Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

Now we know who pays our trolls


dabize

Recommended Posts

Is this intended as part of the " to late to do anything now" propaganda meme pushed by the paid hacks at Heartland?

If so, while addressing EU airline regs re carbon, I don't think it's saying the whole carbon credit thing is done.

I won't make a difference if countries like China are on the fast track to destruction.

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 542
  • Created
  • Last Reply

And people who have left a career in one field and joined "green" energy would benefit greatly.

Do you know anyone, a single person, in the "green" energy field who does not believe in man caused climate change?

Meanwhile, these same people gutter snipe people who work in various fields remotely connected to real energy exploration. hmmmmmm.

If you were referring to my change from aerospace to renewable energy - that was a swing and a miss. My career change was not motivated by my concerns about AGW but rather by learning and understanding 'Peak Oil' and its implications for the US and other developed nations. We are terribly vulnerable so long as we are addicted to fossil fuel and dependent on foreign suppliers. BAU is simply not sustainable. Since I live in Texas I'm aware of how much has changed since the oil boom days. Here's the plot of Texas oil production since 1935:

Texas_Oil_Production_1935_to_2005.png

And that's with massive expenditure in secondary and tertiary recovery technologies. A good introductory article on oil production in various regions of the US can be found here. Similar oil field depletion curves are available for other oil producing countries. We will run out of affordable oil before we run out of oil, but oil is a finite resource so we need toswitch to sustainable alternatives. Our current fossil fuel based economy is similar in some ways to the whale oil economy of the 1800s. How well did that one do when the whale populations crashed?

If burning fossil fuels had absolutely no effect on our climate it would still be necessary to make the switch to renewable energy sources. There really isn't a choice in that. Our only choice is whether we start making the transition now while energy is still relatively cheap - or will we wait until supplies collapse and try to transition in the middle of the resulting energy/economic/political crisis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the move to reduce emissions has to be global, it can't be unilateral if you want it to work.

I think it has to start somewhere.

The 'I won't do it unless he goes first', just means everyone sinks together. They've been pushing this as far back as their claims that second hand smoke won't hurt you, and besides if restaurants in this city regulate against it, everyone will just eat in the next town.

I think it's one of the oldest - and possibly most harmful claims that Heartland has pushed.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the move to reduce emissions has to be global, it can't be unilateral if you want it to work.

I've heard this canard for years and it has alway struck me as illogical on several levels. Perhaps you can enlighten me (and others) on why this makes sense to you and other skeptics. Your statement distills down to "Why bother?"

From a top-down point of view there is a strong case to be made for mitigating an impending crisis as soon as it is recognized - this approach has several names: lead by example, take the moral high ground, a stitich in time saves nine, and so forth. It may be expensive to reduce GHG emissions and transition to more sustainable energy sources - but it is cheaper today than it will be in, say, forty years. Energy, materials, and labor costs are all rising. And, yes, I've studied the economic models that discount the cost of future mitigation efforts by claiming that we'll all be richer in the future. Those models are based on assumptions of unlimited resources and unrealistic economic growth - so they are about as plausible as predictions of flying cars and vacations on the Moon. If you have a broken pipe or leaky roof is it better to fix it now - or ignore it in hopes that you'll win the lottery in a month and be richer? (hint - it's smarter to fix it now)

Another advantage of tackling GHG emissions now is to make money. As many have pointed out, new technologies will be needed - and the countries that develop and market those technologies will be the ones to reap the profits. Shouldn't the US at least be in the running? If the answer is yes then we should be investing in R&D in the technology fields that will be needed and encouraging entrepreneurs to start up new ventures to implement the technologies. Granted, a large percentage of the startups will fail but that is true of any industry.

Your assertion fails from a bottom-up, grassroots, point of view, too. If your neighborhood is threatened by wildfire is it pointless to unilaterally save your house unless you can save all of the neighbors' houses, too? Or, since we are talking about the behavior of other countries perhaps a different analogy would be better. If your neighbors are engaged in an activity you know is harmful, say, dealing drugs - are you seriously saying that unless all of them stop their drug dealings it make sense to join them and start cooking meth in your basement? If you can't beat 'em then join 'em, right? Doesn't it make sense to do what you can - even knowing that your efforts may fall short of completely solving a problem?

