Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax?

[westwall]

If science isnt evidence then you're evidence is based in spirituality.

Can you provide one piece of empirical evidence that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in warming? Here is a hint...there is none which means that there is no empirical evidence to support the most fundamental claim of the AGW hypothesis....what sort of science has no empirical evidence to support the very cornerstone of their hypothesis?

If science isn't good enough then can you tell me well I'm supposed to choose from as proof?

Yanno, something more reliable than science like a ouija board maybe? Or a magic 8 ball?

This is like saying prove that 2 plus 2 equals 4 but here's the catch, you can't use numbers or math. Lol

right? why do these libs do that? I don't get it. To use the magic 8 ball to put figures in a graph. You think they all party with Chuck Manson while doing it?

So when they go to court and they can't produce their data, they know the only thing they need to protect is magic 8 ball.

Hoax, hell no.

They produce data and your only response is "that don't count". Like I said it's like asking for a math solution after saying math and numbers aren't legit so find another way.

What data do they produce? Be specific.

 

[westwall]

This guy is quoting movie scripts lmao!

It' one of the most erudite books ever written about political ideology, and it was written by an avowed socialist. Dummy.

I need to look up erudite now.....

It's a three dollar word I rarely get to use!

 

[martybegan]

This guy is quoting movie scripts lmao!

It' one of the most erudite books ever written about political ideology, and it was written by an avowed socialist. Dummy.

I need to look up erudite now.....

It's a three dollar word I rarely get to use!

It's one of those words where you think the person is insulting the topic in question, but they are not.

 

[mudwhistle]

This guy is quoting movie scripts lmao!

It' one of the most erudite books ever written about political ideology, and it was written by an avowed socialist. Dummy.

I need to look up erudite now.....

It's a three dollar word I rarely get to use!

Yep.....words like "alacrity".

We live for those moments.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I remain open to the discussion of the OP, it just happened that the last person discussing the topic ( the one with a green witch avatar) had the argumentative power of a dimwit, so I stopped discussing with him/her.
If you want to retake on the possible causes and consequences of the AWG-as-a-hoax you are most welcome. I actually had a good debate with WestWall and surprisingly we ended up agreeing on many important points ( though not on the AWG itself, which is kind of irrelevant given the nature of the OP ).

Well as it has been said, the purpose of any hoax would be for self aggrandizement.

These so called "experts", scientists according to liberals, have data they use to scare people into believing human beings and their prosperous lifestyles are causing a problem that only government can solve through regulations, taxes and massive pork projects that usually fail to achieve anything. These "scientists" receive huge funding grants for more "research", government gets empowered and grows larger, and crony corporations build shit like windmills and solar panels and even sometimes go bankrupt after being subsidized to the tune of $535,000,000.

Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

A half a billion dollars alone could enrich a whole lot of people, and that is a pittance. It doesn't even register on the radar when considering all of the incredible sums of money the government has dumped into the gaping maw of environazi alarmists. That half a billion dollars was wasted on just one company, and there are many other examples of such waste.

Lets just imagine for a second that Bush or some other republicrat administration soaked the tax payer for $500 million that was given to a corporation that went tits up. Democrooks would have been howling for investigations, impeachment and prison sentences, but in this case...



Why?

Because criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths, their friends and donors are getting rich. Liberals are always pissing and moaning about rich corporations screwing the public and getting rich through fraud. Here's was stark glaring example but I have yet to see the occutards shitting all over the WH lawn over it.

You also need to consider the fact that the most prominent MMGW snake oil salesmen are doing the exact opposite of what they're telling the rest of us to do. They might throw a couple solar panels on their houses, but they're flying all over the world, using more energy as individuals than some small towns and demanding the rest of us shut off our AC. If that doesn't make it blatantly clear they themselves don't believe the bullshit they're promoting I don't know what does. The fact they're getting richer while doing so should be proof enough to you what the agenda is. If you can't see it, I don't know what else on earth can prove it to you. Jesus Christ Himself could come down from the clouds and tell you to your face and you'd respond with some shit about Him being corrupted by the oil industry.

