amount of water vapour in the atmosphere leads to more cloud formation and clouds reflect heat back so the contribution of water vapour cancels itself out to some extent - we really don't know to what extent - maybe enough to reverse warming? We don't know - but so far that seems not be the case in the current situation.

If that is all incorrect and it is some other mechanism that gives rise to both global climate variation and fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 what could that mechanism be? Fluctuations in volcanic activity? Or in rock weathering processes? Or changes in ocean circulation? Changes in solar activity? I haven't looked up the trends in these some of which certainly may have been implicated in past fluctuations (such as the Ordovician) but is there any reason to believe they are the cause of the current trend? If we observe that when the sea is warmer an increase in CO2 follows, what is it that makes the sea warmer in the first place? And in the current case, it may be that whilst the natural cycles are predominant overall, our contribution could be the 'straw that broke the camel's back'. I have absolutely no doubt that the climate will correct itself - but not necessarily with us still in it.

 

[Nous]

mankind has continually been able to find more and find ways to be more efficient.

In fact, since the beginning of human-made fossil-fuel machines, their efficiency has been continually increasing, but we continue to use ever more energy, and there is every reason to believe that this will continue (especially in non-OECD countries). Thus "efficiency" is not a justification to continue to destroy the environment and the climate by burning fossil fuels.

 

[siti]

How in the hell can you claim it's a result of capitalism? Proof please. People have been stealing from one another since the beginning of time.

Of course they have - but that is not what I said. What I said was that people stealing other people's ideas for financial gain is an inevitable result of capitalism. It might even be the 'right' thing to do for the overall 'good' of a country (or even the world) - that's really the point of capitalism - to concentrate control of the 'means of production' in the hands of the people who are most adept at turning ideas into economic gain. That is often not the person who had the idea. But in a capitalist system one of two things are most likely to happen with good ideas: 1. nobody recognizes them and they are entirely overlooked or 2. someone with the business acumen latches on and invests in them and they make money. Occasionally, but not too often, genuine inventiveness and financial savvy are found in the same individual, but most often not. What I would like to see us try is a system where the implementation of ideas is based not on whether there appears to be future financial gain to be got but on whether the idea will be 'good' for the future of our species overall. The two are not necessarily the same thing, but our current system equates them.

Don't be an idiot.

OK - I won't if you promise not to be one either!

 

[Debateable]

Of course they have - but that is not what I said. What I said was that people stealing other people's ideas for financial gain is an inevitable result of capitalism. It might even be the 'right' thing to do for the overall 'good' of a country (or even the world) - that's really the point of capitalism - to concentrate control of the 'means of production' in the hands of the people who are most adept at turning ideas into economic gain. That is often not the person who had the idea. But in a capitalist system one of two things are most likely to happen with good ideas: 1. nobody recognizes them and they are entirely overlooked or 2. someone with the business acumen latches on and invests in them and they make money. Occasionally, but not too often, genuine inventiveness and financial savvy are found in the same individual, but most often not. What I would like to see us try is a system where the implementation of ideas is based not on whether there appears to be future financial gain to be got but on whether the idea will be 'good' for the future of our species overall. The two are not necessarily the same thing, but our current system equates them.

OK - I won't if you promise not to be one either!

Soooo.... you'd rather have little to no good invention and production? Have you seen the stuff that have come out of full on socialist countries? They are garbage! Your arguments are weak at best.

 

[Debateable]

Of course they have - but that is not what I said. What I said was that people stealing other people's ideas for financial gain is an inevitable result of capitalism. It might even be the 'right' thing to do for the overall 'good' of a country (or even the world) - that's really the point of capitalism - to concentrate control of the 'means of production' in the hands of the people who are most adept at turning ideas into economic gain. That is often not the person who had the idea. But in a capitalist system one of two things are most likely to happen with good ideas: 1. nobody recognizes them and they are entirely overlooked or 2. someone with the business acumen latches on and invests in them and they make money. Occasionally, but not too often, genuine inventiveness and financial savvy are found in the same individual, but most often not. What I would like to see us try is a system where the implementation of ideas is based not on whether there appears to be future financial gain to be got but on whether the idea will be 'good' for the future of our species overall. The two are not necessarily the same thing, but our current system equates them.