I know that my reducing my GHG footprint is not going to make a noticable difference in AGW - but I also know that there are millions of people like me and our aggregate efforts are orders of magnitude more significant. Change - whether it's civil rights or recycling or reducing GHGs or whatever - begins on an individual level. Why bother? - because it's important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, at you guys painting bluewave as a skeptic on climate change or that his statements were wrong. His statement was not "Why bother".... He is one of the most on topic, level-headed posters on the board. Leave the denier and skeptic tags for true deniers and skeptics or you will lose all credibility. I think it's too late for some of you though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, at you guys painting bluewave as a skeptic on climate change or that his statements were wrong. His statement was not "Why bother".... He is one of the most on topic, level-headed posters on the board. Leave the denier and skeptic tags for true deniers and skeptics or you will lose all credibility. I think it's too late for some of you though...

When sombody posts denialist themes - why shouldn't they be considered a denialist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, at you guys painting bluewave as a skeptic on climate change or that his statements were wrong. His statement was not "Why bother".... He is one of the most on topic, level-headed posters on the board. Leave the denier and skeptic tags for true deniers and skeptics or you will lose all credibility. I think it's too late for some of you though...

Frankly i thought Phillips's essay was one of the best I've seen in some time.

BTW

What is this obsession with loss of credibility, you've used the phrase on any number of otherwise unrelated threads. I think most tend to find arguments that they already agree with to be more credible than those that we disagree with, or even those with which we're not familiar. If wide credibility was a valid concern one could easily achieve it by simply repeating popular arguments. To broaden the scope of the subject sometimes arguments need to be made that are either unpopular, or that present a new or unique perspective.

For many this blog in more about learning than about trying to influence opinion. For these an adherence to risk averse, credibility at all costs, strategy's is counterproductive,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly i thought Phillips's essay was one of the best I've seen in some time.

BTW

What is this obsession with loss of credibility, you've used the phrase on any number of otherwise unrelated threads. I think most tend to find arguments that they already agree with to be more credible than those that we disagree with, or even those with which we're not familiar. If wide credibility was a valid concern one could easily achieve it by simply repeating popular arguments. To broaden the scope of the subject sometimes arguments need to be made that are either unpopular, or that present a new or unique perspective.

For many this blog in more about learning than about trying to influence opinion. For these an adherence to risk averse, credibility at all costs, strategy's is counterproductive,

Lack of scientific credibility flies in the face of the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were referring to my change from aerospace to renewable energy - that was a swing and a miss. My career change was not motivated by my concerns about AGW but rather by learning and understanding 'Peak Oil' and its implications for the US and other developed nations. We are terribly vulnerable so long as we are addicted to fossil fuel and dependent on foreign suppliers. BAU is simply not sustainable. Since I live in Texas I'm aware of how much has changed since the oil boom days. Here's the plot of Texas oil production since 1935:

Texas_Oil_Production_1935_to_2005.png

And that's with massive expenditure in secondary and tertiary recovery technologies. A good introductory article on oil production in various regions of the US can be found here. Similar oil field depletion curves are available for other oil producing countries. We will run out of affordable oil before we run out of oil, but oil is a finite resource so we need toswitch to sustainable alternatives. Our current fossil fuel based economy is similar in some ways to the whale oil economy of the 1800s. How well did that one do when the whale populations crashed?

If burning fossil fuels had absolutely no effect on our climate it would still be necessary to make the switch to renewable energy sources. There really isn't a choice in that. Our only choice is whether we start making the transition now while energy is still relatively cheap - or will we wait until supplies collapse and try to transition in the middle of the resulting energy/economic/political crisis?

If renewable energy sources can compete, then great. I'm all for it.

If it takes massive taxes for that to happen, along with major increases in cost, then no, I'm not for it.

Right now, renewables are a loser, and losing ground btw. If renewables can't compete in this climate, well then, good luck to you.

