Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Though it's not going to affect them. The man made climate change lunatics write it off as factual indisputable evidence, yet they never tell you what that evidence is.
So, it sounds like what you folks are trying to communicate to us is that humans don't have any measurable impact on the global warming and cooling cycle
I'm not a climatologist, so I'll defer to those who are, and who nearly all believe we do have a measurable impact; even if they are all wrong, the point about human geography and survivability doesn't change.
Quote:
.....we're just afraid that we have screwed up so badly by building a civilization near the ocean that we now need to tax everyone to pay for those bad decisions.
Yes, precisely because we do live in a civilization and not the Wild West, and we cannot have a prosperous country built on millions of corpses. I'm generally inclined to be libertarian and individualistic, but this case is sui generis, like 9/11 or Katrina.
Climate change is not a "belief," it is fact. The non "believers" don't live in the real world, anyway.
Really?
"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty." Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." Al Gore
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official
It never ceases to amaze me the not just the utter ignorance of the RWNJs, but the pride they take in being absolutely scientifically illiterate. 97% of the scientific community believe in man made/aided climate change and the need to do something about it. Only something like 0.7% actually deny it (there are some actual middle ground "I don't know crowd).
Yet despite that, you have Hillbilly McLardbutts one after another, with their 3 teeth and high school education aided by a healthy dose of Fox News who come on here and look down their nose, insinuating that the vast and defeaning majority of the scientific community doesn't know what they are doing.
You people are either deluded, ignorant or both.
It never ceases to amaze me the utter willingness to take at face value this notion of the false 97% consensus or the notion that the science community is unaffected by politics, activism, greed or dogma when Billions of dollars are in play.
It also never ceases to amaze me how quickly the skeptics are ASSumed to be RWNJ and hicks who listen to Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. Seriously, could you pack any more cliches into your post. There are more skeptics among the general population AND the science community than you think and growing daily.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it." H.L. Mencken
My point is clear: What reason do we have to worry about a warmer climate in 2014 if the Earth's climate has been proven to have been warmer before there were no humans or technology to create this so-called "global warming epidemic?"
Because those climate changes have massive impacts - the world used to be a pangaea, and the continents have drifted apart over the course of the millenia. The climate change that is going on will at the very least swallow Florida, move the Texas coastline somewhere just east of Austin, and cover the statue of liberty to her elbow on its current trajectory. Worldwide we are talking about hundreds of millions of lives/homes affected, food supplies massively affected, and other problems. But the right wants us to happily go ever onward on this path of destruction that we are absolutely aiding.
Because those climate changes have massive impacts - the world used to be a pangaea, and the continents have drifted apart over the course of the millenia. The climate change that is going on will at the very least swallow Florida, move the Texas coastline somewhere just east of Austin, and cover the statue of liberty to her elbow on its current trajectory. Worldwide we are talking about hundreds of millions of lives/homes affected, food supplies massively affected, and other problems. But the right wants us to happily go ever onward on this path of destruction that we are absolutely aiding.
And taxing American's while China continues its unchecked development and environmental pillaging will solve the problem. Apparently the rising seas stop at the end of our territorial waters.
You folks will never get it. It's just not in your collective analytical capacity. I guess there's a reason Al Gore is your spokesperson.
It never ceases to amaze me the utter willingness to take at face value this notion of the false 97% consensus or the notion that the science community is unaffected by politics, activism, greed or dogma when Billions of dollars are in play.
It also never ceases to amaze me how quickly the skeptics are ASSumed to be RWNJ and hicks who listen to Fox news and Rush Limbaugh. Seriously, could you pack any more cliches into your post. There are more skeptics among the general population AND the science community than you think and growing daily.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it." H.L. Mencken
So, mister conspiracy theorist, let's assume that you are right that Billions of dollars are in play and are affecting this discussion. I actually agree with you on that point. So that point is conceeded. Now, since we both agree that billions of dollars are affecting this discussion, let me ask you which sounds more likely:
1. tens of thousands of scientists, 97% of the community, funded by all manner of various sources, have been corrupted by the money and are knowingly peddling false science and false conclusions for personal gain, with none of them coming out with the dirty secrets. This deception is aided by the vast majority of the world's news outlets who also push this "agenda" as truth. This deception is then also picked up on by the majority of countries who are trying to get things done globally to address the issues (see such agreements as the Kyoto accords).
