Thread: So lets assume its all a lie

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Lets assume for a brief moment that the concern over global climate change is a vast left wing conspiracy [designed to destroy our freedoms, and apple pie], how would that effect policy?

How do you feel about the movement away from fossil fuels? Mileage requirements? Emissions restrictions? Solar subsidies? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

I am just curious because the "denier" movement makes very little sense. Surprising because I was a Libertarian for quite some time.

Al Gore, CCX, Goldman Sachs, Spains Green economy as the model, green jobs equal government jobs equal voting block for libs/dems...and subsequent taxation on literally humanity itself.

And, any time, that the fraudulent self imposed spokesperson declares there is to no more dialog, the science is unquestionable...I know the root subject in question is usually a lie looking to stay hidden, which means hidden agenda for financial or political gain.

It is a science that is speculative at best, and that is the perfect foundation to build a lie.

Originally Posted by wyly

climatologists, volcanologists, meteorologists and every other scientist from every other science connected with climate are not engineers, engineers are those primarily responsible for new sources of energy development and conservation....

climatologists have enough problems trying to educate/countering the denier world that are intent on scuttling any development that would take us away from reducing CO2 emissions...

Well, that is my point, so many people are studying these courses, to begin a great career to educate many, on something that really should be irrelevant. Governments around the world are spending so much, to educate and fund all these studies that grow each year to find places for scientist to have a career that does what, educate us all on the environment. No doubt, eventually these careers will become flooded with more scientists out to make a name for themselves, clouding the issues even further. You can proclaim, I am talking about one side or the other but this issue is clouded from both sides.

The issue of moving away from fossil fuels is not just an environmental issue. IMO, the world has actually stalled in many areas of development. Just on the fossil fuels, what great advancements have been achieved in the transport area. the primary piece of machinery is the eternal combustion engine running on fossil fuels. this operation has not change for over 100 years. Relative to this, we now use mobile phones that a mere 40 years ago, we joked about the length of the lead you would need to carry. Now you can carry a computer that not only makes phone calls but has more computing power than the rocket that was sent to the moon.

Is it not great to see how government and corporate greed can hold man back in developing better alternatives? Just for anyone with any curiosity, How much money, world wide, is spent by governments and corporations, on proving a hypotheses right? How about how much money is spent to find alternatives? I think you will find the world is spending more money to prove a theory, than trying find ways to rid the world of this theory issue. I think the priorities are wrong.

As in business, if you are stagnant your dieing. I feel the world is stagnant in development, and channelling money to areas to simply make yourself more knowledgeable to a subject, not resolving the problem.

Originally Posted by garry17

Well, that is my point, so many people are studying these courses, to begin a great career to educate many, on something that really should be irrelevant. Governments around the world are spending so much, to educate and fund all these studies that grow each year to find places for scientist to have a career that does what, educate us all on the environment. No doubt, eventually these careers will become flooded with more scientists out to make a name for themselves, clouding the issues even further. You can proclaim, I am talking about one side or the other but this issue is clouded from both sides.

The issue of moving away from fossil fuels is not just an environmental issue. IMO, the world has actually stalled in many areas of development. Just on the fossil fuels, what great advancements have been achieved in the transport area. the primary piece of machinery is the eternal combustion engine running on fossil fuels. this operation has not change for over 100 years. Relative to this, we now use mobile phones that a mere 40 years ago, we joked about the length of the lead you would need to carry. Now you can carry a computer that not only makes phone calls but has more computing power than the rocket that was sent to the moon.

Is it not great to see how government and corporate greed can hold man back in developing better alternatives? Just for anyone with any curiosity, How much money, world wide, is spent by governments and corporations, on proving a hypotheses right? How about how much money is spent to find alternatives? I think you will find the world is spending more money to prove a theory, than trying find ways to rid the world of this theory issue. I think the priorities are wrong.

As in business, if you are stagnant your dieing. I feel the world is stagnant in development, and channelling money to areas to simply make yourself more knowledgeable to a subject, not resolving the problem.

that's just wrong on so many levels...scientists generally extend our knowledge...engineers take that new knowledge and build on it...

Originally Posted by wyly

that's just wrong on so many levels...scientists generally extend our knowledge...engineers take that new knowledge and build on it...

I know the difference between the two and that is the issue. so much funding is going to expand knowledge and nothing is going to Build on it. The is much need as well for scientific research to find better alternatives as well, but that would seem to be ignored for the ever engrossing attempts to get a reasonable result to a hypnosis with little is left to actually act on the issues.