OK - I won't if you promise not to be one either!

Here's a good video for you to watch.

 

[Debateable]

"A lot of people object to the power of corporations that they see and falsely associate that with capitalism. Some don't know that the term capitalism was invented by marxists, possibly even before Marx himself, but they still understand it in the marxist way, where a term like 'capitalocracy' might actually be more fitting. Consequently they believe that capitalism is about the power of capitalists and therefore of corporations, who are mordern-day capitalists.

They do not understand that any unfair power a corporation might have invariably comes from government, which supports large corporations through legislative and more covert favouritism or through raising barriers to competition, like tariffs or regulations. Such government meddling is of course an antithesis of what the actual capitalists (a term much older than 'capitalism') created even before Marx decided to redefine their actions as exploitation of workers. What we indeed have today, in many sectors of the economy, is corporatism, not capitalism, and definitely not economic freedom. Clearly such corporatism has a lot of negative consequences, among them exploitation of the consumer. Many people hate this, not understanding what it is that they hate exactly."

Just read this and is a much better way to explain what I was trying to describe before. Capitalism isn't the problem. It's the power given to corporations by governments. So now people want to shift to a system in which we are giving our exceedingly corrupt government even more control and power (socialism)?

 

[siti]

OK - I won't if you promise not to be one either!

I see you decided not to take me up on that...

Soooo.... you'd rather have little to no good invention and production? Have you seen the stuff that have come out of full on socialist countries?

Where did you get that? I am not arguing that invention and production are not required (BTW - the video you posted makes the same point as I did - it is innovation, rather than investment, that important). But, for the most part, investment has been the link between innovation and implementation. The benefits are not evenly spread out - that is the argument against capitalism. But that does not mean that things are not better now than they were 200 hundred years ago - I have never made that argument. Capitalism has brought us to where we are now. But it remains true that billions of our human family still lack the basic necessities of life and it remains true that many really exceptionally good ideas - beneficial to the human family overall and to our technological and social advancement just don't get done because nobody sees the economic potential in them. Investment is not necessarily the driver of innovation (as the video points out), but it is the enabler of its implementation. What I am arguing is that we need a more mature way of deciding which ideas get implemented than simply gauging (more or less accurately) the consumer market potential. And to get back on topic, that needs to take into account the real effect of continuing to exploit the natural resources at our disposal. Capitalism does not provide a good way of doing that because it is (as you video illustrates) mistakenly equating human well-being with GDP (or dollars earned per day). There is far more to it than that.

 

[siti]

"A lot of people object to the power of corporations that they see and falsely associate that with capitalism. Some don't know that the term capitalism was invented by marxists, possibly even before Marx himself, but they still understand it in the marxist way, where a term like 'capitalocracy' might actually be more fitting. Consequently they believe that capitalism is about the power of capitalists and therefore of corporations, who are mordern-day capitalists.

They do not understand that any unfair power a corporation might have invariably comes from government, which supports large corporations through legislative and more covert favouritism or through raising barriers to competition, like tariffs or regulations. Such government meddling is of course an antithesis of what the actual capitalists (a term much older than 'capitalism') created even before Marx decided to redefine their actions as exploitation of workers. What we indeed have today, in many sectors of the economy, is corporatism, not capitalism, and definitely not economic freedom. Clearly such corporatism has a lot of negative consequences, among them exploitation of the consumer. Many people hate this, not understanding what it is that they hate exactly."

Just read this and is a much better way to explain what I was trying to describe before. Capitalism isn't the problem. It's the power given to corporations by governments. So now people want to shift to a system in which we are giving our exceedingly corrupt government even more control and power (socialism)?

I agree to an extent but you are buying into the false dichotomy that 'they' (i.e. the dark forces of our real governments - bipolar pseudo-democratic cronyistic corporatism) want to foist on you - the idea that the solution to corrupt (capitalist) government is more (socialist) government and vice versa.