"In 1949 nearly 91% of America's total primary energy came from coal, oil, and natural gas. The balance came from renewables, with hydropower being a dominant contributor. By 2008 the market share for coal, oil and natural gas, along with nuclear, had grown to 92.5% of total primary energy in the U.S. with the remainder coming from renewables."

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/11/renewables-energy-oil-economy-opinions-contributors-robert-bryce.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, at you guys painting bluewave as a skeptic on climate change or that his statements were wrong. His statement was not "Why bother".... He is one of the most on topic, level-headed posters on the board. Leave the denier and skeptic tags for true deniers and skeptics or you will lose all credibility. I think it's too late for some of you though...

The word you're dancing around and searching for is cult. It explains everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lack of scientific credibility flies in the face of the scientific method.

If credibility is what you are seeking - your side probably won't find it on this thread, which is about those paid to disrupt the teachings of science in the classroom and on the internet.

If Heartland believed that science would prove them right, they wouldn't be trying to stop the teaching of science in schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If credibility is what you are seeking - your side probably won't find it on this thread, which is about those paid to disrupt the teachings of science in the classroom and on the internet.

If Heartland believed that science would prove them right, they wouldn't be trying to stop the teaching of science in schools.

I don't belong to or have a side, but thanks. What are the different sides in this forum? What side do you think I'm on and why do you feel that way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And people who have left a career in one field and joined "green" energy would benefit greatly.

Do you know anyone, a single person, in the "green" energy field who does not believe in man caused climate change?

Meanwhile, these same people gutter snipe people who work in various fields remotely connected to real energy exploration. hmmmmmm.

If by real energy you mean oil/natural gas. You are just making that up. You can't get any more absurd than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it has to start somewhere.

The 'I won't do it unless he goes first', just means everyone sinks together. They've been pushing this as far back as their claims that second hand smoke won't hurt you, and besides if restaurants in this city regulate against it, everyone will just eat in the next town.

I think it's one of the oldest - and possibly most harmful claims that Heartland has pushed.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Heartland is just a symptom of the problem. People push political agendas that favor a quick buck

over a sustainable future for everyone. The whole push for globalization including during the Clinton/Gore

administration has actually made the problem more difficult to address. Driving heavy industries offshore

to places like China with no laws that protect the environment actually accelerates co2 emissions

globally. Ironically, the trade policies of Clinton and Gore effectively took off the table anything that

Gore wanted to do in regards to global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't belong to or have a side, but thanks. What are the different sides in this forum? What side do you think I'm on and why do you feel that way?

Since you have out right denied bottom ice melt in the arctic during late September/October, even though it happens all year in places. I would say that makes you a denier or skeptic. You denied proven science when the proper evidence was presented. Then you went on an insult spree calling me incompetent in the process while I was providing the data for you, that you denied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you have out right denied bottom ice melt in the arctic during late September/October, even though it happens all year in places. I would say that makes you a denier or skeptic. You denied proven science when the proper evidence was presented. Then you went on an insult spree calling me incompetent in the process while I was providing the data for you, that you denied.

I never denied the existence of bottom melt. I said that the "proof" you were presenting to backup your claim didn't prove or show bottom melt. There is actually a post of mine where I clearly acknowledge bottom melt.

Edit:

Page 85 of the Arctic sea ice thread, people can make a judgement for themselves if they care to look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard this canard for years and it has alway struck me as illogical on several levels. Perhaps you can enlighten me (and others) on why this makes sense to you and other skeptics. Your statement distills down to "Why bother?"

