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.
I am not a climate change denial. What my problem climate change is it cause by AGW? Look at the cheerleaders for global warning: Al Gore and Obama. What have they done personally? They live in big mansion, own multiple home. Own multiple cars and planes. Did they downsize? Did they grow their own food??? But, one thing is obvious, they get very wealthy through global warming.
Please explain how the president is personally making money off of global warming................
John McCain is just as big of a cheerleader, but unlike Obama he's probably not getting rich off of it
Do you ever think that maybe the reason these politicians support things like global warming, wildlife conservation, or recycling is because they possible care. Most politicians are already wealthy before running for office. Despite what you may think, both R's and D's make the decisions they make for what they feel is the good of the people. Guys like Bush or Obama aren't in politics to get rich. Bush didn't invade Iraq to get rich, he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. Whether or not it was is subjective, but he didn't do it to get rich just like Obama isn't trying to combat global warming so he can get rich.
And if the local weatherman happened to be somebody you hated and he warned you to get to a tornado shelter before a verified, on the ground EF5 wedge tornado killed everyone in your subdivision, would you ignore him because "he hasn't done anything personally" and has "gotten very rich predicting incorrect weather?"
Climate change, caused at least in part by human activity, is a scientific fact. To deny it because you don't like Al Gore or Obama is a horrible line of reasoning. Heck, if you looked around enough, you could probably find some people on the denier side who you wouldn't like, making it impossible to chose a position...
The people around here scare me sometimes based on their decision making processes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky4life
Please explain how the president is personally making money off of global warming................
John McCain is just as big of a cheerleader, but unlike Obama he's probably not getting rich off of it
Do you ever think that maybe the reason these politicians support things like global warming, wildlife conservation, or recycling is because they possible care. Most politicians are already wealthy before running for office. Despite what you may think, both R's and D's make the decisions they make for what they feel is the good of the people. Guys like Bush or Obama aren't in politics to get rich. Bush didn't invade Iraq to get rich, he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. Whether or not it was is subjective, but he didn't do it to get rich just like Obama isn't trying to combat global warming so he can get rich.
Power >>>>>>> Money. Politicians don't go to war or pass regulations because they think it is the right thing to do. They do it because it transfers power from you to them.
All I am asking was what have they done to help? Absolute nothing. They can have do little to show that they actually practice what they preached. For example: Drive a smaller car. Live in a smaller house. There is no reason why they cannot drive a Honda Fit or an Nissan Leaf or even a Fiat. Or grow their own vegetable. If Steve Jobs grows his own foot and he ran the most successful company in the world in the last decade, Al Gore has no excuse.
As for Obama, he can take a few less golf trips and focus on fixing the issue he is elected to do so. Host less party in the White House to cut down on food, power and safe tax payer's money.
I respect the fact that you are supporting your argument with actual evidence, but people weren't talking about this in everyday conversation in the 1970's. It wasn't the politicized monster that global warming has become because it wasn't actually supported in the scientific community, and was more a product of the non-mainstream media. It's not comparing apples to apples. The international community wasn't spending millions on climate research back then, and the idea of global cooling was more of a prediction than factual based evidence of what was actually happening.
I remember nothing about "global cooling" in the 70's. I don't dispute that you may have, as I'm not you, but it wasn't a regular occurring topic in the mainstream media.
And the cooling hypothesis wasn't necessarily predicting an ice age so much as suggesting that aerosol use would cool the planet, which is exactly what was happening. CFCs and similar aerosols were banned in 1978 because of their effects on the ozone layer.
1: back then there was no internet
2: note the overall few papers on climate change compared to today
3: very little government money going to climate change researchers as opposed to today
if climate change was such a serious matter, you can bet that back then it would have been front as center in the minds of the environmentalists who would have been demanding that something be done right away. lawsuits would have been filed against the government and businesses, etc. and lobbyists would have been pounding on the doors of those in congress demanding action.
Between 97-99 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is not only happening, but that it is being influenced by man. One recent study earlier this year reported that only 0.01% of working climate scientists believe that climate change is not effected by man-made variables, and 0% believed that global warming is not happening at all.
And in completely unrelated news, between 97-99 percent of climate scientists receive funding to study global warming.
It's shocking how if you give someone money to study a problem with the knowledge that if they find that problem they will receive more money to continue studying it, that those people find a problem.
That's the thing with giving people money, authority, and media attention for studying a problem. The problem will keep going on as long as they can keep milking cash out of it. Just look at Al Sharpton out there thundering on about racism today as if there was no Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, Martin Luther King, etc. As long as he can keep making money on shouting about it, a vast conspiracy of right wing racists will continue to exist. It will always be 1950 in Mississippi for Al Sharpton as long as his bank account grows.