But that's not really the case. Corporatism is another inevitable consequence of capitalism IMO. The whole point of capitalism is to get the most economic advantage out of the 'means of production' (physical and human resources, innovation...etc.). And doing that most effectively means having the brightest and best in control of production. Having the 'market' as the arbiter of success and economic wealth as the reward means that more and more control ends up in the hands of a smaller number of economically savvy individuals - it has to - we can't all be 'the best'. Eventually, it all just becomes too big for individual humans to handle and we end up with 'companies' and then 'corporations' and then, why stop at national boundaries...? Then the corporations have the economic power to influence - if not control - the machinations of government as well as the means of production and the decisions about what is to be produced. All of that follows from applying the principles of 'capitalism'.

I am not suggesting that we take that power out of the hands of corporations and put it back with government (that would indeed be a retrograde step and would effectively take us back to a form of feudalism - which is what has happened in countries where they've tried it). What I am saying is we need a radical reboot. We need to measure our 'economies' in more than just GDP. We need to look at what will be of most overall (not just financial) benefit to our countries and the human family as a whole. That's not capitalism or socialism - its a complete departure from the last 200 years of measuring 'the wealth of nations' solely by GDP or dollars earned per day regardless of who is in charge of production. That's what I am talking about. But I fully admit that we are nowhere near ready for it yet - I'm just hoping against hope that we mature quickly enough to stave off catastrophe. But in the meantime, if we can do what we can to minimize the negative impact of our economic immaturity on the rest of our existence, so much the better.

 

[Debateable]

I see you decided not to take me up on that...

Where did you get that? I am not arguing that invention and production are not required (BTW - the video you posted makes the same point as I did - it is innovation, rather than investment, that important). But, for the most part, investment has been the link between innovation and implementation. The benefits are not evenly spread out - that is the argument against capitalism. But that does not mean that things are not better now than they were 200 hundred years ago - I have never made that argument. Capitalism has brought us to where we are now. But it remains true that billions of our human family still lack the basic necessities of life and it remains true that many really exceptionally good ideas - beneficial to the human family overall and to our technological and social advancement just don't get done because nobody sees the economic potential in them. Investment is not necessarily the driver of innovation (as the video points out), but it is the enabler of its implementation. What I am arguing is that we need a more mature way of deciding which ideas get implemented than simply gauging (more or less accurately) the consumer market potential. And to get back on topic, that needs to take into account the real effect of continuing to exploit the natural resources at our disposal. Capitalism does not provide a good way of doing that because it is (as you video illustrates) mistakenly equating human well-being with GDP (or dollars earned per day). There is far more to it than that.

Sometimes you can't do the things that may sound good in the long run because it will hurt and many times cause the deaths of millions of others to get there.

 

[Debateable]

I agree to an extent but you are buying into the false dichotomy that 'they' (i.e. the dark forces of our real governments - bipolar pseudo-democratic cronyistic corporatism) want to foist on you - the idea that the solution to corrupt (capitalist) government is more (socialist) government and vice versa.

But that's not really the case. Corporatism is another inevitable consequence of capitalism IMO. The whole point of capitalism is to get the most economic advantage out of the 'means of production' (physical and human resources, innovation...etc.). And doing that most effectively means having the brightest and best in control of production. Having the 'market' as the arbiter of success and economic wealth as the reward means that more and more control ends up in the hands of a smaller number of economically savvy individuals - it has to - we can't all be 'the best'. Eventually, it all just becomes too big for individual humans to handle and we end up with 'companies' and then 'corporations' and then, why stop at national boundaries...? Then the corporations have the economic power to influence - if not control - the machinations of government as well as the means of production and the decisions about what is to be produced. All of that follows from applying the principles of 'capitalism'.

