Topic: Attn: Human Influenced Climate Change deniers - page 3. (Read 4409 times)

Just to be clear I will repeat again:  This disprove of the "proof" of the video does not prove or disprove global warming, it just shows us some things about the people involved, their attitudes.

But it clearly shows the spirit of critical investigation which is in most "Deniers" mindsets.

Again repeating.  Deniers are your best friends, as far as finding the truth is involved.

You're right, they think very little of the average persons intelligence/ability to reason and look for facts.  Unfortunately they are right about the majority of people who will blindly accept what they are told, whether through the nightly news, this youtube video (clearly global warming propaganda aimed at the 20-30 crowd who can relate to Bill Nye from watching him in their youth), or other media campaigns.  They have succeeded though in being able to push an agenda/message and really put very little effort into swaying public opinion on most topics.  Most people will watch this video and just take it as truth, no further investigation necessary.

LOL that is a point.  No troll, though, simply facts.

http://my.firedoglake.com/metamars/2012/12/11/al-gorebill-nye-climate-101-video-found-to-be-fraudulent-how-you-can-replicate-the-experiment-yourself/

Note an important distinction.  The experiment is a hoax.  This does not prove or disprove global warming, etc.  That these guys thought they could put over on the public a hoax like this does show a bit of what they think of you and me.

It is also interesting that it seems to take "deniers" to actually critically examine the "experiment", attempt to replicate it and find the fraud.  "Believers" seem to just take it all on faith.  This is an essential proof that Deniers are Believers best friends...

One does not take science on faith.

Sorry, but I don't think this is a valid argument, I'll explain why.

What you're saying is that (correct me if I'm wrong), a green tax is just another way for the government to steal tax money through corruption, by lying to us about climate change.

The government already has many lucrative avenues to steal our tax money, and energy companies already have a monopoly whereby they can basically charge what the hell they like for power. It doesn't make sense to me that governments would purposely create a climate change hoax, for the sole reason of collecting extra taxes under a "green tax" moniker. There are so many easier ways that they could steal our money, they control the budget. For example they could, (and almost certainly do), use the massive defense budget to line their friends' pockets (eg the friends who work for Lockheed Martin, Boeing etc.), with contracts for weapons.

What happened with Solyndra was unfortunate to say the least, and could well have involved corruption (forgive me I don't know the details), but really your argument is against corruption, not against any sort of climate change policy.

To use a loose BTC-based analogy:

Many people say "Bitcoin is bad because it facilitates money laundering and purchase of drugs/guns". While this is technically true, the easiest way to launder money and buy drugs is with the trusty USD. So the problem lies with the crimes themselves, not with the medium.

In the same way, you are correct in saying that the government could use climate change to facilitate corrupt tax methods. However they already have better ways to do this. So the problem is corruption in the government, not the medium in which they carry out this corruption.

To repeat myself, it seems far more likely to me that governments would want to cover up any evidence of human influenced climate change, to line the pockets of their friends who work for Big Energy, and possibly to allow Big Energy to do whatever they want, for a small corrupt fee to the politician. These friends are a lot more rich and powerful than the friends who make PV cells and windmills after all...

man, if he ends up typing 10 words and you end up typing a thesis as an argument.. it might have been a troll attempt. if that were the case, i'd find humor in that 

I've done this experiment many times. How's it fraudulent?

Here's some recent research: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140728153933.htm

I see greenhouse theory more like as a combination of bad science, politics and hype.

It is true that Earth has been warming over the last 50 years, but it is not clear what effect carbon dioxide has to that. And now there are some signs that warming has already stopped. For example if you look this picture: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html  you can see that in the Antartic there are now more ice than ever. Also the Artic ice has started slowly recover: http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/extent_n_running_mean_amsr2_regular.png

Hmm how so anyways I'm curious enough can you provide proof of this experiment being fraudulent
Different gases retain and reflect heat at different rates so I can't see where the fake part came from unless I am missing something.
Unless you meant the affordable clean energy alternative part then I can see what you meant.

Its Global warming potential Spendulus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

Carbon dioxide has a GWP of exactly 1 (since it is the baseline unit to which all other greenhouse gases are compared).
Methane    12.4    86(20 years)    34 (100 Years)

Note that a substance's GWP depends on the timespan over which the potential is calculated. A gas which is quickly removed from the atmosphere may initially have a large effect but for longer time periods as it has been removed becomes less important. Thus methane has a potential of 34 over 100 years but 86 over 20 years; conversely sulfur hexafluoride has a GWP of 22,800 over 100 years but 16,300 over 20 years (IPCC TAR). The GWP value depends on how the gas concentration decays over time in the atmosphere. This is often not precisely known and hence the values should not be considered exact. For this reason when quoting a GWP it is important to give a reference to the calculation.

