Is Global Warming scientism or just fake news?

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

let's just begin with the beginning and go from there. The roots of this whole Global Warming hoax:

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/papers/paper_townsend.pdf

behold a document drafted by the UN itself in 2001 which explicitly warns that it not even be quoted without permission.

The document itself discusses options for financing the UN's global anti poverty initiatives which have been grossly underfunded because wealthy nations won't bother to contribute, despite public pledges. It basically reads like "what do we do?"


Scroll down to page 3.

The Zedillo Report.

The Zedillo Report was the product of a UN panel set up under Kofi Anon to identify options to the voluntary financing schemes that had thus far proven inadequate. And it's conclusions were that the UN's anti poverty programs could be financed either by effecting a Tobin Tax on global transactions or a carbon tax.

The Carbon Tax was the preferred option (page 4) because it was considered "politically more realistic" and because it could be justified as "making polluters pay".

NO MENTION OF GLOBAL WARMING. Efforts to commence the carbon tax are still underway in the form of the Kyoto, Doha, Paris agreements and amendments.

As the campaign to convince wealthy nations to contribute to the UN's war on poverty programs the UN ramped up the IPCC to build a scientific case for applying this tax (for poverty relief) to carbon consumers who were aggrevating alleged global warming.

The IPCC, as everybody knows is a UN body and is the primary driver of global warming study and hysteria.

6/10 Work in some refrences to chemtrails, the Freemasons, ancient aliens, and Hillary Clinton

Speaking seriously for a moment. That's hardly a smoking gun. At best it maybe establishes motive, which while admittedly better than most global warming denialist conspiracy theories is a far cry from proving or even seriously suggesting anything. In particular it offers no explanation for why the only scientists who disagree with the existence of global warming either have severe conflicts of interest or else specialize in completely unrelated fields and are thus unqualified to speak on the matter,

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

You can't argue with someone who has no ability or inclination to prove you wrong. You're asking the right questions to the wrong people.

If you want to know why scientists on the whole apparently believe climate change is real, you'll have to ask the scientists. Why are you asking Discordians?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Climate change is a real phenomenon that has been shown repeatedly, scientifically and mathematically, to be caused primarily by human activity. It's really not really a debate except on the fringes where uneducated people think they can opine hard enough to overcome mountains of actual evidence.

That said, I'm personally in favor of carbon taxes and a forced march to clean and renewable energy for reasons that would still be valid even if climate change weren't real. Political and economic power derive from control of resources, and the most important resource in the modern global economy is energy. Decentralized energy generation using renewable resources disrupts the monopoly of existing power structures. Those powers do anything that crosses their mind in order to sabotage any attempt to disrupt that monopoly, which is ethically bad, but more importantly, their activities induce widespread cultural conservatism by fostering popular thinking that new ideas are dangerous or unsound simply because they are new. That leaves human civilization in a really bad position with respect to adaptability and progress of all kinds. We should have solved all kinds of problems by now that are portrayed as "unsolvable" just because solving them doesn't make anyone rich. Capitalism may have been necessary for the Industrial Revolution, but post-Information-Revolution, it's holding us back so much that the survival of the species is at risk.

So regardless of global warming/climate change, we should be forcing the issue of clean energy because we have to undermine and ultimately disassemble all scarcity-based economic systems.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Climate change is a real phenomenon that has been shown repeatedly, scientifically and mathematically, to be caused primarily by human activity. It's really not really a debate except on the fringes where uneducated people think they can opine hard enough to overcome mountains of actual evidence.

That said, I'm personally in favor of carbon taxes and a forced march to clean and renewable energy for reasons that would still be valid even if climate change weren't real. Political and economic power derive from control of resources, and the most important resource in the modern global economy is energy. Decentralized energy generation using renewable resources disrupts the monopoly of existing power structures. Those powers do anything that crosses their mind in order to sabotage any attempt to disrupt that monopoly, which is ethically bad, but more importantly, their activities induce widespread cultural conservatism by fostering popular thinking that new ideas are dangerous or unsound simply because they are new. That leaves human civilization in a really bad position with respect to adaptability and progress of all kinds. We should have solved all kinds of problems by now that are portrayed as "unsolvable" just because solving them doesn't make anyone rich. Capitalism may have been necessary for the Industrial Revolution, but post-Information-Revolution, it's holding us back so much that the survival of the species is at risk.

So regardless of global warming/climate change, we should be forcing the issue of clean energy because we have to undermine and ultimately disassemble all scarcity-based economic systems.

THIS!

[Faust]

You can't argue with someone who has no ability or inclination to prove you wrong. You're asking the right questions to the wrong people.

If you want to know why scientists on the whole apparently believe climate change is real, you'll have to ask the scientists. Why are you asking Discordians?