Originally Posted by garry17

so much funding is going to expand knowledge and nothing is going to Build on it.

then you'll have no problems finding the stats to back these claims?

Originally Posted by wyly

then you'll have no problems finding the stats to back these claims?

I'll have to get back to you on that as it would include calculations of many nations around the world to find the known figures of what is spent on actually producing alternatives.

I should clarify that when I say nothing, I do not really mean zero amount. I mean it is nothing compared to the amount that is spent on trying to justify the theory. I believe that it should actually be the other way around.

But it will take time to accumulate

Originally Posted by garry17

I'll have to get back to you on that as it would include calculations of many nations around the world to find the known figures of what is spent on actually producing alternatives.

I should clarify that when I say nothing, I do not really mean zero amount. I mean it is nothing compared to the amount that is spent on trying to justify the theory. I believe that it should actually be the other way around.

But it will take time to accumulate

Just because you are not aware of engineering research does not mean it does not exist. To help start your research here is a start on what the US is doing:

Key R&D Programs and Initiatives

DOE's Regional Sequestration Partnership Program

Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships
DOE has created a nationwide network of federal, state and private sector partnerships to determine the most suitable technologies, regulations, and infrastructure for future carbon capture, storage and sequestration in different areas of the country. Read More >

Industrial CCS

Industrial Carbon Capture & Storage
DOE is managing a cost-shared collaboration with industry to demonstrate large-scale industrial carbon capture and storage technology. Read More >


Recovery Act Projects

Recovery Act Projects
The Office of Fossil Energy has received $3.4 billion from the Recovery Act to fund research, development and deployment of technologies to use coal more cleanly and efficiently. Read More >


Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage

Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage
DOE co-chairs this task force, created by President Obama, to develop a coordinated federal strategy to speed the development and deployment of clean coal technologies. Read More >

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum
DOE represents the United States in the CSLF. The CSLF is an international ministerial-level panel that meets regularly to advance scientific research, development, and demonstration of carbon capture and storage technologies on a global scale. Read More >

DOE's Core Sequestration R&D Program
Carbon Sequestration Core Program
DOE's Fossil Energy program is developing a portfolio of technologies that can capture and permanently store greenhouse gases. Read more about DOE's sequestration R&D program by clicking on the following links:



Sequestration Overview
Carbon Capture R&D
Geologic Sequestration



Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting
Simulation and Risk Assessment
CO2 Use and Reuse

and from here

The projects - located in Texas, Illinois, and Louisiana - were initially selected for funding in October 2009 as part of a $1.4 billion effort to capture CO2 from industrial sources for storage or beneficial use. The first phase of research and development (R&D) included $21.6 million in Recovery Act funding and $22.5 million in private funding for a total initial investment of $44.1 million.

I find it hard to believe that money spent on theory even exceeds just the two examples I have posted.

Originally Posted by MannieD

Just because you are not aware of engineering research does not mean it does not exist. To help start your research

Did I say it does not exist? No, I think I clarified that comment as to show that it does exist but not to the same extent.

Originally Posted by MannieD

I find it hard to believe that money spent on theory even exceeds just the two examples I have posted.

So tell me what is the Budget for the IPCC only one of the organisations? How about NOA, CRU, etc, etc,

As I stated I would need time to find the appropriate material to calculate the world wide costs of both. But seeing as how you seem to have all the figures, How much does the US spend on scientist to research the climate?

It is one thing to pick a couple of funding projects and then comment on the fact it is occurring. It is another thing to provide the figures that would also show that my comment is completely inaccurate.

But taken on face value (of my original comment) I will apologise if you think I meant NOTHING at all was spent in finding alternatives. Just to clarify again, The amount spent on finding alternatives is nothing compared to the money spent on trying to find the evidence to prove the theory. There are many figures that need to be evaluated, such as government funding at university for students to study climate science, programs to fund organisations who main goal is to organise climate change studies and so on. Oh, also I am talking more about government sectors rather than private sectors, because the private sector does not spend much at all on researching the climate.

Considering the Australian government has agreed to pay 10% of any funds raised through taxes and alike of climate policy to the UN to fund groups such as the IPCC, should indicate to you that there is a hell of a lot of money being funnelled to study of the climate.