EDIT: I think I got what you meant the video should have said Methane  

Global-warming potential (GWP) is a relative measure of how much heat a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere. It compares the amount of heat trapped by a certain mass of the gas in question to the amount of heat trapped by a similar mass of carbon dioxide. A GWP is calculated over a specific time interval, commonly 20, 100 or 500 years. GWP is expressed as a factor of carbon dioxide (whose GWP is standardized to 1). For example, the 20 year GWP of methane is 86, which means that if the same mass of methane and carbon dioxide were introduced into the atmosphere, that methane will trap 86 times more heat than the carbon dioxide over the next 20 years

They needed to clarify that better

I'm actually sorry to tell you this.

But this "experiment" is fraudulent.

More likely it is just the corruption caused by lobbyists from the corn industry.  I wouldn't read any more into it about government conspiracies.  Just assholes trying to make more money at the cost to humanity.

Here's a quick and easy home experiment by Bill Nye to demonstrate the effects of greenhouse gases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8

alright, you got it on a technicality on the ozone layer. it absorbs UV rays instead of letting light and heat into our atmosphere.

you have a point with the "dissent" issue. just because energy companies make a lot of money, it does not necessarily mean that's the only reason why so much money is spent into convincing people that carbon monoxide is not bad for you. but i can't think of any other reasons, and makes the most sense to me.

i'm also unsure how you arrived to the conclusion that the planet hasn't warmed up for two decades. i'm pretty sure that there studies after studies that the climate has been changing. no one (i dont even think republicans) are arguing against that.

fossil fuel has a 95%+ consensus (at least based on scientific papers surveyed) as being the cause of climate change. what's your rebuttal for that? is it some conspiracy that obama and al gore engineered to help out their friends at solyndra?

This.  The most likely proof that they have been just lining their friends' pockets is the lack of useful results from the spending.

Well, first of all, the ozone layer is not where or what "traps heat."  So go look your science up on that.  Secondly, there are no people that claim that "someone who says that burning fossil fuel, coal, and other energy forms is absolutely NOT causing the heat to be trapped by our...<>"

...thus this is a classic example of a strawman argument, isn't it?

Then you say...

the only reason why there is any form of "dissent" is because companies worth billions of dollars are profiting from it

But that's ridiculous because there is dissent on windmills due to their appearance, their killing birds.  There is dissent on electric cars because  of battery disposal issues.  There is dissent on corn based ethanol because it's plain stupid.  There is dissent on "global warming" because it hasn't warmed for two decades.   In other words, there are many, many real world issues where people can and should speak the truth.

The government can "spend" money on green energy and do nothing more than line the pockets of their donors/friends.  Look at Solyndra, half a billion spent on a company that went under.  No green jobs, no green energy being produced, only money wasted.

And the gvt will profit from these taxes, by funneling the money through the EPA, spending probably 10-20x more than the solar panels/windmills should cost if done by private organizations.

One cold month does not prove any sort of long-term trend has reversed - this looks like a couple of sensationalist sources reporting on short-term anomalous outliers. There is objective evidence that shows that the Earth has been warming over the last 50 years, the huge majority of scientists accept this, the main question is whether humans are causing it.

Predictably, the Daily Mail comments are all raving about this idea of "green tax" (Christ, that cesspool is totally full of idiots that think they know best...) I keep hearing that "AGW is a scam to get more taxes out of us!"

It doesn't fit with Big Energy's agenda, so they wouldn't benefit.
The government wouldn't benefit as they would spend the money on green energy.

IF artificial global warming is a hoax, then who would benefit from these taxes (other than the guys who make the solar panels/windmills etc.)?

Anyway if AGW exist it's not a good justification to fascism.

The climate is not stable, it is always changing. For example in Antartic there is now lot of ice and extremely cold:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

Ice reflects the Sun’s rays up into the atmosphere and out to space, which keeps solar radiation from warming the Antartic so it is possible that we are going to see even more cold (and more ice) in near future.

Humans are not gonna die because of a climate change. The civilisation as we know it will die and that's probably a good thing.

heard of scale economies? panels are currently more expensive than conventional means of energy... but the gap is shrinking more and more because more money is invested in improving the technology.. and to add to that, mmore people buying any product = cheaper prices.


there's a reason why solar panels are still successful in germany (where it rains a lot). read this...

Cloudier locations are still a good match for solar

Germany gets only about as much sunshine as the state of Alaska, but Germans have successfully installed about 25 gigawatts of solar power– half of the entire world’s supply. Portland, Oregon is known for its rainy, dreary winters, but is another good location for solar power: over a full year, despite the winter weather, Portland gets as much sunshine as the average U.S. city. Cities like Portland also have slightly cooler weather than average, which is an advantage for solar panels. Because of the electronics inside, solar panels work best when they aren’t too hot. In a city with extreme summer heat, solar is a little less efficient, which is part of the reason why solar panels in cloudy San Francisco can actually produce more power over a year than the slightly sunnier, hotter city of Sacramento.

http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-do-solar-panels-work-in-cloudy-weather/