Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[K-man]

K-man, I am simply countering the tired excuse that people skeptical of man made global warming are all shills for the oil industry...you can see by the vast sums of money spent on promoting man made global warming that they are just as open to corruption as the other side...and I bet that the oil industry isn't spending as much as these governments do...

I don't have a problem accepting independent evidence that is a contrary to those who are saying there is global warming. That is what science is about. There are many reputable scientists that are of a position contrary to the IPCC but skeptics ignore them because they aren't what they want. They would rather have a scientist that is prepared to back their position against any evidence to the contrary. I would love to read credible evidence that says there won't be problems in the future but it just isn't there. There are many scientists that think that the human factor in the warming is not as great as is being promoted. Fine, that is a credible opinion, but the same scientists agree that warming is occurring and that it will be damaging. That doesn't suit the skeptics position.

As to the amount of money being spent. That was one of my earlier questions that was ignored. If the science is right and there are going to be big problems down the track unless we do something drastic, what is a fair amount for the governments world wide to earmark for that research? Is it responsible for governments to just say "we don't believe the science so we will just wait and see"?
:asian:

 

[billc]

It is not the spending "if the science is right" it is the spending that helps keep the science going when the science is wrong that is the problem. If scientists, like Mann and jones are lying about their data and getting paid for the false data...what do we do about that.

Another avenue for corruption is the U.N. itself...there are countries who are making money and who stand to make money off of man made global warming and they use their people at the U.N. to get that job done...do you want to send money to 3rd world dictators based on man made global warming guilt trips by elitists at the U.N.?

 

[billc]

Some more on that consensus...

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/climate-scientists-continue-bury-facts-disprove-theory-manmade-climate-change

Maybe this shouldn't be a surprise. After all, this is the same group of respected members of the scientific community that makes claims that 97% of the community agrees with the theory of climate change - the only problem being that they seem to have sort of made the whole thing up. James M. Taylor reports at the Heartland Institute:

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contentious between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

​

[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ [/URL]

 

[Flying Crane]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy story.

The £13.7M was funding for his department over twenty years. When he was accused of wrong doing he stepped aside then was reinstated after an inquiry found he had done nothing wrong.


As a major contributor to the IPCC report it makes sense that the other side of the arguement, with no credible facts of their own, would seek to discredit his research by smearing . Just that it didn't work!
:asian:

there's also a huge difference between money received to conduct actual research, and money going into his pocket.

this whole nonsense is a standard distraction tactic. when one side is accused of shady behavior (i.e. accepting money from Big Oil to push their agenda), they just turn around and make the same accusations right back, but there's no basis for it. it's a tactic of desperation. unfortunately, there are those who fall for it.

 

[Flying Crane]

Both sides of the climategate investigation, Britain and the U.S., were fake. The U.s. Side was done by the guy who cleared the child rapist at Penn State, and the British investigation was headed by a global warming supporter. [/QUOTE
... and they are?




Certainly not here, but I can't speak for American universities.
:asian:

not in the ways that billc wants you to believe.

 

[Flying Crane]

Why don't we just close all the Universities and get rid of the hotbed of corruption? It would save billions of dollars and civilisation could go back to the dark ages where it was fashionable to believe jumbo jumbo.
:asian:

ah, you begin to see what billc'c real motives are. for a man who is afraid of education and afraid of science, other options look better.

 

[Makalakumu]

this whole nonsense is a standard distraction tactic. when one side is accused of shady behavior (i.e. accepting money from Big Oil to push their agenda), they just turn around and make the same accusations right back, but there's no basis for it. it's a tactic of desperation. unfortunately, there are those who fall for it.

I think that is very unfortunate perspective, FC. The idea that "climate change" has been hijacked by global central planners who would like to cash on a global tax and bureaucracy is just as valid as any "conspiracy" that Big Oil might cook up to "fight the truth". Again, it's ironic that this is even being said when the biggest corporations like Shell are actually putting money into supporting carbon taxes and global government.

You can look up the sources if you want. Plenty have been posted in thread already, but you've got to actually be curious about it. So, here's a question that might stimulate some thought. Who do you think a global bureaucracy is going to serve?

It's not going to be you and I. It's going to be the multinational corporations and the big banks who will hoover up all of the "carbon taxes" and "redistribute" them to all of their friends. FC, this scheme is perhaps the biggest potential expansion of corporate power in the world's history. I wish climate change supporters could take the blinders off and see it.

 

[crushing]

I think that is very unfortunate perspective, FC. The idea that "climate change" has been hijacked by global central planners who would like to cash on a global tax and bureaucracy is just as valid as any "conspiracy" that Big Oil might cook up to "fight the truth". Again, it's ironic that this is even being said when the biggest corporations like Shell are actually putting money into supporting carbon taxes and global government.

The two perspectives presented aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. As you point out, there are considerable corporate interests that see a great potential windfall in monetizing and trading the right to pollute, which is ultimately paid by the taxpayers through a trickle-up payment system. These interests see opportunity in the crisis. At the same time, a competing corporate interest operating in the global capitalist state do not have or see a path to rake in those profits and would rather their pollution remain tax free (how taxing it may be to the environment and our health is something else).

