Real Agenda Behind "Climate Change" Admitted To By UN Official

[Goonie]

It appears that the politicizing of this issue isn't a problem for you.

Which bit? The how does one deal with climate change is a political issue(which is what my reference to libertarianism concerned). The problem is that the very existence of climate change has been politicised which I am in agreement with ThatRobGuy.

 

[Larniavc]

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

Many of us already knew this but now it's out there for all to see.

Did you read the article? It does not mean what you think it means.

[Staff edit]

 

[Gadarene]

God I love reading and watching Office of Civil Defense material. Then I play Fallout 3 and 4 for hours. Pure bliss.

Fallout is somehow not as appealing these days, but on the whole I agree with you.

Ever played DEFCON?

 

[evoeth]

Fallout is somehow not as appealing these days, but on the whole I agree with you.

Ever played DEFCON?

No, but I just googled it. "Shall we play a game?"

 

[Gadarene]

No, but I just googled it. "Shall we play a game?"

It's rather good fun.

 

[Rion]

God I love reading and watching Office of Civil Defense material. Then I play Fallout 3 and 4 for hours. Pure bliss.

No New Vegas? Heathen.

 

[evoeth]

No New Vegas? Heathen.

That is what I've been playing this week.
Torn between NCR and Yes Man.

 

[Gadarene]

That is what I've been playing this week.
Torn between NCR and Yes Man.

pfft robert house all the way

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Indeed. I can imagine that climate change and dealing with its consequences poses a problem for libertarianism.

For the die-hard, all-or-nothing, libertarians it does, however, for someone in my position, it does not.

I identify as libertarian because it's the closest to my views across the entire range of issues, however, I don't agree 100% with everything in the LP platform.

 

[USincognito]

By reading only the quotes I am led to conclude that the goal is to change the economic model. The state of the climate was not even mentioned in the quotes. As I see it, forcibly mandating the destruction of an economic model from one that has evolved over centuries in order to replace it with an artificially arrived at substitute that suits a small cadre of statists is the only goal and any excuse, no matter how unrelated the economic model is to the problem used as an excuse to change it, will be used to accomplish the goal. When solutions to climate change actually address things that affect the climate rather than miraculously line up perfectly with the political agenda of a few committed statists, I will take those solutions seriously.

Cool story bro.

 

[super animator]

Gosh, it's almost as if reality has consequences for political beliefs.

This relates to what I said how?

 

[Veritas]

This fake news is delicious.

Pro-Tip: Read the quote, not the partisan commentary on the quote.

I read the whole article. You can interpret it however you wish. But there's no need to be condescending. Professional debaters have no need to do that.

 

[Veritas]

What's next -- the 'real agenda' of gravity, or the conservation of motion, or something else that nobody with a minimum display of scientific literacy questions on political grounds?

This kind of nonsense is poisoning society and making people stupider. If there's any kind of agenda at play here, it's that.

This is the problem with so-called science today. It's actually not even really science. Why? Because science is never really "settled" . If it were, we'd still have a flat earth. To say something is settled, would mean there's nothing left to discover. There are many scientific theories that have been overturned upon further research. Of course, this can't happen with AGW or climate change. Too much money riding on those theories.

 

[iluvatar5150]

@Veritas can't see this because she has me on ignore, but she started a thread about this very same article two years ago when it was first published.

UN Official Admits Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

Everybody told her how bogus it was then. She didn't listen.

 

[Veritas]

Crop yields fall precipitously as temperatures rise, this is data for US crop yields over the last century. Interpretation: for every day spent over 30 deg C (86 deg F) crop yields for the season fall by more than a percent.

As the planet warms just 1-2 deg, corn and soy yields fall off a cliff, since the bulk of days (see the distributions below) move across the 30 deg C threshold. And it is very non-linear. I think for this paper a 2 deg C rise corresponds to greater than 50% crop losses.

That means major dislocations in agriculture. Agriculture in the US will have to shift much further north, incurring major relocation costs. In other areas of the world where countries are not as large, it means that entire countries will lose their agricultural capacity.

These damages should be incorporated into our planning models for global development. They aren't right now.

This is real data:

And yet that hasn't happened. We've been having cooling, hence crop failures in the South. I'm in the Pacific NW and we're going through the coldest winter since 1979. CA drought is virtually over and well above snow packs in the Sierra Nevada's. In fact, nearly all sky is falling predictions in the last 50 years never happened.

Truth is, warming is actually good for agriculture since more crops can be grown in more places and further North. Fewer people die warmer climates. Ice ages are real killers. Just look at the Middle Ages.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There are many scientific theories that have been overturned upon further research. Of course, this can't happen with AGW or climate change. Too much money riding on those theories.

There is no authority in science. If you have evidence that contradicts the data, go write a paper.

 

[evoeth]

This is the problem with so-called science today. It's actually not even really science. Why? Because science is never really "settled" . If it were, we'd still have a flat earth. To say something is settled, would mean there's nothing left to discover. There are many scientific theories that have been overturned upon further research. Of course, this can't happen with AGW or climate change. Too much money riding on those theories.

This is a highly misleading interpretation of science. Science is descriptive and pragmatic.

Science describes the world around us in progressively more useful ways.

Example: a flat earth is a valid description of earth and gravity in a local enough frame. It is a useful enough concept to do things like launch projectiles short distances, chart short courses (sub 500 mi), make local maps, etc.

Consider a round earth. This is a more useful concept. One that enables us to think about complex and long distance courses, one that enables us to make maps that are 3d and projectible down to many different 2d projections depending on the need, it also lays the ground work for understanding our solar system or to launch projectiles over long distances accounting for Coriolis forces.

But... and this is key to your error: the round earth reduces to the flat earth when you zoom in to a fine enough scale. When you consider short scales the theories are interchangeable. They are both valid, however one theory is more useful, more generalizable, and encompasses the other.

It's not a matter of being settled or unsettled. Yours is an inapplicable description. It's that one theory literally encompasses the next. As my favorite physics professor says, "every good scientific theory swallows it's predecessor whole.". He wasn't referring to a flat earth, he was referring to thermodynamics and how statistical mechanics explains more but can reduce to thermodynamics on the the right scales.

 

[JGG]

I read the whole article. You can interpret it however you wish. But there's no need to be condescending. Professional debaters have no need to do that.

I'm sorry, but it seems necessary. You read the the article about the quote, but didn't bother to examine the quote.

When she's talking about an economic model, she's talking about something that is within capitalism. Capitalism is less an economic model and more an economic philosophy or framework on which we base our economic model.

[Staff edit]

 

[USincognito]

We've been having cooling,

[staff edit]
2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record

>> I'm in the Pacific NW and we're going through the coldest winter since 1979. <<

Why do deniers have such trouble grasping that their local weather is not global climate?

>> CA drought is virtually over and well above snow packs in the Sierra Nevada's. <<

That's a product of an El Nino cycle. It is not directly related to global climate.

>> Truth is, warming is actually good for agriculture since more crops can be grown in more places and further North. <<

Except that it's not good for those places in the middle latitutes, most of which are already pretty arid or hardscrabble.

 

[iluvatar5150]

We've been having cooling, hence crop failures in the South. I'm in the Pacific NW and we're going through the coldest winter since 1979.

On top of forgetting about her thread from 2 years ago, @Veritas has apparently also forgotten that the two most recent summers in her area have been two of the hottest on record.

Portland breaks heat records three days in a row

But I await her further attempts to educate us low-information voters about our fake news.