news Canadian News
Good Morning Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

OPINION:Follow the Climate Money

Canadian Content
20680news upnews down

OPINION:Follow the Climate Money


Business | 206779 hits | Dec 01 1:18 am | Posted by: N_Fiddledog
50 Comment

Billions, perhaps trillions of dollars in investments stand to vanish if climate theory proven wrong.

Comments

  1. by avatar gonavy47
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:31 pm
    Brace yourselves for recession #2, only this one will have a lot more shrill whining when their donations dry up.

  2. by ridenrain
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:41 pm
    Good Post.

  3. by avatar N_Fiddledog
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:48 pm
    Did you know for the low, bargain sale price of $1200 you can shake Al Gore's hand at Copenhagen?

    Fat Albert Handshakes For Sale - 1200 bucks

  4. by avatar PublicAnimalNo9
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:53 pm
    "N_Fiddledog" said
    Did you know for the low, bargain sale price of $1200 you can shake Al Gore's hand at Copenhagen?

    Fat Albert Handshakes For Sale - 1200 bucks


    How much to kick him in the nuts?

  5. by avatar Zipperfish  Gold Member
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:12 pm
    Seems a curious case to make. It is the so-called sceptics who are always saying that responding to climate change will bankrupt the world eocnomy. Yet, in this scetpics articel, does he even mention that? Nooooo.

    So, if, in fact, reposnding to climate change will break the world eocnomy, you'd think that--as this fellow puts it --"following the money" would address that issue.

    But then, I guess not much more can be expected from the "Global warmingi s a pile of crap becasue Al Gore is fat" crowd. :lol:

  6. by ridenrain
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:38 pm
    All my peerrs and I are just saying that because we're all paid by "big oil".
    :roll:

  7. by avatar Zipperfish  Gold Member
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:42 pm
    "ridenrain" said
    All my peerrs and I are just saying that because we're all paid by "big oil".
    :roll:


    hey, if you don't like science, go back to prayer. :lol:

  8. by ridenrain
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:45 pm
    Science is proven because it's repeatable.
    "Just believe what we say" is religion.

  9. by avatar N_Fiddledog
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:48 pm
    "Zipperfish" said
    Seems a curious case to make. It is the so-called sceptics who are always saying that responding to climate change will bankrupt the world eocnomy. Yet, in this scetpics articel, does he even mention that? Nooooo.

    So, if, in fact, reposnding to climate change will break the world eocnomy, you'd think that--as this fellow puts it --"following the money" would address that issue.

    But then, I guess not much more can be expected from the "Global warmingi s a pile of crap becasue Al Gore is fat" crowd. :lol:


    What on earth are you talking about? Try earth people logic, so the rest of us can understand too.

    Look...here's the way the argument goes from an economic standpoint. The global warming fraud is a Ponzi scheme. There's no actual, unsubsidized product being produced. You can make money in the early going, but it only works for as long as you can continue finding rubes to invest. Ultimately though everybody loses.

    The way the "Al Gore is fat" argument goes is he's an icon of global warming hypocrisy. These faux green guys are getting fat while they drive up the price of food and energy for the poor, even starving the people of say Africa by refusing them cheap, functioning energy. At the same time they claim to speak for the poor, and ask the rest of us to tighten our belts, and prepare to make sacrifices.

  10. by avatar PublicAnimalNo9
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:53 pm
    "Zipperfish" said

    But then, I guess not much more can be expected from the "Global warmingi s a pile of crap becasue Al Gore is fat" crowd. :lol:


    It's got nothing to do with Al's size.
    If someone offered you several million dollars a year to prove something that's essentially unprovable at this point in time, you wouldn't bust your ass trying to disguise all the faulty data you used as proof? You wouldn't be pushing your agenda despite evidence to the contrary?

    You yourself may have the moral fortitude to say "no", but there are many, MANY others out there, including educated people, that would JUMP at the chance to become a multi-millionaire, even if it meant throwing their ethics out the door.

  11. by avatar PluggyRug
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:04 pm
    "Zipperfish" said
    responding to climate change



    Why waste energy responding to a nonexistent entity.

  12. by avatar BartSimpson  Gold Member
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:15 pm
    "Zipperfish" said

    hey, if you don't like science, go back to prayer. :lol:


    Excuse me? We're not the ones who are destroying their data to prevent it from being replicated. We're not the ones persecuting scientists who stray from the non-scientific 'consensus'. We're not the ones violating the law by deliberately destroying government documents.

    In sum, we're not the ones acting like common criminals trying to hide the evidence of their crimes and silencing anyone who talks.

    AGW 'scientists' are naught but a bunch of extortionists in white coats running a scam to steal money from everyone.

  13. by avatar Zipperfish  Gold Member
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:18 pm
    "N_Fiddledog" said

    What on earth are you talking about? Try earth people logic, so the rest of us can understand too.


    No, I've tried earth people logic. Didn't like it. I much prefer space cadet logic.

    Look...here's the way the argument goes from an economic standpoint. The global warming fraud is a Ponzi scheme. There's no actual, unsubsidized product being produced. You can make money in the early going, but it only works for as long as you can continue finding rubes to invest. Ultimately though everybody loses.


    I can't see it from the research dollars angle. First of all, head researchers like Phil Jones and whats-his-nuts at NASA get millions in research dollars every year regardless. So saying that they get millions of dollars now because of climate change doesn't tell me much. Secondly, the research funding doesn't go into the researcher's private account. He or she has to account for it. Sure they might be able to finagle some of it their way--trips to fancy conferences, yadda yadda yadda. But it's not like its theirs to do with as they please. And sure you can point to a few guys--like Jones adn Hansen--but for the great majority of researchers, I don't think you'd find that theya re driving Porsches.

    When research scientists are making the kind of money that CEOs of large energy companies make, that argument might become more valid.

    And finally, the argument discounts the research income for the scientists who are sceptical of AGW. They also get funding.

    I think a groupthink mentality among some lead reserachers is probably more to blame than deliberate malfeasance to get more research money.


    The way the "Al Gore is fat" argument goes is he's an icon of global warming hypocrisy. These faux green guys are getting fat while they drive up the price of food and energy for the poor, even starving the people of say Africa by refusing them cheap, functioning energy. At the same time they claim to speak for the poor, and ask the rest of us to tighten our belts, and prepare to make sacrifices.


    And what have you done lately for the starving people of Africa?

    Al Gore is a politician, so it doesn't surprise me when he acts like one. However there is no relationship bewteen Al Gore's weight and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

  14. by avatar Zipperfish  Gold Member
    Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:20 pm
    "PluggyRug" said
    responding to climate change



    Why waste energy responding to a nonexistent entity.

    So, you don't think carbon dioxide radiates heat? Or you don't thihnk that the concentration of CO2 is rising? Or do you think, over the long term, that other factors will negate the heat produced by teh surplus carbon dioxide?



view comments in forum
Page 1 2 3 4

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Who voted on this?

  • martin14 Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:06 am
  • ridenrain Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:53 am
Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net