You've been rather polite and I appreciate it, but I stand with my contention that liberals are mindless zealots completely lacking in cognitive capacity.

Now just so you know, in my early to late teens I believed in all the MMGW horse shit. I used to put up flyers and posters in school urging people to use less energy, less paper and that marijuana could save the environment if we used it for industry.

I woke up.

I still smoked the shit, but it finally occurred to me that if pot was useful for anything other than making TV tolerable, companies would use it.

First, thanks for presenting arguments instead of ranting, I really appreciate it.
In summary you seem to propose two motives :
1) Self aggrandizement
2) Government-Corporate corruption

Regarding self aggrandizement, yes, it is possible that some scientist are motivated by it. Extending such motivation to all scientists seems a little bit far fetched. So lets just say most of them (80%) are motivaded by it. That would still leave the reminding 20%. Now I will not discuss if that 20% is right or wrong in spite of their legitimate concern.

Regarding government corporate corruption, yes, I was aware of Solyndra as well as other green tech companies involved in corruption ( quite surprisingly Special Ed provided the links one of those rare days in which he didn't wake up in rant mode). I found that very sad.
That said, this kind of corruption is not exclusive of green tech companies as we saw in 2008. This leaves clear the fact that this free money scheme doesn't work and must be stopped.
I find other mechanisms might work better, like providing tax breaks for startups.

Since pollution is a global problem the source of pollution will shift as years pass : US was the biggest polluter until 2005, but now China has taken that place. The chinese have promissed to start decreasing their pollution levels by 2025, once that happens India will probably become the largest pollutor.
I tend to see this problem from a business perspective: it seems logic to invest in r&d for green technologies, ultimately India and China will seek to shift to green technologies ( I will include nuclear here although there are some known dangers associated with it ) because once they develop industrially their energy consumption will reach unsustainable levels.
Now some do's and dont's in my list:
Do: solar , wind, nuclear (if necesary), off the grid houses, 100+ mpg vehicles,
Don'ts : fracking, tar sands, deep oil, ultra dense cities, megalopolies.

And although this will probably be very debatable , cow population has to be stabilized :we can't get to the point where there are more cows than humans. Today there are about 1.5 billion cows in the world.

Cattle/cow population worldwide - how many, 2013 | Statistic

 

[CultureCitizen]

Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?

Population control by billionaire hedge funders and elitists.

To that, I must point out that there are more effective and efficient ways to achieve world population control from both corporations and the government : both Google , facebook and the NSA know a lot more about me and you than what George Orwell could have dreamed: Unless you are using Tor google knows what sites you visited what you searched , and what adds you clicked during the last 5 years.
I really wonder if green technologies could somehow provide more control than that. Mind you people seem quite unconcerned about this invisible control.

 

[ClosedCaption]

This guy is quoting movie scripts lmao!

1984 is a book you sniveling twit.

And a movie dumbass rofl. Great debating bro. Next will you be quoting Top Gun or Home Alone?

It was a book first, a book written by a socialist who saw the pitfalls of the system he preferred.

Of course it was a book first and it was a movie also. Since I didn't say the movie was first I have no idea what you have a problem with. So I was correct and you're just bitching.

 

[Votto]

I remember when a scientist speculated that ulcers were caused by bacteria. His theory ran against the grain of every scientific belief up till that time, and he was derided for it, however, he was later vendicated

This is the type of opposition one is faced within the scientific community when new theories that challenge accepted theories are given. Add to that political power opposing you as well as the politics within the scientific community, and you will find yourself not only derided, but without a job and maybe in prison like climate deniers in places like Australia.

I'm not really of the opinion that the climate is not warming. After all, other planets in the solar system are also warming. The only question is, what is causing it and what are the far reaching implications? This type of inquiry is not just of facts, it is making sense of the facts. It is making the facts correlate into a theory. Neither side can prove their position. All they have are theories.

 

[SSDD]

If science isn't good enough then can you tell me well I'm supposed to choose from as proof?