 

[Flying Crane]

The two perspectives presented aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. As you point out, there are considerable corporate interests that see a great potential windfall in monetizing and trading the right to pollute, which is ultimately paid by the taxpayers through a trickle-up payment system. These interests see opportunity in the crisis. At the same time, a competing corporate interest operating in the global capitalist state do not have or see a path to rake in those profits and would rather their pollution remain tax free (how taxing it may be to the environment and our health is something else).

on an even simpler level, yes there are opportunities to profit within the very real crisis of global climate change. Alternate sources of renewable energy are needed, and yes, those who get into that line of work stand to make a profit. Isn't that a free-market capitalism thing, the kind of thing that billc would embrace?

at any rate, non of this negates the very real and very substantial evidence that human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels is driving the bulk of climate change.

the notion that global climate change itself is a hoax driven by the government and organizations working to preserve our natural resources, with the ulterior motive of global dominance is something that strikes me as downright preposterous.

 

[ballen0351]

there's also a huge difference between money received to conduct actual research, and money going into his pocket.

this whole nonsense is a standard distraction tactic. when one side is accused of shady behavior (i.e. accepting money from Big Oil to push their agenda), they just turn around and make the same accusations right back, but there's no basis for it. it's a tactic of desperation. unfortunately, there are those who fall for it.

Its pretty funny you believe only one side can be greedy bastards mmotivated by oil money and the other side well they are just good stewards of earth and only care about our best interests. They could NEVER be motivated by money themselves. Must be swell to live in your world

 

[ballen0351]

on an even simpler level, yes there are opportunities to profit within the very real crisis of global climate change. Alternate sources of renewable energy are needed, and yes, those who get into that line of work stand to make a profit. Isn't that a free-market capitalism thing, the kind of thing that billc would embrace?

Nothing free market about the govt picking winners and subsidizing green energy so it can compete with tax payers money.

at any rate, non of this negates the very real and very substantial evidence that human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels is driving the bulk of climate change.

the notion that global climate change itself is a hoax driven by the government and organizations working to preserve our natural resources, with the ulterior motive of global dominance is something that strikes me as downright preposterous.

 

[Flying Crane]

Nothing free market about the govt picking winners and subsidizing green energy so it can compete with tax payers money.

:rofl:

 

[ballen0351]

:rofl:

How enlightened of you best post you have made so far

 

[K-man]

It is not the spending "if the science is right" it is the spending that helps keep the science going when the science is wrong that is the problem. If scientists, like Mann and jones are lying about their data and getting paid for the false data...what do we do about that.

Another avenue for corruption is the U.N. itself...there are countries who are making money and who stand to make money off of man made global warming and they use their people at the U.N. to get that job done...do you want to send money to 3rd world dictators based on man made global warming guilt trips by elitists at the U.N.?

No. It is you and the skeptics alone that are saying the science is wrong. Even the stuff you are posting is saying the science is right. Now that is irony.

Some more on that consensus...

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/climate-scientists-continue-bury-facts-disprove-theory-manmade-climate-change


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contentious between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

At last we are getting somewhere.

I think that is very unfortunate perspective, FC. The idea that "climate change" has been hijacked by global central planners who would like to cash on a global tax and bureaucracy is just as valid as any "conspiracy" that Big Oil might cook up to "fight the truth". Again, it's ironic that this is even being said when the biggest corporations like Shell are actually putting money into supporting carbon taxes and global government.

You can look up the sources if you want. Plenty have been posted in thread already, but you've got to actually be curious about it. So, here's a question that might stimulate some thought. Who do you think a global bureaucracy is going to serve?

It's not going to be you and I. It's going to be the multinational corporations and the big banks who will hoover up all of the "carbon taxes" and "redistribute" them to all of their friends. FC, this scheme is perhaps the biggest potential expansion of corporate power in the world's history. I wish climate change supporters could take the blinders off and see it.

This is all conspiracy theory. There is no and there will be no Global Bureaucracy. With the egos involved how are you ever going to link the US, Russia and China into one unit. Then you add in Iran and Nth Korea. Come on Maka, even you must see that is not going to happen.

As for carbon taxes. As I have always said. Taxing carbon will not make the problem go away. It will just increases costs to the man on the street. I don't believe it is the way to go and down the track I don't believe it will be the way it goes. So forget about greedy corporations redistributing their ill gotten gains to their mates. It ain't gunna happen.

on an even simpler level, yes there are opportunities to profit within the very real crisis of global climate change. Alternate sources of renewable energy are needed, and yes, those who get into that line of work stand to make a profit. Isn't that a free-market capitalism thing, the kind of thing that billc would embrace?

Only if the renewable energy companies are supporting the extreme right Republicans. Anyone left of there has to be a gun grabbing, grovelling Greenie groupie not worthy of consideration.

at any rate, non of this negates the very real and very substantial evidence that human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels is driving the bulk of climate change.

the notion that global climate change itself is a hoax driven by the government and organizations working to preserve our natural resources, with the ulterior motive of global dominance is something that strikes me as downright preposterous.

