Are there Full time/"professional" climate deniers?

Dave... I find it amazing how you find it fascinating how people people can have such different views! Are you even married?

 

Yes I am well aware that you call everyone who disagrees with you a troll, none of this changes basic economics. I am also well aware of green jobs and renewable energy proponents do not understand basic economics. If you understood economics it is impossible to point out what I said is incorrect.

Is the price of wind and solar more than other forms of conventional energy? Yes or No?

 

The world of policy often doesn't give a hoot for the world of science. That, of course, permits climate deniers to simply say, "no, no, no" without having to come up with an idea that actually works better to explain what we see and know. This is not science, it is ideology. Science is self-falsifying, only accepts what it cannot disprove and always keeps testing. Science is a process, not an endpoint.

Deniers don't like the idea of climate change, they don't accept that it is possible for humans to change the climate, they don't like the implications of climate change, they don't like things we might have to do to address climate change (efficiency and conservation), or they just don't like government or science. Deniers don't accept or publish in peer-reviewed journals in the public domain.

There is no good argument against global climate change.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick

 

Wrong (oh and skeptics are not deniers) and have explained this extensively,

Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs) (NIPCC)

No skeptics accept that the climate changes.

Of course skeptics do it is to what extent and by what means.

No skeptics actually understand these things,

The Efficiency Paradox (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT)
The Virtue Of Waste (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT)

Skeptics publish extensively,

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

There are plenty of good arguments that man-made CO2 is not the primary driver,

Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs) (NIPCC)

 

Well put PopTech

 

Don't know about Montana, but in NY the last retreat was around 11,000 years ago. Place is still kind of a mess from all the leftovers.

 

:yawn:

A good chunk of the country's population is already covered by a cap and trade system. No one is making $100s of billions. Far from it.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) CO2 Budget Trading Program - Welcome

And it's coming to the west, whether it's done through EPA or the states..

http://www.westernclimateinitative.org

 

You're kidding, right? Using your own words...

The entire basis for promoting AGW as a hoax is fear.
AGW deniers are fear-mongers.
You mention greed? There is a vast amount of money to be made in denying AGW - $45 billion in 2008 for Exxon-Mobil alone.
How much from the rest of the world?
[ame="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS335US335&q=AGW+deniers+ties+to+fossil+fuel+industry"]That money perverst objective science.[/ame]

Please, explain to me what a poor university or government researcher, drawing a salary of typically less than $150,000 a year, has to gain by risking his or her professional reputation in lying? Yeah, he may get the AGW grant this year, but if he's caught in a lie, how much will he get next year?

Doesn't it stand to reason that a huge industry, which may lose billions of dollars in profits to carbon regulation, might be willing to "fund science" to make up junk science stories, or pay off ("contribute to campaigns") politicians to make sure carbon regulation doesn't happen? (I have to issue a correction here - Exxon-Mobil has apparently backed off its anti-AGW stance, but you get my point. Here's a better article...)

When the extractive industries own the government, own the media (it's pretty hard for a "news channel" to slag the oil companies that pay them millions for adverstising), it's pretty easy to see how they can manipulate the message - "manufacture controversy" is the term they use.

The tactics here are the same used in the tobacco and asbestos "debate."

 

How much does the USA spend in a week on carbon based fossil fuels?
8.989 million barrels per day at $83 per barrel equals a daily spend on crude oil of $746,087,000
So your vast amount of money is equal to less than 3 days spend on crude oil alone, not coal but just oil. So your "vast amount" is less than 1% of the USA's total annual spend on crude oil. That isn't what Americans are spending at the pump, but what oil companies are spending on raw materials. The spend on refined fuels is about 50% higher than this.

I once worked for a national vehicle service chain, our advertising budget was 6% of turnover, do you think the oil industry might have a few billion to spend on spreading "the good oil" on fossil fuel use?

 

I would agree that there are professional AGW deniers. The book Climate Cover Up does a good job of pointing out who and how AGW denial is funded by certain industries.

It's not much use in arguing with them as their goal is not to win, but to sew the seeds of doubt in the minds of the majority of folks who will not read the full argument or do any research of their own. Their livelihood depends on the argument, not on right/wrong. Considering the stance they are taking, a moral argument will not work either.

Indeed, there seems to be a lot of PriusChat Trolls. You could even call the PTs for short. (what a coincidence on that acronym)

What else would be the purpose of joining a specific purpose forum, such as PRIUSchat if you don't have or intend to purchase a Prius. Quite a lame, pathetic loser-like thing to do unless you are getting something from it (i.e. $ compensation or troll food).

 

Wel that is odd.
My government will give me an interest free loan of $10,000 to put solar panels on my roof, I pay the loan off over 4 years using the money I save on electricity and a little more, not much though, then after the loan is paid I get free power for 20+ more years. Please point out where this isn't viable even if I had to pay market interest and pay the panels off over 5 years.

In the above (4 year interest free loan) I would pay $3600 in excess of my current power spend over 4 years to get free electricity for the next 20+ years. The actual cost of the panels is not subsidised. If I then cut consumption the excess power is sold to the power company.

 

One of these was writing a book about climate change science, makes me wonder?