That is the problem....the whole AGW thing isn't really about science. Simply put, the scientific method is as follows:
a method of research in which a problem is identified,r relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is is empirically tested. First off, exactly what problem was identified...the warming at the time of the birth of the global warming hoax....and the warming today is well within the boundaries of natural variability...but they found a "problem" anyway....and called it global warming after they called it global cooling. Then they formed a hypothesis...and skipped the entire empirical testing step all together to see if the corner stone of their hypothesis, that being that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming was valid, and jumped straight away into crying crisis and telling us that we need to spend billions upon billions of dollars, cripple economies, distribute resources from wealthy nations to poor nations and literally change the way every person on earth lives.

What person with even reasonable critical thinking skills would accept their claims when the most fundamental element of the hypothesis has zero empirical evidence in its support?

Yanno, something more reliable than science like a ouija board maybe? Or a magic 8 ball?

How about actually being able to recognize and differentiate the difference between science and pseudoscience. A hypothesis which has not had its most basis premise tested, and verified experimentally is no basis upon which to do anything at all. Calling it science doesn't make it science. When someone can produce some empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warming, then we have some basis upon which to continue the discussion and start asking questions like how much warming....how quickly....is warming good or bad....do the benefits of doing something outweigh the cost of doing nothing....what will be the results of doing nothing?

But none of those questions can even begin to be asked because the basic premise of the hypothesis remains unproven....Tell me, do you....does anyone...have even the vaguest idea of what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is? My bet is that it isn't the temperature we are living in now because the earth is still coming out of an ice age....in a geological sense, it is f'ing cold on planet earth right now and paleontology tells us that life flourished with more vigor and diversity when the earth was considerably warmer than it is now.

This is like saying prove that 2 plus 2 equals 4 but here's the catch, you can't use numbers or math. Lol

Experiment is the basis of science....just as numbers are the basis of 2+2=4....what would you think of someone who said that they could do math without bothering to use numbers, or letters that represent numbers. That is what climate science is saying...they are saying that they can do science but have no real need of the scientific method...they are asking you to accept what they say on faith..not on scientific evidence. If you are unable to differentiate the difference between actual science and pseudoscience then the fault lies with you...and it is your own fault that you have been duped by pseudoscience claiming to be science. Look again at the definition of the scientific method and then look for that empirical evidence which proves the most fundamental claim of AGW....that being that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...and when you see that it can't be found because it doesn't exist....ask yourself why you believe.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.

Climate change science is the best science ever.

Now, if we go by your rules I win because I just asserted something and that means it's true. Feel free to submit your findings to the scientific community. What's that? You don't have any findings? Well by golly, that's shocking.

How about proof that the science is flawed? Aw man, you have nothing again? Sheesh

 

[Pete7469]

First, thanks for presenting arguments instead of ranting, I really appreciate it.
In summary you seem to propose two motives :
1) Self aggrandizement
2) Government-Corporate corruption

Regarding self aggrandizement, yes, it is possible that some scientist are motivated by it. Extending such motivation to all scientists seems a little bit far fetched. So lets just say most of them (80%) are motivaded by it. That would still leave the reminding 20%. Now I will not discuss if that 20% is right or wrong in spite of their legitimate concern.

OK, first of all, I'm not talking about "ALL SCIENTISTS", so lets drop that premise right off. I'm talking about people who either are, or claim to be scientific professionals or experts that actually have a background in climate study AND promote MMGW theory. I don't care what percent of the community they represent, but they do not represent them all. Even IF only%3 dispute MMGW, then there is no consensus. I suspect many more scientists are skeptical, but value their jobs and do not publicly raise skepticism. However there are I don't know how many testimonials from former IPCC members who report being ostracized and threatened for questioning the data or exposing the faults.

EVERYONE on earth who has ever existed except for Jesus has been motivated by personal needs and wants. The sort on integrity it would take for someone to throw a career in academia away let alone the income after decades of work in that arena has to be rare, but it clearly exists.

Regarding government corporate corruption, yes, I was aware of Solyndra as well as other green tech companies involved in corruption ( quite surprisingly Special Ed provided the links one of those rare days in which he didn't wake up in rant mode). I found that very sad.
That said, this kind of corruption is not exclusive of green tech companies as we saw in 2008. This leaves clear the fact that this free money scheme doesn't work and must be stopped.
I find other mechanisms might work better, like providing tax breaks for startups.