I do not mean or intend to attribute any wrong doing or corruption to that comment, it just does not make sense to me that so much funding is spent to study these things and little of the money is actually used to advance the human population to a cleaner world. I do realise that there has been forces pressure against the advancement away from fossil fuels and that we are extremely slowly moving away from it but advancement has been so slow it is stagnant. I do not see why, it is so focused on climate science, as to more of moving the human population into more advanced position. I do realise people generally do not like change, as there is so much distrust of others intentions, due entirely most suffer from things that are supposed to make their life better. Greed and inconsideration has grown to such an extent that people will do things that will only benefit themselves regardless of who it hurts.

A cleaner future needs far better alternatives than is available now. It is that simple, the world is in no position to simply rid itself of all this polluting industry for a cleaner industry, and no amount of money at this very point will change that. ALL the climate studies show this, because they still think that mitigation is a good way to reduce emissions, when in fact they think we can emit more while using mitigation to defer it. Mitigation does not reduce emissions at all, in any way, it simply makes the pollies feel good about it and allows many to gain wealth from it.

Originally Posted by garry17

I'll have to get back to you on that as it would include calculations of many nations around the world to find the known figures of what is spent on actually producing alternatives.

I should clarify that when I say nothing, I do not really mean zero amount. I mean it is nothing compared to the amount that is spent on trying to justify the theory. I believe that it should actually be the other way around.

But it will take time to accumulate

yes I understand you're only trying to make your point when you "zero"...

I think when you do find the actual dollar figures for scientific research into climate change and it's effects is a drop in the bucket when compared to engineering technology, there isn't a lot of profit for scientific research, potential profit for engineering solutions on the other hand is limitless...

Originally Posted by garry17

Did I say it does not exist? No, I think I clarified that comment as to show that it does exist but not to the same extent.

Fair enough. I should have been more careful with my words.

Originally Posted by garry17

So tell me what is the Budget for the IPCC only one of the organisations? How about NOA, CRU, etc, etc,

IPCC does no research and does nothing to "justify the theory" so budget of IPCC should not be included in research expenditures. IPCC onlycollects research done by others.
NOAA climate:

NOAA requests $435M for climate funding in FY 2011, with a total of $130M in increases.

NASA Earth Science (includes satellites): $1.82 billion.
Still nowhere near the $4.8 billion from just 2 grants.
I do not have numbers for CRU or BOM. Even if they both spent $1 billion, money spent on alternatives ($4.8B) is not "nothing compared to the money spent on trying to find the evidence to prove the theory".

Originally Posted by garry17

As I stated I would need time to find the appropriate material to calculate the world wide costs of both. But seeing as how you seem to have all the figures, How much does the US spend on scientist to research the climate?

It is one thing to pick a couple of funding projects and then comment on the fact it is occurring. It is another thing to provide the figures that would also show that my comment is completely inaccurate.

But taken on face value (of my original comment) I will apologise if you think I meant NOTHING at all was spent in finding alternatives. Just to clarify again, The amount spent on finding alternatives is nothing compared to the money spent on trying to find the evidence to prove the theory. There are many figures that need to be evaluated, such as government funding at university for students to study climate science, programs to fund organisations who main goal is to organise climate change studies and so on. Oh, also I am talking more about government sectors rather than private sectors, because the private sector does not spend much at all on researching the climate.

Considering the Australian government has agreed to pay 10% of any funds raised through taxes and alike of climate policy to the UN to fund groups such as the IPCC, should indicate to you that there is a hell of a lot of money being funnelled to study of the climate.

I do not mean or intend to attribute any wrong doing or corruption to that comment, it just does not make sense to me that so much funding is spent to study these things and little of the money is actually used to advance the human population to a cleaner world. I do realise that there has been forces pressure against the advancement away from fossil fuels and that we are extremely slowly moving away from it but advancement has been so slow it is stagnant. I do not see why, it is so focused on climate science, as to more of moving the human population into more advanced position. I do realise people generally do not like change, as there is so much distrust of others intentions, due entirely most suffer from things that are supposed to make their life better. Greed and inconsideration has grown to such an extent that people will do things that will only benefit themselves regardless of who it hurts.

A cleaner future needs far better alternatives than is available now. It is that simple, the world is in no position to simply rid itself of all this polluting industry for a cleaner industry, and no amount of money at this very point will change that. ALL the climate studies show this, because they still think that mitigation is a good way to reduce emissions, when in fact they think we can emit more while using mitigation to defer it. Mitigation does not reduce emissions at all, in any way, it simply makes the pollies feel good about it and allows many to gain wealth from it.

Actually mitigation does mean reducing emissions.