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.
A carbon tax is a drop in the bucket in comparison to subsidies to fossil fuel companies, so what are you afraid of?
That's how politicians always sell new taxes. It's a drop in the bucket, what's the big deal? And for what, a totally unsettled science? You folks know full well no really knows if AGW is just a normal climactic variation and no one knows if human activities have contributed to it. You might think it does. You might have watched An Inconvenient Truth so many times you can recite it verbatim, but that doesn't make it true.
The left told us we needed Healthcare, so now look at the incredible clusterfrack Obamacare has left us in. And the same number of people are still uninsured!
Why the hell would I believe anything they try to sell us about the climate, even if it's just "a drop in the bucket".
Science is not an opinion poll or a show of hands. If "polls" constituted valid science, we would still believe that evil humors cause disease and that smoking cigarettes is good for you. These concepts, of course, were supported by the majority in their time. Nor do abstracts in the literature mean anything at all, as abstracts do not undergo the rigorous peer review process of a conventional journal publication.
Liberals (who claim to uphold the priniciples of science) simply disregard THE CORNERSTONE OF SCIENCE (refuting the null hypothesis) in their zeal to embrace "global warming".
The concept of "global warming" is an embarrassment to conventional science. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who support this concept have no clue as to what constitutes valid science.
You can go ahead and make the choice not to use anything that has a thing to do with AGW if you choose. Why don't you?
Well, only a teeny tiny miniscule amount of the population will do anything to significantly change their lifestyles.
Even the people who believe in AGW won't actually do anything about it.
Sorry, but I really don't see why destroying our economy for nothing is an answer.
Let's be real, it's just a "feel good" topic for people like you. It allows for you to thump your chest and act like you care about some cause, but when it really comes down to it, it's just ego.
The concept of "global warming" is an embarrassment to conventional science. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who support this concept have no clue as to what constitutes valid science.
So you seem to be saying that the majority of scientist have no clue what constitutes valid science, whereas you, apparently, do have clue. What qualifications do you have for making this claim? Keep in mind that I have no idea who you are. From my perspective you are just a guy on the internet claiming that scientists have no clue what constitutes valid science.
From my perspective, it is mostly "guys on the internet" and a bunch of politicians who are the embarrassment.
The basic conclusion: Several surveys have been conducted of the opinions of scientists on anthropogenic climate change. They have generally concluded that the majority of scientists believe that human activity is contributing to global warming.
And one more thing: Within the realm of sociology and related fields, a carefully-conducted opinion survey is a valid form of scientific study. If you are asking a sociological question such as "What do scientists believe about X" then a well-designed survey counts as valid data toward answering the question.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 06-17-2015 at 08:23 AM..
Science is not an opinion poll or a show of hands. If "polls" constituted valid science, we would still believe that evil humors cause disease and that smoking cigarettes is good for you. These concepts, of course, were supported by the majority in their time. Nor do abstracts in the literature mean anything at all, as abstracts do not undergo the rigorous peer review process of a conventional journal publication.
Liberals (who claim to uphold the priniciples of science) simply disregard THE CORNERSTONE OF SCIENCE (refuting the null hypothesis) in their zeal to embrace "global warming".
The concept of "global warming" is an embarrassment to conventional science. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who support this concept have no clue as to what constitutes valid science.
Fascinating that you don't even know what an abstract is in 21st century academic publishing. Have you not read an academic Journal since before the internet?
Guess what? All academic peer-reviewed Journals have been published online for years now. All peer-reviewed research papers have abstracts to enable faster online searching of the literature. All you are doing is proving you've never read any online Journals and haven't got a clue about any of the research in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers.
You posted a piece of trash from an online tabloid (the Daily Caller) whose 'source' was an anti-science conspiracy blog and think it's 'valid science'? Hilarious.
Science is not an opinion poll or a show of hands. If "polls" constituted valid science, we would still believe that evil humors cause disease and that smoking cigarettes is good for you.
When and if a better theory comes along, I'm sure it will gain momentum... but they're not going to disregard their best theory simply because it doesn't click with your political affiliation.
You can't refute the null hypothesis for evolution either. Is evolution also an embarrassment to science?
Fascinating that you don't even know what an abstract is in 21st century academic publishing. Have you not read an academic Journal since before the internet?
Guess what? All academic peer-reviewed Journals have been published online for years now. All peer-reviewed research papers have abstracts to enable faster online searching of the literature. All you are doing is proving you've never read any online Journals and haven't got a clue about any of the research in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers.
You posted a piece of trash from an online tabloid hack journalist whose source was an anti-science conspiracy blog and think it's valid 'research'? Hilarious.
There you go, yet again, with the personal attacks.
How about a demonstration of civility, tolerance and open-mindeness instead, for a change?
Last edited by Spartacus713; 06-17-2015 at 08:20 AM..
I agree "good" ones won't, but policies that give additional advantages to countries that don't/won't adopt similar policies will.
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.