2. 0.7% of the scientific community, whose studies are VIRTUALLY ALL PAID FOR BY THE OIL INDUSTRY (gee, they couldn't have an interest in this, could they?) are being corrupted by the billions of dollars (which they conventiently have direct ties to, given the source of their funding). This agenda of climate deniers is pushed mainly by one news outlet (Faux News), who happen to have a massive part of their ownership also tied in the oil industry.
The same oil industry, with obvious personal stake in the issue (along with some of the other dirty energy sources such as the coal industry), all have massive contributions to most all congressman and senators, and are actively fighting in this country against the passing of any legislation to address those issues. These climate deniers and defilers are mostly in the US (where politics is corrupted by massive money), and China, as well as other unregulated and underdeveloped nations, where influxes of money can have more of an impact).
SO, let me ask you ... which scenario seems more likely? Because I know which one my money is on ...
So, mister conspiracy theorist, let's assume that you are right that Billions of dollars are in play and are affecting this discussion. I actually agree with you on that point. So that point is conceeded. Now, since we both agree that billions of dollars are affecting this discussion, let me ask you which sounds more likely:
1. tens of thousands of scientists, 97% of the community, funded by all manner of various sources, have been corrupted by the money and are knowingly peddling false science and false conclusions for personal gain, with none of them coming out with the dirty secrets. This deception is aided by the vast majority of the world's news outlets who also push this "agenda" as truth. This deception is then also picked up on by the majority of countries who are trying to get things done globally to address the issues (see such agreements as the Kyoto accords).
2. 0.7% of the scientific community, whose studies are VIRTUALLY ALL PAID FOR BY THE OIL INDUSTRY (gee, they couldn't have an interest in this, could they?) are being corrupted by the billions of dollars (which they conventiently have direct ties to, given the source of their funding). This agenda of climate deniers is pushed mainly by one news outlet (Faux News), who happen to have a massive part of their ownership also tied in the oil industry.
The same oil industry, with obvious personal stake in the issue (along with some of the other dirty energy sources such as the coal industry), all have massive contributions to most all congressman and senators, and are actively fighting in this country against the passing of any legislation to address those issues. These climate deniers and defilers are mostly in the US (where politics is corrupted by massive money), and China, as well as other unregulated and underdeveloped nations, where influxes of money can have more of an impact).
SO, let me ask you ... which scenario seems more likely? Because I know which one my money is on ...
Your entire premise is based on a single strawman: That there are "tens of thousands" of climate scientists (climatologists as they are known). Since there are not that many climate scientists in the entire world, your point #1 must be completely disregarded as fundamentally disingenuous.
It never ceases to amaze me the not just the utter ignorance of the RWNJs, but the pride they take in being absolutely scientifically illiterate. 97% of the scientific community believe in man made/aided climate change and the need to do something about it. Only something like 0.7% actually deny it (there are some actual middle ground "I don't know crowd).
Yet despite that, you have Hillbilly McLardbutts one after another, with their 3 teeth and high school education aided by a healthy dose of Fox News who come on here and look down their nose, insinuating that the vast and defeaning majority of the scientific community doesn't know what they are doing.
You people are either deluded, ignorant or both.
Yep... the RWNJ's revel in ignorance. Remember, that a record heat wave is just "liberals being surprised that it is hot in summer," but a cold winter is "proof" that "global warming is a lie!"
They live in absolute terror that "duh gubermint" is going to "raise taxes" to address this issue... in reality, more advanced technology and less random pollution and waste is the answer. Of course, the RWNJ's also think that because it costs so much more to fuel their Hummer these days than it did years ago, the "liberals have won" - vs. market forces that drive the price of energy being the actual culprit... the same market forces that right-wingers love to praise when it puts people out of work or lowers wages.
Meanwhile, the climate continues to change, CO2 builds up, and humanity continues to pay no heed to its own future... but at least the trees were happy millions of years ago, which apparently in RWNJ land means that humanity will be fine... because people have the same needs as trees or something...
And taxing American's while China continues its unchecked development and environmental pillaging will solve the problem. Apparently the rising seas stop at the end of our territorial waters.
You folks will never get it. It's just not in your collective analytical capacity. I guess there's a reason Al Gore is your spokesperson.
Well, gee since one country pollutes, ALL of the rest of us should just say $&%# it and expedite massive global destruction and change, instead of doing what we can to mittigate and address the issue ... very wise decision.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