Tax breaks across the board appeals to me. The fact that there has been so much corruption between the government and "green tech" is all the proof I need that the agenda is based on politics and greed, especially since NOT ONE person has been brought up on charges. We are talking about the theft and waste of hundreds of millions of dollars here. If politics aren't a pivotal aspect of the hoax what on earth is allowing this to continue?

Like I said before if a republicrat allowed millions of federal dollars to go into ANY sort of company, and it was found that a significant amount of money was returned in the form of campaign donations to the GOP through whatever avenue and that the company failed to produce something of value, the media would have hordes of people in the streets with pitchforks and torches. People would go to prison, I promise you.

Since pollution is a global problem the source of pollution will shift as years pass : US was the biggest polluter until 2005, but now China has taken that place. The chinese have promissed to start decreasing their pollution levels by 2025, once that happens India will probably become the largest pollutor.
I tend to see this problem from a business perspective: it seems logic to invest in r&d for green technologies, ultimately India and China will seek to shift to green technologies ( I will include nuclear here although there are some known dangers associated with it ) because once they develop industrially their energy consumption will reach unsustainable levels.
Now some do's and dont's in my list:
Do: solar , wind, nuclear (if necesary), off the grid houses, 100+ mpg vehicles,
Don'ts : fracking, tar sands, deep oil, ultra dense cities, megalopolies.

Pollution isn't the issue here, the hoax is. Pollution is a problem to me, no matter who's air is grey and toxic but I'm not here to address it.

And although this will probably be very debatable , cow population has to be stabilized :we can't get to the point where there are more cows than humans. Today there are about 1.5 billion cows in the world.

Cattle/cow population worldwide - how many, 2013 | Statistic

Yeah...

You can forget that ridiculous line of thought. Cows are delicious, their farts aren't going to do anything.

 

[CultureCitizen]

From 1984:

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"

Both government and corporations have now a lot of control . Arguably google, the smartfones, facebook and the NSA have much more control over us than what could possible be achieved from green tech.

Also , if you install panels in you roof you gain independence instead of being dependent on the grid.
So exactly how would such control mechanisms be enacted ?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Yeah...

You can forget that ridiculous line of thought. Cows are delicious, their farts aren't going to do anything.

Delicius indeed, but there are not enough grasslands to give food to 10 billion cows.
But then , maybe meat can be growth in a petri dish in the future.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Like I said before if a republicrat allowed millions of federal dollars to go into ANY sort of company, and it was found that a significant amount of money was returned in the form of campaign donations to the GOP through whatever avenue and that the company failed to produce something of value, the media would have hordes of people in the streets with pitchforks and torches. People would go to prison, I promise you.

Not so, who went to jail after 2008? There was corruption on all levels . It is naive to think corruption happens only between the democrats and green tech companies.

 

[Pete7469]

Like I said before if a republicrat allowed millions of federal dollars to go into ANY sort of company, and it was found that a significant amount of money was returned in the form of campaign donations to the GOP through whatever avenue and that the company failed to produce something of value, the media would have hordes of people in the streets with pitchforks and torches. People would go to prison, I promise you.

Not so, who went to jail after 2008? There was corruption on all levels . It is naive to think corruption happens only between the democrats and green tech companies.

Do you have an example of the Bush admin granting millions of dollars to a company that went tits up afterwards?

I would agree that the bailouts were wrong, but the messiah encouraged that and more.

 

[SSDD]

You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.

So lets see the empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming. If no such empirical evidence exists supporting the most fundamental claim of the AGW hypothesis, what else could you call it but pseudoscience.

Climate change science is the best science ever.

OK...you can start to support that claim by providing hard empirical evidence that supports the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis...that being that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...of course that doesn't prove that it is the best science ever, but it would distinguish it from pseudoscience and provide a basis for further discussion of the hypothesis.

So lets see that empirical evidence that supports the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis. Failure to provide even that calls the claim that climate science is even science into question.

Now, if we go by your rules I win because I just asserted something and that means it's true. Feel free to submit your findings to the scientific community. What's that? You don't have any findings? Well by golly, that's shocking.

