Why is there a Global Warming Conspiracy?

I'm addressing this question to all the Global Warming Deniers.

WHY are all the Climatologists engaged in this awful conspiracy to lie to us about Global Warming? Please, give me some logical reasons WHY they would all risk their careers to posit what you say is a lie they have all agreed upon when it is nearly a dead certainty that, if they maintained there was no Global Warming (as you claim) the Oil Companies, Coal Companies and most every Republican Member of Congress would more than willingly support them both morally and financially to every legal extent they possibly could. (and I am assuming here for argument's sake that all oil/coal companies, plus the entire Republican Party are as pure and incorruptible as the driven snow which still lays unmelted outside my front door, utterly incapable of even the slightest breath of questionable ethics)

Al Gore has 200 million. Exxon ALONE has 486 BILLION. Yet all you Deniers are saying that the climatologists are being paid off by GORE (and some other equally rich minions I suppose.) to lie about poor Exxon, (and every other oil and/or coal company in the entire world)??.

Really, please. HOW can you expect anyone to swallow that? I know this looks like a troll but I'd really like an answer to that question. Can ANY of you support what seems such a screaming disparity? Or are all of you just going to continue to cherry pick the occasional guy (usually speaking out of his field) who comes up with something contradictory ( which is, after all, part of the process of how science proves things, by trying to disprove them)

I really would like some sort of answer

 

It is the same as the belief that there is a world wide conspiracy of scientists to support evolution vs the bible.

It cant be that science would really say they are wrong, so it has to be fake science.

 

Trying to stop the spread of news that climate change, much more human caused climate change, is a priority one endeavor for companies who are in the industries that pollute the air, water, and ground, because they must pollute in order to function.

Politicians enact regulations when this news becomes popular. And, regardless of whether I like pollution or not, I know that these industries are required to maintain our current standard of living. Now, they are out for profits, but I'm trying to be practical here. Even if we cut to the bone our pollution emissions we'll always pollute in some amount.

Do we want to go back to the sticks, rocks, and mud, like cavemen? Not, I... And, actually, if water vapor is a pollutant we might not be able to boil a pot of water anymore either. To get Climate change under control requires us to have a massive population decline.

 

Profits.

It is all about profits.

The profits of the industrial conversion.
The profits to cooperating scientist.


Moi

No ​

 

ita all about money..they make money on grant money than they can get in a job..the oceans have risen 8 inches in the last 145 years..so in 500 years time that would be 2 feet about...in 1000 years 4 feet in 2000 years 8 feet..since jesus time 2000 years ago there was only about 7 million people now we have 7 billion...so in 2000 years 8 feet of rising oceans will be our least problem..where and how to you feed that many people...libards are not looking at the whole picture again..

 

god there really are people like some who post here.

 

Really?...Tell me, how do "scientiests" make money on Grant money?

 

These guys have never actually met a scientist in their lives, but they know alllllll about their dirty tricks.

 

If you can't get Grant Money, you lose your Ivory Tower.

Grant Money is political, not objective.

Personal story:
My relative spent decades as an Ivory Towerist studying spinal cord regeneration.
Now he is an old fart and sits on committees that award grants.
He told me he rejects any grant request for spinal cord regeneration.
I know him as such a "small" person, he would figure if he couldn't solve it, it was not worth funding.

Get it?
Grants are not issued by humanist who award them out of merit.
They are awarded by small minded SOB's like my relative, and likewise political satisfaction.

Through the seventies all Marijuana grants were withdrawn except for institutions that supported Marijuana was a dangerous drug and produced supporting evidence.


I bet you are so detached from Science, you rely on Yahoo Science News.



Moi

No ​

 

Nice try. Now try again. How do scientists make money on Grant money. I know the answer because I know how the system works. You obviously are parroting some BULSH you got from some denialist crap site...so, how do scientists make money from Grants?

 

If you think about it most of the research is done by universities who host 10 or more schools dealing with different kinds of science . If we suppose that mathematicians, astrophysicists , engineers , molecular biologists etc are fine and climatologists are scumbags making money through bribes how come not everyone wants to become one ?

 

One of the main reasons is that people like you keep going into the debate without any genuine equanimity. All of your creative use of capitals, no links, bendy strawmen and so-on make you look like an ass. I would never even respond to your rambling in real life and you wouldn't have the balls to say this stuff to my face in real life. It's more than possible to have legitimate reservations about the credibilty of people who are wrong when they attribute 90% certainty to their models. But I have never heard anyone who considers themselves a leftist recognize this legitimacy. Instead they act like you have and feign an elite sense of condescension when they receive the natural response.

 

By spreading a lie for decades and continue to repeat that lie, that lie becomes more and more the truth in the minds of most people, in the masses, almost like a believe (most people will defend that lie)
People believe what they have heard and have seen in the news media and what was told by politics over the last thirteen years.
One day that can change, by speading the details, the facts, so truths. What will happen is that people their believe will be shattered, and they will be waking up.
This mass awakening is how a revolution can ignite.
A 'conspiracy' keeps people thinking and struggeling for decades, scientific facts and details would not start a conspiracy or could let conspiracy theories grow.
JFK and 9/11 did and still do the same, for decades people have not seen the facts and scientific evidence, and when one day they will see those facts and scienfitic evidence (will be spread via the many media outlets and politics), they will be shocked.
It will be that shock (steep rise in emotions) effect through society which can trigger a revolution.
This is the real Why. By revolutions masses of people are organised.
So climatologist aren't allowed to tell the facts, show the science, until politics can gain from it (by a shock, by an awakening, by a revolution)
Don't be suprised if this will happen one day.