From a top-down point of view there is a strong case to be made for mitigating an impending crisis as soon as it is recognized - this approach has several names: lead by example, take the moral high ground, a stitich in time saves nine, and so forth. It may be expensive to reduce GHG emissions and transition to more sustainable energy sources - but it is cheaper today than it will be in, say, forty years. Energy, materials, and labor costs are all rising. And, yes, I've studied the economic models that discount the cost of future mitigation efforts by claiming that we'll all be richer in the future. Those models are based on assumptions of unlimited resources and unrealistic economic growth - so they are about as plausible as predictions of flying cars and vacations on the Moon. If you have a broken pipe or leaky roof is it better to fix it now - or ignore it in hopes that you'll win the lottery in a month and be richer? (hint - it's smarter to fix it now)

Another advantage of tackling GHG emissions now is to make money. As many have pointed out, new technologies will be needed - and the countries that develop and market those technologies will be the ones to reap the profits. Shouldn't the US at least be in the running? If the answer is yes then we should be investing in R&D in the technology fields that will be needed and encouraging entrepreneurs to start up new ventures to implement the technologies. Granted, a large percentage of the startups will fail but that is true of any industry.

Your assertion fails from a bottom-up, grassroots, point of view, too. If your neighborhood is threatened by wildfire is it pointless to unilaterally save your house unless you can save all of the neighbors' houses, too? Or, since we are talking about the behavior of other countries perhaps a different analogy would be better. If your neighbors are engaged in an activity you know is harmful, say, dealing drugs - are you seriously saying that unless all of them stop their drug dealings it make sense to join them and start cooking meth in your basement? If you can't beat 'em then join 'em, right? Doesn't it make sense to do what you can - even knowing that your efforts may fall short of completely solving a problem?

I know that my reducing my GHG footprint is not going to make a noticable difference in AGW - but I also know that there are millions of people like me and our aggregate efforts are orders of magnitude more significant. Change - whether it's civil rights or recycling or reducing GHGs or whatever - begins on an individual level. Why bother? - because it's important.

Why do you call me a skeptic? I would rather that this world was run by scientists and artists instead of politicians.

economists, and big monied interests. Calling people names will never advance your argument. The world is not

going to adopt scientifically rational policies that they feel will harm their economic growth. Why do you think

that its been so difficult to seriously address the whole global warming issue internationally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never denied the existence of bottom melt. I said that the "proof" you were presenting to backup your claim didn't prove or show bottom melt. There is actually a post of mine where I clearly acknowledge bottom melt.

I posted a cross section of a graph from a a United States Military ran website they created and the subsequent article they published with the graph talking about the bottom melt in the Beaufort Sea that ran until the first week of November before it finally caved and rapid ice growth took off.

iAOOS1a.gif

Unless you do not know what that graph means or represents then there is no reason to deny the bottom ice melt.

The Graph shows the battle the bottom of the ice where the water was to warm for ice growth from Sept-Nov. And the air temperature Sept-Nov.

The bottom fought off the air temps into November before finally caving.

In fact the ice still lost thickness, even slightly till late October.

after posting this, you still denied it.

Here is my OP:

I don't see anywhere after that on page 85 where you admitted it. I guess that post was not enough evidence for something that is obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted a cross section of a graph from a a United States Military ran website they created and the subsequent article they published with the graph talking about the bottom melt in the Beaufort Sea that ran until the first week of November before it finally caved and rapid ice growth took off.

iAOOS1a.gif

Unless you do not know what that graph means or represents then there is no reason to deny the bottom ice melt.

The Graph shows the battle the bottom of the ice where the water was to warm for ice growth from Sept-Nov. And the air temperature Sept-Nov.

The bottom fought off the air temps into November before finally caving.

In fact the ice still lost thickness, even slightly till late October.

after posting this, you still denied it.

People can go back and read on page 85 or so of the sea ice thread and see what really happened. There is no point in rehashing it when the discussion we had is readily available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deepclimate thinks they have a fix on the 'Anonymous Donor' of Heartland Institute infamy.

http://deepclimate.org/2012/02/20/heartlands-anonymous-donor/

14 million dollars sounds like an awful lot just to mess with kids minds.

'Course Heartland also works to keep our internet bills high - perhaps that is part of 'Anonymous Donor's" motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what are you saying? That because we are having a warm and snowless winter that it is linked to man caused climate change?

Are you implying this?

Jesus, read the post.......I'm chatting.

Anecdotes are statistically worthless and I acknowledge that.