I am not suggesting that we take that power out of the hands of corporations and put it back with government (that would indeed be a retrograde step and would effectively take us back to a form of feudalism - which is what has happened in countries where they've tried it). What I am saying is we need a radical reboot. We need to measure our 'economies' in more than just GDP. We need to look at what will be of most overall (not just financial) benefit to our countries and the human family as a whole. That's not capitalism or socialism - its a complete departure from the last 200 years of measuring 'the wealth of nations' solely by GDP or dollars earned per day regardless of who is in charge of production. That's what I am talking about. But I fully admit that we are nowhere near ready for it yet - I'm just hoping against hope that we mature quickly enough to stave off catastrophe. But in the meantime, if we can do what we can to minimize the negative impact of our economic immaturity on the rest of our existence, so much the better.

This is so wrong in so many way's. It goes completely opposite of what you previously quoted from me. Corporations have NO power without the government giving it to them. No matter how big they are. A true free market (Capitalism) isn't controlled in any way. That's why I've been saying, we don't live in a true Capitalist economy anymore and we haven't for a very long time. The things that you hate about Capitalism are due to the Socialist policies that have been enforced. Most people don't recognize this because it's been that way for so long, we haven't seen the way it used to be. This is what we know, and we call it Capitalism, but the truth is, we haven't had true Capitalism for over 3/4 of a century now or perhaps longer.

 

[Yerda]

Corporations have NO power without the government giving it to them.

Is there any chance you could explain this in more detail?

 

[Debateable]

Is there any chance you could explain this in more detail?

In a true free market system people vote with their dollars. Corporations would be beholden to the people and not the politicians that in a system like we have now, corporations lobby for special deals and regulations that would prevent competition from hurting them.

 

[Yerda]

In a true free market system people vote with their dollars. Corporations would be beholden to the people and not the politicians that in a system like we have now, corporations lobby for special deals and regulations that would prevent competition from hurting them.

Ok. A couple more questions if you don't mind.

What is a true free market system?

Is lobbying not possible in a free market?

 

[siti]

@Debateable - so how did the corporations emerge from the 'true' capitalism of 3/4 of a century ago if not by people voting with their dollars - and is it not true to say that corporations also vote with their dollars - which is what you mean by 'lobbying'. It seems to me that the corporations are indeed beholden to people (aka the market, aka the combined effect of our consumer choices) but not to the government because they can buy their way to changing the government's mind or even changing the government itself in some cases. Corporations were not invented by socialist governments, they were invented by wealthy capitalists to further their own capitalist ambitions. And, if you subscribe to capitalism, it has to be the right thing to do because it places control of the means of production in the hands of those who are most likely to increase the economic 'wealth of nations'. The idea that we can have lots of small businesses all doing the same thing in different ways and still get the economic advancement that capitalist government requires (as a metric of its success) just doesn't float - its pie in the sky and could only be realized by significantly more stringent and arbitrary regulations about how and where (in terms of international boundaries, tax laws, trade etc.) business can be conducted.

The truth is, corporatism is the monster our so-called 'free-market' has created and having less government control at this stage will only feed its appetite for power and strengthen the grip of their bankers over the actual financial decisions of government. But in the end, the real power is still in the hands of the people. Nobody can force us to buy goods and services we don't want and if we all make informed choices, the market will do whatever we tell it to. If we all stop buying fossil fuels (impossible perhaps, but hypothetically, for the sake of discussion) the multi-national oil corps would have no choice but to either diversify into 'renewables' or fail completely. At present, because of the obvious gullibility of the 'market', the corporations merely have to sew the seeds of doubt by getting a handful of scientists to emphasize the 'margins of error' in the data and their political lackeys are more than happy to run with that on their behalf. The thing that saddens me most of all is that even thinking people seem to be unable to see through all that to the reality - that our consumer choices are damaging our own environment to the point that the future of our children and grandchildren is threatened, and the power is in our hands to fix it and yet we either choose not to or imagine we are powerless to do so.

 

[Debateable]

Ok. A couple more questions if you don't mind.

What is a true free market system?

Is lobbying not possible in a free market?

Ideally no. Is it possible, obviously, but once it happens, you are starting to manipulate the system and is no longer a true free market.