No need...I am not making any claim that a slight increase in a trace gas in the atmosphere causes anything. See...that's how science is done. You make a claim that if you do this....then that happens....you write a hypothesis, then you go about gathering empirical evidence that supports the claim. I am asking where the empirical evidence is that supports the foundational claim of the AGW hypothesis....neither you.....nor anyone else on earth can provide such evidence because it does not exist. I am asking for evidence to support the claim....without it, why would I, or anyone believe those making the claim? Why would you believe them lacking such fundamental empirical evidence?

How about proof that the science is flawed? Aw man, you have nothing again? Sheesh

Your failure to be able to provide empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is evidence that the science is flawed....if such evidence were available, it would be plastered everywhere and there wouldn't be much of a skeptical voice out there. You don't hear people voicing skepticism over the validity of the periodic table...there are mountains of empirical evidence to support its structure, You don't hear many people being skeptical over plate tectonics....again, vast amounts of empirical evidence to support the claims made by the hypothesis....and I could go on ad nauseum over science in which there is very little if any skeptical voice in opposition to the claims..because of mountains of empirical data to support the science.

I am not asking for mountains of empirical data to support the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis....I am just asking for a shred....something upon which to base further discussion....and neither you, nor all of climate science can provide even that. How could you call science which can't provide even a little bit of empirical evidence proving the most basic premise of its hypothesis anything other than flawed...in fact, how could you call it science at all?

 

[flacaltenn]

Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?

Have you seriously not heard quotes from the UN CC panel leadership ADMITTING the aim of their Climate Conferences and Science reports is global redistribution?? Never seen the "mission statement" of their science panel which states outright they are only interested causes and science related to MAN-MADE global warming?

How much work have YOU put into this? Because from your tone -- it's next to nothing.

First off -- no serious people who are informed about the history and science of these theories and agendas, would call it a "hoax".. That's a political term. Just like when leftists put GW at a higher threat than global conflicts. Most any INFORMED person on either side knows that the planet has warmed by a "tad" (0.5degC in your lifetime) and that CO2 plays at least a LIMITED role in raising surface temperatures.

But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.

If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..

 

[westwall]

I remain open to the discussion of the OP, it just happened that the last person discussing the topic ( the one with a green witch avatar) had the argumentative power of a dimwit, so I stopped discussing with him/her.
If you want to retake on the possible causes and consequences of the AWG-as-a-hoax you are most welcome. I actually had a good debate with WestWall and surprisingly we ended up agreeing on many important points ( though not on the AWG itself, which is kind of irrelevant given the nature of the OP ).

Well as it has been said, the purpose of any hoax would be for self aggrandizement.

These so called "experts", scientists according to liberals, have data they use to scare people into believing human beings and their prosperous lifestyles are causing a problem that only government can solve through regulations, taxes and massive pork projects that usually fail to achieve anything. These "scientists" receive huge funding grants for more "research", government gets empowered and grows larger, and crony corporations build shit like windmills and solar panels and even sometimes go bankrupt after being subsidized to the tune of $535,000,000.

Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

A half a billion dollars alone could enrich a whole lot of people, and that is a pittance. It doesn't even register on the radar when considering all of the incredible sums of money the government has dumped into the gaping maw of environazi alarmists. That half a billion dollars was wasted on just one company, and there are many other examples of such waste.

Lets just imagine for a second that Bush or some other republicrat administration soaked the tax payer for $500 million that was given to a corporation that went tits up. Democrooks would have been howling for investigations, impeachment and prison sentences, but in this case...



Why?

Because criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths, their friends and donors are getting rich. Liberals are always pissing and moaning about rich corporations screwing the public and getting rich through fraud. Here's was stark glaring example but I have yet to see the occutards shitting all over the WH lawn over it.

You also need to consider the fact that the most prominent MMGW snake oil salesmen are doing the exact opposite of what they're telling the rest of us to do. They might throw a couple solar panels on their houses, but they're flying all over the world, using more energy as individuals than some small towns and demanding the rest of us shut off our AC. If that doesn't make it blatantly clear they themselves don't believe the bullshit they're promoting I don't know what does. The fact they're getting richer while doing so should be proof enough to you what the agenda is. If you can't see it, I don't know what else on earth can prove it to you. Jesus Christ Himself could come down from the clouds and tell you to your face and you'd respond with some shit about Him being corrupted by the oil industry.

