The War on Climate Scientists

The War on Climate Scientists from on Vimeo.

12 Comments on "The War on Climate Scientists"

  1. BuzzCoastin | May 23, 2014 at 3:28 am |

    what with the war on clkmate and all
    war on climate academics seems apropos

  2. Lookinfor Buford | May 23, 2014 at 9:43 am |

    The Climate scientists started this war by receiving crazy amounts of funding by a syndicate of global leaders with ties to huge corporations who are bound and determined to create a new income generating tax called cap and trade. All you have to do is listen to Rubio’s first statement. The first half, you may or may not agree with. The second half, you’re a fool if you don’t agree with Rubio. Cap and trade will accomplish nothing but a huge shift in the wrong direction for income inequality and grant power over all the energy resources on this planet to bureaucratic and corrupt institutions, not to mention multi-national corps.

    All this, plus the science they are screaming is undeniable, is very deniable indeed. Regression analysis can be abused greatly, and is the most pliable form of publicly accepted statistical modeling there is. The final step in producing a predictive model, is a choice based on human interpretation.

    • Tuna Ghost | May 23, 2014 at 10:05 am |

      Cap and trade will accomplish nothing but a huge shift in the wrong direction for income inequality and grant power over all the energy resources on this planet to bureaucratic and corrupt institutions, not to mention multi-national corps.
      Is there something wrong with your brain that prevents you from seeing that this shift happened fifty years ago?

      • Lookinfor Buford | May 23, 2014 at 3:26 pm |

        No there’s not, and no it didn’t. My brain runs like a top, and pardon my french, but fuck you.

        But back to intelligent discourse, would you like to explain how, even if you were right, that somehow justifies supporting cap-and-trade?

        • James Russell | May 23, 2014 at 3:29 pm |

          What is cap and trade?

          • Lookinfor Buford | May 23, 2014 at 3:45 pm |

            Basically a system of regulation that puts limits on the amount carbon that companies can emit in their day to day operations (cap). exceeding the limit will cost $$ in the form of purchased carbon credits. Many companies, it will be a foregone conclusion that they will be exceeding the limits from the gate, so they will need to pony up to stay in business. Whether that’s fair or not is really not the issue, though. The limits will be set by agencies, involving no doubt, climate scientists, who’s predictions and forecasts will have very high probability of being wrong. The bureaucratic expense alone will be staggering.
            The other aspect of the system, Companies will be allowed to trade carbon credits as financial instruments (Trade). So this is where many power brokers stand to hit the home run. An entire industry is born, which is similar to finance and banking, where the act of trading credits, market operations, lobbying, etc. will all generate revenue. It’ll be HUGE business. The costs of all of this effort will of course be passed right on down to you and me by the energy companies, and subsidized by governments, and the very entities writing the regulations, which use taxpayer money. Again, all paid for by us average chumps. Also, companies with hair-brained carbon-sequestration schemes will profit greatly at the expense of the same. Making bazillions to trap gas. lol. Sometimes you just have to bow to the absurd!

            Energy will become extremely expensive.

            And importantly, I would argue, as would Rubio, that it would accomplish next to nothing in actually affecting the climate. Not even a step in the right direction, but rather a harmful rocking of the boat.

            There’s much more to it, many more consequences to list, but since you asked a straightforward question I thought I’d take a crack.

  3. Mark Pugner | May 23, 2014 at 10:20 am |

    Overlord Underdogs

  4. Ted Heistman | May 23, 2014 at 12:42 pm |

    Its actually a war on preventing Industrialization in the developing world to keep them under the thumb of the West.

    • I have no doubt that once the profit margins tip away from fossil fuels towards expensive green energy solutions that there will be a herculean effort to make the USA CO2 neutral and then we’ll begin persecuting any country that doesn’t buy our solutions. Then the argument will become “those brown people, over there, are stealing the future of our children and they need to be bombed back into the stone age.”

      The war is economic vs anything that threatens economics.

  5. James Russell | May 23, 2014 at 3:28 pm |

    Has anyone noticed how all the televised commercial ads paid for by ExxonMobil and Chevron seem to endorse investment into green energy? Most of you probably ignore commercials or television altogether. Just look it up on youtube.

  6. Fusionism | May 23, 2014 at 10:34 pm |

    I think the discussion framed around “Is climate change real and if so are we to blame” is the wrong one and all sides of the argument miss the point entirely. “Are we fucking up the earth” would be a much better place to start. Or more succinctly, “Is our economic/money system, predicated on growth and propped up by all kinds of unnecessary ‘industry’ endangering sustainable life on this planet?”
    Cap and trade, or as here in Oz – carbon tax – are bullshit and will not lead to a better outcome for the environment or for us.

    We need a new way of life. All else is tinkering at the edges of an ever accelerating, sinking ship.

  7. David Suzuki is the guy that wants to jail all skeptics.

Comments are closed.