Lets find out *once and for all* if AGW is a conspiracy or not. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14988279
This could go in Science or in N. America, so I'll put it here.

I am sick and tired of the argument about AGW. Is it a vast 100% perfect conspiracy to damage US security or is it a real problem?

I call on someone in Congress to introduce a law to force the CIA along with the FBI to investigate the conspiracy theory and report to the American people its findings, that is, their conclusions.

I feel that this is too important to let the argument go on any longer.
#14988300
Steve_American wrote:Is it a vast 100% perfect conspiracy to damage US security or is it a real problem?



That's simplistic, the reality is much more complicated. It could be a potential problem in a hundred years or so but that doesn't mean it hasn't been hyped and exaggerated out of all proportion by an establishment which recognizes that such a "global crisis" would present a unique historical opportunity to advance a long-standing geopolitical agenda.



If the liberal establishment really did perceive ACC as such a major threat why has its sole focus been on acquiring more regulatory power? Why hasn't it implemented any of the no regrets solutions that are way more politically viable and would be a hundred times more effective than neoliberal pricing schemes and technocratic regulatory regimes? I've never gotten a straight answer to that one.
#14988312
Steve_American wrote:@Sivad, If I get the gist of your reply correct then ---
you think it is far more of a conspiracy than a real problem.


Yeah, that's not what I said.


I still want the CIA to resolve this.


You want the lying hoaxing intelligengce wing of the establishment to settle it? Good one.
#14988327
Oooh, I know, let's ask the most respected scientists in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... ate_change

Well then, that's a big fat "no, of course it's not a conspiracy". No need to rely on the opinion of one country's intelligence agency - we've gone for facts to, you know, the people best known in the world for determining facts.

@Sivad , by the way, what are your "no regrets solutions that are way more politically viable", "a hundred times more effective" that you think are just hanging around, waiting to be implemented? It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say a Nobel prize, possibly more than one, awaits someone with such solutions.
#14988341
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Oooh, I know, let's ask the most respected scientists in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... ate_change


If you actually look at the surveys you find there is no consensus on catastrophic man made climate change. I've posted them on this board multiple times now.

@Sivad , by the way, what are your "no regrets solutions that are way more politically viable", "a hundred times more effective" that you think are just hanging around, waiting to be implemented? It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say a Nobel prize, possibly more than one, awaits someone with such solutions.


Well I'm shocked such a thoughtful and well-informed person like you isn't already aware of them.

Just investing heavily in energy and tech development would solve the problem in less than 30 years, but really there are so many things, big and small, that it would take a month to list them all. Things like modernizing energy infrastructure, building more public transportation, reducing frivolous consumerism, better urban planning and resource management, poverty reduction in the developing world. There's no end to the things we should be doing anyway that don't cost us anything and would not only solve the "climate crisis" but would radically improve life in general for everyone on the planet but all the liberals want to talk about is carbon despotism. :knife:
#14988350
Pants-of-dog wrote:If it were a conspiracy, it would be a pointless and ineffective one.

The powers that be have not done anything at all about it. If it was a conspiracy theory, they would have used ACC to actually implement something.


You are the worst debunker ever, they've implemented all kinds of shit from hundred billion dollar carbon markets to carbon taxes that go to paying the vig on bankster debt.
#14988377
I come here to debate.

I like to do this because I learn all sorts of stuff. Right now, I have tabs open about conspiracy ideation.

This happens when I look up stuff to support my arguments, or I read the evidence that others provide.

This does not happen with you, @Sivad. This is because you do not bring evidence to the table.

I hope you enjoy the rest of the day.

—————————————

NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

    Abstract

    Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

So, two things seem to be somewhat correlated with climate denialism:

1. Support of free market economics, and
2. Rejection of science.
#14988381
Pants-of-dog wrote:I come here to debate.


Obtuse sealioning isn't debate.

Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate." The troll pretends ignorance and feigns politeness, so that if the target is provoked into making an angry response, the troll can then act as the aggrieved party.
#14988386
There are various conspiracy theories about climate change.

Are we looking at a particular one?

I assume we are all in agreement that Trump’s claims about it being a Chinese hoax can just be ignored and dismissed. Trump is a good example of the conspiracy ideation associated with climate change denialism.
#14988387
Sivad wrote:Obtuse sealioning isn't debate.


He is not being obtuse, he asked you to provide evidence, but you do not have any and as such your argument is dismissed. You made a claim about carbon taxes supposedly being the result of a climate change conspiracy, but carbon taxes are nowhere to be found in actual fact, especially not in any of those major countries that would supposedly orchestrate such a conspiracy. If ACC was orchestrated by those wishing to impose carbon-taxes, they would have done it already.

Lastly, it is quite ridiculous that young and smart people without a bone(like people not being paid by the pollution lobby) trying to deny the impact of plastic, carbon and the general sorry-ass state of environment, seas and ozone layer and scrub it off as a conspiracy.

Our human approach towards the environment is pathetic and we need a lot of grassroots support to make an actual change, instead of having people shilling for more pollution. Are you serious?
#14988393
Sivad wrote:Are you joking? This a joke, right?


Of course it is not a joke. Taxes on fuel have existed, ever since fuel has existed, there is also tax on meat, pen, paper, computers, electronics and basically every single consumable item. Governments do not need a conspiracy to put taxes on consumable items. But what you refer as carbon taxes, are not these general taxes on fuel along with taxes on everything else, but added taxes on top of the existing ones. And these additional taxes have hardly been implemented by anybody, they are all procrastinating on the matter rendering your argument ridiculous.

In fact if you take most countries, you will see that carbon fuel is the least taxed consumable item that exists.

It is quite disappointing having people like you trying to tell us that all this carbon, plastic and pollution is all good. Just a conspiracy, folks. :knife: Are you serious?

So @skinster will indeed on watching rape videos[…]

Who needs a wall? We have all those land mines ju[…]

Puffer Fish, as a senior (and olde) member of this[…]

As someone that pays very close attention to Amer[…]