You've been rather polite and I appreciate it, but I stand with my contention that liberals are mindless zealots completely lacking in cognitive capacity.

Now just so you know, in my early to late teens I believed in all the MMGW horse shit. I used to put up flyers and posters in school urging people to use less energy, less paper and that marijuana could save the environment if we used it for industry.

I woke up.

I still smoked the shit, but it finally occurred to me that if pot was useful for anything other than making TV tolerable, companies would use it.

First, thanks for presenting arguments instead of ranting, I really appreciate it.
In summary you seem to propose two motives :
1) Self aggrandizement
2) Government-Corporate corruption

Regarding self aggrandizement, yes, it is possible that some scientist are motivated by it. Extending such motivation to all scientists seems a little bit far fetched. So lets just say most of them (80%) are motivaded by it. That would still leave the reminding 20%. Now I will not discuss if that 20% is right or wrong in spite of their legitimate concern.

Regarding government corporate corruption, yes, I was aware of Solyndra as well as other green tech companies involved in corruption ( quite surprisingly Special Ed provided the links one of those rare days in which he didn't wake up in rant mode). I found that very sad.
That said, this kind of corruption is not exclusive of green tech companies as we saw in 2008. This leaves clear the fact that this free money scheme doesn't work and must be stopped.
I find other mechanisms might work better, like providing tax breaks for startups.

Since pollution is a global problem the source of pollution will shift as years pass : US was the biggest polluter until 2005, but now China has taken that place. The chinese have promissed to start decreasing their pollution levels by 2025, once that happens India will probably become the largest pollutor.
I tend to see this problem from a business perspective: it seems logic to invest in r&d for green technologies, ultimately India and China will seek to shift to green technologies ( I will include nuclear here although there are some known dangers associated with it ) because once they develop industrially their energy consumption will reach unsustainable levels.
Now some do's and dont's in my list:
Do: solar , wind, nuclear (if necesary), off the grid houses, 100+ mpg vehicles,
Don'ts : fracking, tar sands, deep oil, ultra dense cities, megalopolies.

And although this will probably be very debatable , cow population has to be stabilized :we can't get to the point where there are more cows than humans. Today there are about 1.5 billion cows in the world.

Cattle/cow population worldwide - how many, 2013 | Statistic

What do you have against cows? New Zealand's human population is outnumbered 20 to one by sheep. They are doing alright.

There are micro nuclear power plants that will do everything we need energy wise and are totally safe. Toshiba's 4S is just one variant of the technology....Bill Gates joined with them in 2010 as part of his green energy goals.

TOSHIBA - Multipurpose Energy Station 4S

http://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-toshibas-4s-reactor

 

[westwall]

You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.

Climate change science is the best science ever.

Now, if we go by your rules I win because I just asserted something and that means it's true. Feel free to submit your findings to the scientific community. What's that? You don't have any findings? Well by golly, that's shocking.

How about proof that the science is flawed? Aw man, you have nothing again? Sheesh

Bullcrap. It is the worst so far the world has ever seen. It is nothing more than computer derived fiction. There is precious little empirical data....period.

 

[mudwhistle]

Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?

Population control by billionaire hedge funders and elitists.

To that, I must point out that there are more effective and efficient ways to achieve world population control from both corporations and the government : both Google , facebook and the NSA know a lot more about me and you than what George Orwell could have dreamed: Unless you are using Tor google knows what sites you visited what you searched , and what adds you clicked during the last 5 years.
I really wonder if green technologies could somehow provide more control than that. Mind you people seem quite unconcerned about this invisible control.

Actually, most of it was on History Channel......

Alot of what they have on there has to be taken with a grain of salt......but I've seen too many examples......Bill Gates and George Soros to name a couple. Open borders folks that want to spread disease and start wars in the Middle-East. Ford Foundation, the Tides Foundation.