Quote:
With that being said, 23% of people in the united states don't believe global warming is happening. It seems almost unbelievable that almost a quarter of the country thinks they know more than the worlds leading experts on the subject.
And over 50% of the people voted for Obama in 2012 even after the failure of his first term. People are stupid.
Quote:
It's laughable the way people go out of there way on this forum to comb the Internet for articles that contradicts what any intelligent human being is unable to dismiss. Half the time the articles posted don't even dispute global warming, as it's just a case of the TS not understanding the article. What's crazy is that the number of deniers is actually increasing; however, What's not crazy is the fact that there is a very strong correlation with those that identify as being fundamentally religious as being the bulk of this increasing portion of the population.
I don't think you're looking at that accurately.
The people who want to spend billions upon billions of dollars fighting global warming are the same people who spent trillions upon trillions of dollars on the "Great Society" over the past 50 years fighting poverty that bankrupted the nation and didn't affect poverty rates one bit.
These are the people who call me a denier. It's tough to take seriously an accusation of denier from someone with that track record.
See, the President who is telling me I need to be deeply concerned about global warming and put vast resources at his disposal to fight it is the same President who told me if I liked my insurance I could keep it, that a stimulus would jumpstart the economy, that Al Qaeda was on the run, and that there was not a smidgeon of corruption at the IRS.
So it isn't religion that tends to make people deny global warming. It is the people promoting global warming that makes people into deniers. I'm afraid liberals are the shepherd who cried wolf. They wanted the war on poverty, and it failed. They wanted to increase funding to education, and test scores went down instead of up. They wanted a stimulus to jumpstart the recovery, and we got the longest recovery in recorded history. Now they want billions to fight global warming. Sorry, but my answer is no.
Quote:
What sucks about this, is the fact that these people are the base of the republican party, so the party has assumed the role of denying science once again.
Once again? What are the other times the Republican party has assumed the role of denying science?
Quote:
Now people that aren't bat**** crazy religious seem to feel it's their political obligation to deny something that a small child should be able to come to terms with, due to the mountains of statistical evidence.
Statistical evidence coming from computer projections, not verifiable experimentation.
Quote:
If there is anything in this world the perpetuates nonsense, we must stand back in awe of religion. I would honestly consider voting republican if they could put a decent candidate up, but in order to get the nomination, it's looking like that candidate might have to take a steamy dump on science to keep the troops in good spirits.
I would say religion perpetuated a lot of nonsense in the Middle Ages. But today it is leftism that perpetuates the nonsense. Higher taxes improve the economy, the black community's problem is rampant racism, not giving people free birth control is a war on women, wanting to protect our sovereign borders is racist, wanting people to prove they are eligible to vote before letting them vote is racist, etc.
Quote:
I can't support that
And I can't support corrupt and dishonest Democrats regardless of whether they are right or wrong on global warming. Democrats have a proven track record of dishonesty and incompetence.
That climate change deniers cite the influence of money as a point against the theory of global warming is definitely one of the stranger phenomenon involved. The only reason there's a debate at all is the coal and oil tycoons pouring billions of dollars into smoke-screening campaigns.
That climate change deniers cite the influence of money as a point against the theory of global warming is definitely one of the stranger phenomenon involved. The only reason there's a debate at all is the coal and oil tycoons pouring billions of dollars into smoke-screening campaigns.
money has corrupted the so called science, and made it political. and when that happened, and people started saying the science is settled, that is when you know there are real issues to discuss here. something is amiss and the disciples of AGW warming are ignoring all the evidence against man made climate change.
Prove this by showing the work these scientists did for the money is in fact fraudulent. I'd like to see the papers that show what the facts really are, and what these scientists did that was so fraudulent. I don't want to see your blogs, they're worthless.
money has corrupted the so called science, and made it political. and when that happened, and people started saying the science is settled, that is when you know there are real issues to discuss here. something is amiss and the disciples of AGW warming are ignoring all the evidence against man made climate change.
It's an effective tactic in a way, like much conservative nonsense-spewing. You accuse the other side of doing what they're doing, and when they point out the truth it just sounds like "no u", which casual observers dismiss as petulance.
money has corrupted the so called science, and made it political. and when that happened, and people started saying the science is settled, that is when you know there are real issues to discuss here. something is amiss and the disciples of AGW warming are ignoring all the evidence against man made climate change.
No, we ignore your claims because there's no evidence.
No, we ignore your claims because there's no evidence.
No evidence the earth is warming, or that it's caused by humans? It's hard to keep track with the goalposts moving around so much.
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.