 

[Debateable]

@Debateable - so how did the corporations emerge from the 'true' capitalism of 3/4 of a century ago if not by people voting with their dollars - and is it not true to say that corporations also vote with their dollars - which is what you mean by 'lobbying'. It seems to me that the corporations are indeed beholden to people (aka the market, aka the combined effect of our consumer choices) but not to the government because they can buy their way to changing the government's mind or even changing the government itself in some cases. Corporations were not invented by socialist governments, they were invented by wealthy capitalists to further their own capitalist ambitions. And, if you subscribe to capitalism, it has to be the right thing to do because it places control of the means of production in the hands of those who are most likely to increase the economic 'wealth of nations'. The idea that we can have lots of small businesses all doing the same thing in different ways and still get the economic advancement that capitalist government requires (as a metric of its success) just doesn't float - its pie in the sky and could only be realized by significantly more stringent and arbitrary regulations about how and where (in terms of international boundaries, tax laws, trade etc.) business can be conducted.

The truth is, corporatism is the monster our so-called 'free-market' has created and having less government control at this stage will only feed its appetite for power and strengthen the grip of their bankers over the actual financial decisions of government. But in the end, the real power is still in the hands of the people. Nobody can force us to buy goods and services we don't want and if we all make informed choices, the market will do whatever we tell it to. If we all stop buying fossil fuels (impossible perhaps, but hypothetically, for the sake of discussion) the multi-national oil corps would have no choice but to either diversify into 'renewables' or fail completely. At present, because of the obvious gullibility of the 'market', the corporations merely have to sew the seeds of doubt by getting a handful of scientists to emphasize the 'margins of error' in the data and their political lackeys are more than happy to run with that on their behalf. The thing that saddens me most of all is that even thinking people seem to be unable to see through all that to the reality - that our consumer choices are damaging our own environment to the point that the future of our children and grandchildren is threatened, and the power is in our hands to fix it and yet we either choose not to or imagine we are powerless to do so.

Wrong wrong wrong! The massive corporations we have are because of the lobbying. It has lead to less competition allowing these monster corporations that buy other companies and become so large they are just as bloated and inefficient as government (well not that bad but pretty bad). If lobbying never occurred and if we had LESS stringent regulations we'd have greater competition and smaller businesses. Now, there would be a significant amount of turnover, meaning businesses would come and go frequently, but that is good for the consumer. The system would be much more healthy and work the way it's supposed to.

Also, your comment about oil companies sewing seeds of doubt is baseless at best. Prove to me that they are doing that. I'm willing to bet that you can't and IN FACT there is more evidence that big oil is backing AGW. The Rockefeller's for one are backing AGW which they are about as big as big oil gets.

 

[siti]

Wrong wrong wrong! The massive corporations we have are because of the lobbying. It has lead to less competition allowing these monster corporations that buy other companies and become so large they are just as bloated and inefficient as government (well not that bad but pretty bad). If lobbying never occurred and if we had LESS stringent regulations we'd have greater competition and smaller businesses. Now, there would be a significant amount of turnover, meaning businesses would come and go frequently, but that is good for the consumer. The system would be much more healthy and work the way it's supposed to.

Also, your comment about oil companies sewing seeds of doubt is baseless at best. Prove to me that they are doing that. I'm willing to bet that you can't and IN FACT there is more evidence that big oil is backing AGW. The Rockefeller's for one are backing AGW which they are about as big as big oil gets.

So are you proposing regulating the size a business is allowed to be? How do you prevent "lobbying" in free-market? How is a system which has stunted businesses starting up and going out of business resulting in greater supply and demand uncertainty "more healthy"? How is losing your job because the boss is a silly *** who thought he knew how to run a business "good for the consumer"? As for the oil companies "sewing seeds of doubt" - my goodness, there's barely a research paper published that has any genuine scientific research providing actual evidence against global warming, almost all of the 'evidence' comes from papers written by right-wing "think"-tanks (now there's a non-sequitur if ever there was one) or from out-of-context leaked emails. If you can actually find the science you can put it here - I have already given numerous references and explanations of the science of climate change somewhere in RF - where are yours?