Im not implying anything........what are you inferring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't make a difference if countries like China are on the fast track to destruction.

http://www.chinahush...ution-in-china/

China has budgeted $1.5 Trillion dollars for green energy for the next five years. Thats 300 billion per year. With their labor costs, that's like us spending $600-900 billion per year. That is our entire military budget.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/8904733/China-unveils-1-trillion-green-technology-programme.html

This China BS was debunked before by me in this forum, not too long ago. The trolls know it is BS. They just want to earn their paycheck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why is a thread about a misinformation campaign derailed into yet another ice thread? why can't the topic at hand be discussed?

Trix, you deserve an honest answer to this one.

To one cohort of posters here, the misinformation campaign is a highly uncomfortable subject, to deflected, derailed and otherwise obfuscated at all costs. Of course.

The rest of us make ourselves accomplices to diversion by virtue of the fact that the pattern and extent of sea ice this season looks to be exceedingly interesting; much more so that beating trolls over the head with explicit evidence of their trolldom. Mea maxima culpa.

However, it is worth noting that the Heartland thuggery may end up being dealt with via the Capone pathway -

http://desmogblog.com/mashey-report-confirms-heartland-s-manipulation-exposes-singer-s-deception

Now if only Obama and his AG were more like FDR.................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China has budgeted $1.5 Trillion dollars for green energy for the next five years. Thats 300 billion per year. With their labor costs, that's like us spending $600-900 billion per year. That is our entire military budget.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/8904733/China-unveils-1-trillion-green-technology-programme.html

This China BS was debunked before by me in this forum, not too long ago. The trolls know it is BS. They just want to earn their paycheck.

As I mentioned in an earlier post (not sure if it was in this thread), the Chinese are very quickly becoming quite frightened by the AGW related changes occurring in their country.

They are taking it far more seriously than we are, for the eminently practical reason that the Hwang Ho (Yellow River) valley, China's main agricultural region, is now directly threatened with desertification associated with AGW.

They simply cannot afford this - the geriatric cases running the CP are not known for their innovation/flexibility, but they actually lived through the famine of the early '60s. This affected city people as well as peasants (I know some Beijing residents at the time and heard the stories), and the political consequences of inaction (increased internal migrations etc.) would be absolutely catastrophic for them.

Furthermore, they haven't got the Big Oil issues that fuel obstructionism here and thus prevent our wholesale movement to "green" energy - the homely fact that the "proven reserves" held by ALL of the oil companies (however fictitious) constitute the majority of their assets. Leave those in the ground, and they become insolvent.

It's a bit like the tobacco companies fighting to the bitter end to avoid ruination by lawsuits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source of the HI published docs: Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute

http://dotearth.blog...-climate-files/

This is important news.

It might pay to copy any docs that are available and possibly stash a copy on a drive.

Depending on how the judicial system deals with this, an attempt could be made to remove the data, but it will probably amount to unringing a bell.

Probably just paranoia - but just because you know you're paranoid, doesn't mean they ain't after you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fakes?

As we learned with the 60 Minutes story "Fortunate Son" about George Bush's supposed terrible National Guard service, in 2004, atheists advancing an agenda have no issues lying to 'advance the greater good'. The ends justify the means. That story was based on a memo about Bush's ANG service, was supposedly typed over 30 years prior, but had the default fonts and kerning of the most popular version of Microsfot Word in use in 2004.

Those that will lie for propaganda count on a sympathetic press, and didn't bother actually finding old typewriters, in the 'Fortunate Son' case.

Fake but accurate. Those evil deniers are all tools of Exxon, even if someone has to manufacture the proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China has budgeted $1.5 Trillion dollars for green energy for the next five years. Thats 300 billion per year. With their labor costs, that's like us spending $600-900 billion per year. That is our entire military budget.

http://www.telegraph...-programme.html

This China BS was debunked before by me in this forum, not too long ago. The trolls know it is BS. They just want to earn their paycheck.

That's a good PR move meant for public consumption but until you see this trend reversed it's all just talk

among the nations of the world and no action.

http://www.nytimes.c...ia/29china.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...