 

So do you think the same is true of the conspiracy to promote evolutionism?

 

Last Try: And I will type slowly too.

No Grant Money

No Job!


Moi

No ​

 

I know a lot of researchers personally, every one of them would have a job without grants....University and government positions are all salaried...

 

I thank you for sort of supporting my position but I think what you're saying is hyperbole. We don't need to kill 90% of humanity to survive, or even anybody really, we don't need to even really change our lifestyles. We just need to readjust certain priorities to do certain things that most people have thought were good ideas all along.

So fine, so WHY are the Climatologists all lying about it when they could easily make more money by telling the truth?

Sorry, personal stories are called anecdotal evidence and nobody accepts them, and I recall lots of peer reviewed studies that approved of marijuana. Do you have any evidence for your claim that only biased studies of marijuana were being permitted? I don't really know what the actual process is for getting grants but they have to have some sort of safeguards against bias, or why would they have them in the first place?

And you're still not answering my original question. If it is true that there is no AGW then why are all the climatologists lying? Apparently you think all climatogists are just pathological deceivers who so enjoy hoodwinking the public that they are willing to risk their careers and undergo considerable financial sacrifice to do so

So, in other words, how dare I ask the question and it's beneath you to answer. OOKK....

AFAIK I've not yet heard of any climatologist who attributes 90% certainty to any of his theories. They claim that 90% or even more of all climatologists generally agree with their theories, yes, but that's not the same as saying they're all 90% certain their theories are right. Frex, there is considerable debate on how much of the warming is anthropogenic, with some saying it's very little and some saying most all.

And if I'm positing a straw man argument here then what are the Deniers saying? You are saying it is legitimate to "question their credibility" right? that is, call them liars, so we return to my original question. Why are they lying, when it places their reputations at risk and costs them money?

But I think you're a reasonable person, so I will assume you're not really questioning their credibility but rather saying it is reasonable to question the validity of their claims. That is undeniably true, but those questions should be based on facts and evidence of your own, and I have not seen the deniers present much, whereas the proponents of AGW have given me a boatload.


.

I'll type slowly too.

Al Gore $200 million

Exxon $486 billion

Who do you think it would be easier to get a grant from, if it was true and supported their position?

 

Tell us...How does the system work? I'd like to secure a nice juicy grant too. Maybe recoup some of my tax dollars.

 

I can answer that on two levels, one is political, the other scientific.

You would have less trouble convincing people of global warming if you didn't append to it higher taxes and redistribution. This makes it look like a scheme to enrich government coffers and introduce more socialism into the economy. I'm always suspicious of programs designed to "do good" that involve taking money and resources from people.

Scientifically..well. I am by no means a scientist but isn't a climate cycle (30 years) with measurements going back only 150 years a rather small sample? Also, what do you make of the fact that we have had no appreciable warming in the last 15 years?

 

You first...provide the proof that climate scientists are getting rich via gov grants. The claim is just simply complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*)...nothing more than a red-herring claim perpetuated by those who, 1. lack the understanding of the science. 2. those who buy into the BULSH of a liberal conspiracy.

Recoup some of your tax dollars?....from what specifically?

 

Climate Change Funding and Management

Over the past 20 years, the federal government has spent billions of dollars to address climate change. Coordination and planning are critical to effective and efficient efforts.

http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

Climate Funds Update is an independent website that provides information on the growing number of international climate finance initiatives designed to help developing countries address the challenges of climate change.

http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/

https://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_...sm/special_climate_change_fund/items/3657.php

 

No rubber stamps involved. This claim is a lie.

Why use the word "schemes" rather than some more descriptive word? This is an implied lie.

No "wrenching" is involved. This claim is a lie.

The claims are based on the available evidence. Nothing about AGW was pre-determined in any way. This claim is a lie.

[quotejunk-science[/quote]None of this is junk science. It is traditional, competitive, peer-reviewed, properly researched and reported science. This claim is a lie,

No, there are no conclusions as such. There are predictions, and models, and underling sets of related observations. The claim that these are conclusions is a lie.

WOW. Six lies buried in one slanted sentence. And we wonder why the denialists can't be reached.

Einstein was asked, shortly after publishing his theory of special relativity, what he thought of all of the physicists who disagred with him. And Einstein said "It only takes one, if he's right." And it doesn't take much evidence to discount AGW, provided it's right.

The "boatload of AGW BS" of course consisting of the tested, consistent, relevant evidence. So what we see here is a purely religious approach - if you CALL a dog's tail a leg, then it IS a leg. Words have magical powers. Just lie, baby!

 

I'm reminded of the anti-vaccination crowd complaining about how government funding is making doctors rich by fighting the spread of disease. Of course, not one doctor getting "rich" off of research and implementation support can be found. And similarly, not one climatologist can be found getting rich off of government efforts to address a growing problem. But if we just SAY they're getting rich, and if we just SAY there's no problem, then magically it comes true.

 

Global warming exists, and so the climatologists are correct. Al gore and his ilk are sensationalizing it to line their own pockets from the legislation (carbon credits) associated with it. There's nothing we did to cause it, and nothing we can do to stop it. It's a natural process, and some unscrupulous cretins are blowing it out of proportion for their own profit.