Conspiracy theory and "The New World Order"! :lfao:

Nothing free market about the govt picking winners and subsidizing green energy so it can compete with tax payers money.

If green energy is the way to go and you, as a government want to implement renewable energy, isn't subsidising it the least expensive way to go and therefore the best use of taxpayers money?
:asian:

 

[ballen0351]

If green energy is the way to go and you, as a government want to implement renewable energy, isn't subsidising it the least expensive way to go and therefore the best use of taxpayers money?
:asian:

Which has nothing to do with the free market which was his point

 

[Makalakumu]

This is all conspiracy theory. There is no and there will be no Global Bureaucracy. With the egos involved how are you ever going to link the US, Russia and China into one unit. Then you add in Iran and Nth Korea. Come on Maka, even you must see that is not going to happen.

As for carbon taxes. As I have always said. Taxing carbon will not make the problem go away. It will just increases costs to the man on the street. I don't believe it is the way to go and down the track I don't believe it will be the way it goes. So forget about greedy corporations redistributing their ill gotten gains to their mates. It ain't gunna happen.

If you remember, a few pages back, we actually agreed on this. Creating a global bureaucracy to manage the carbon taxes and control carbon dioxide emissions was a very far fetched solution that has little chance of actually affecting emissions. That said, I think there is more of a chance of this happening then you realize. When the head of the UN is calling for world government to manage emissions and "redistribute" tax proceeds to the "winners and losers" that's not a conspiracy theory. That's right out in the open. Also, I don't think you really understand how much money the international financial class stands to make off of bankrolling this scheme. All of that money is going to fund every single scientific study to a point where all you have to do to get some dollars is put climate change in your proposal.

And it could all be true. Climate change could be happening and it might be a problem AND it's being thrown in everyone's face to push an agenda. BTW, have you seen this global warming study?

 

[K-man]

If you remember, a few pages back, we actually agreed on this. Creating a global bureaucracy to manage the carbon taxes and control carbon dioxide emissions was a very far fetched solution that has little chance of actually affecting emissions. That said, I think there is more of a chance of this happening then you realize.

OK, silly me. You're talking about the IPCC. Now just where does it say that it will manage carbon taxes and control CO2 emissions?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

When the head of the UN is calling for world government to manage emissions and "redistribute" tax proceeds to the "winners and losers" that's not a conspiracy theory. That's right out in the open. Also, I don't think you really understand how much money the international financial class stands to make off of bankrolling this scheme. All of that money is going to fund every single scientific study to a point where all you have to do to get some dollars is put climate change in your proposal.

I must of missed that speech so I went looking. I found heaps of blogs making the same claim but I couldn't find the original source or any official reference to that speech anywhere. So perhaps, just to humour me, you might post a link to your source, official of course.

And it could all be true. Climate change could be happening and it might be a problem AND it's being thrown in everyone's face to push an agenda. BTW, have you seen this global warming study?

Yes, I like your study but it doesn't seem to leave much scope for the future.

 

[K-man]

I think it is time to move on. As Bill's post acknowledged, scientists, including skeptics, acknowledge that global warming is here and human involvement is at least partly responsible. So where to from here?

This debate is no longer about whether global warming is real (it is) or whether humans are the most likely cause (you are), but rather, some very interesting and different questions that might be more professionally relevant to business: How is this going to affect business? What are the investing consequences? Who will be the financial winners and losers of climate change?

Were the people being promoted by Maka, Ballen and Billc as the likely beneficiaries really the ones who will benefit? Perhaps not.

But the bigger issue is the financial consequences. Investors are going to see companies increasingly affected by climate change. For those of you who still are fighting the science -- sorry to tell you, the debate has moved on. This is rapidly becoming a fight over market share, with big shifts in cost structure, revenue and profits.
Too many people have had their heads in the sand. It is time to start making some decisions based on possible investing outcomes, not pseudo-science. To those who figure this out, a green fortune awaits -- in both senses of the word.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...hat-it-means-for-business-20140128-31jf0.html

Mmm! Too many people have had their heads in the sand.
Really? Who could they possibly be referring to?
:hmm:

 

[Flying Crane]

Nothing free market about the govt picking winners and subsidizing green energy so it can compete with tax payers money.

How enlightened of you best post you have made so far

so you are concerned that the fossil fuel industry is going to somehow be at an unfair competitive advantage? is that something you want me to get all weepy about?

they've already made more money than god, and they've done so at the expense of the environment and on the backs of the citizens, making record profits while everyone struggled thru a bad economy. personally, i wouldn't mind if we moved on to new and cleaner technology, and the fossil fuel industry went extinct. however, in truth, they are probably the ones with the financial resources to switch over and become the leaders (and profiteers) in any new technology.

so no, i do not share your concerns.

 

[Flying Crane]

And it could all be true. Climate change could be happening and it might be a problem AND it's being thrown in everyone's face to push an agenda.

the agenda is, we gotta be doing things in a cleaner way because we are turning our earth into a garbage dump and we cannot live in that environment. we gotta clean up our act, plain and simple, or we will not survive it.