All the worlds a chessboard and all the men are pigeons.

[LMNO]

You can't argue with someone who has no ability or inclination to prove you wrong. You're asking the right questions to the wrong people.

If you want to know why scientists on the whole apparently believe climate change is real, you'll have to ask the scientists. Why are you asking Discordians?

All the worlds a chessboard and all the men are pigeons.

Dibs on being the gorilla.

[LMNO]

Climate change is a real phenomenon that has been shown repeatedly, scientifically and mathematically, to be caused primarily by human activity. It's really not really a debate except on the fringes where uneducated people think they can opine hard enough to overcome mountains of actual evidence.

That said, I'm personally in favor of carbon taxes and a forced march to clean and renewable energy for reasons that would still be valid even if climate change weren't real. Political and economic power derive from control of resources, and the most important resource in the modern global economy is energy. Decentralized energy generation using renewable resources disrupts the monopoly of existing power structures. Those powers do anything that crosses their mind in order to sabotage any attempt to disrupt that monopoly, which is ethically bad, but more importantly, their activities induce widespread cultural conservatism by fostering popular thinking that new ideas are dangerous or unsound simply because they are new. That leaves human civilization in a really bad position with respect to adaptability and progress of all kinds. We should have solved all kinds of problems by now that are portrayed as "unsolvable" just because solving them doesn't make anyone rich. Capitalism may have been necessary for the Industrial Revolution, but post-Information-Revolution, it's holding us back so much that the survival of the species is at risk.

So regardless of global warming/climate change, we should be forcing the issue of clean energy because we have to undermine and ultimately disassemble all scarcity-based economic systems.

THIS!

Also, ditto.  May I yoink?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Climate change is a real phenomenon that has been shown repeatedly, scientifically and mathematically, to be caused primarily by human activity. It's really not really a debate except on the fringes where uneducated people think they can opine hard enough to overcome mountains of actual evidence.

That said, I'm personally in favor of carbon taxes and a forced march to clean and renewable energy for reasons that would still be valid even if climate change weren't real. Political and economic power derive from control of resources, and the most important resource in the modern global economy is energy. Decentralized energy generation using renewable resources disrupts the monopoly of existing power structures. Those powers do anything that crosses their mind in order to sabotage any attempt to disrupt that monopoly, which is ethically bad, but more importantly, their activities induce widespread cultural conservatism by fostering popular thinking that new ideas are dangerous or unsound simply because they are new. That leaves human civilization in a really bad position with respect to adaptability and progress of all kinds. We should have solved all kinds of problems by now that are portrayed as "unsolvable" just because solving them doesn't make anyone rich. Capitalism may have been necessary for the Industrial Revolution, but post-Information-Revolution, it's holding us back so much that the survival of the species is at risk.

So regardless of global warming/climate change, we should be forcing the issue of clean energy because we have to undermine and ultimately disassemble all scarcity-based economic systems.

THIS!

Also, ditto.  May I yoink?

yoink at your discretion, attribution not necessary

[Brother Mythos]

Climate change is a real phenomenon that has been shown repeatedly, scientifically and mathematically, to be caused primarily by human activity. It's really not really a debate except on the fringes where uneducated people think they can opine hard enough to overcome mountains of actual evidence.

That said, I'm personally in favor of carbon taxes and a forced march to clean and renewable energy for reasons that would still be valid even if climate change weren't real. Political and economic power derive from control of resources, and the most important resource in the modern global economy is energy. Decentralized energy generation using renewable resources disrupts the monopoly of existing power structures. Those powers do anything that crosses their mind in order to sabotage any attempt to disrupt that monopoly, which is ethically bad, but more importantly, their activities induce widespread cultural conservatism by fostering popular thinking that new ideas are dangerous or unsound simply because they are new. That leaves human civilization in a really bad position with respect to adaptability and progress of all kinds. We should have solved all kinds of problems by now that are portrayed as "unsolvable" just because solving them doesn't make anyone rich. Capitalism may have been necessary for the Industrial Revolution, but post-Information-Revolution, it's holding us back so much that the survival of the species is at risk.

So regardless of global warming/climate change, we should be forcing the issue of clean energy because we have to undermine and ultimately disassemble all scarcity-based economic systems.

Well thought out, and well written. Bravo!

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

Climate change is a real phenomenon that has been shown repeatedly, scientifically and mathematically, to be caused primarily by human activity.

This is better phrased as "the scientific consensus is agreement that human activity is responsible".

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Climate change is a real phenomenon that has been shown repeatedly, scientifically and mathematically, to be caused primarily by human activity.

This is better phrased as "the scientific consensus is agreement that human activity is responsible".

you're bad this.