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.
Not true. Evolution is a fact. And so is the fact that climate scientists are part of Left wing collectivist academia, and they operate in lockstep with Left wing collectivist academia. Therefore, they are non-objective and have an axe to grind. They are haters of Capitalism, partly because they make a living off the public dole and operate under a "publish or perish" mentality in order to keep the Big Science welfare payments coming in.
Scientists are now subjectivists and relativists and really the entire field of Science is debauched and untrustworthy. It's tragic, but climate scientists are in the same league as journalists. They are envious haters of Capitalism and achievement in general, and they will do and say anything to promote the collectivist political agenda. It's a disgrace and an embarrassment, but scientists are no longer to be trusted, and everything they say is to be taken with a grain of salt.
This is a tragedy, because we really need good scientists. But we don't have them, and we won't have them, because they are on the public dole and will armageddonize everything to keep the welfare dollars pouring in.
Very sad.
Evolution is both fact and theory. The two words are not opposing at all. Evolution as the change in allelic frequencies overtime is an observable fact, the notion that the diversity of life as we know it today is due to evolution is a theory. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that the words we use matter.
Finally, as a scientist, and a liberal, I would suggest you take everything everyone says, particular politicians, with a grain of salt the size of a boulder. We do, it's literally part of our training, it why we speak the way we do. Because we don't trust what anyone says but rather show us the evidence and let us decide. The problem is most people don't have the training in order to objectively evaluate scientific evidence but since they can't admit that, they just "side" with whoever they want and pretend they understand the rest.
And for all your welfare payments nonsense, aren't you a real estate agent? The last 3 yr of grants I have worked on come from private entities or corporations. Our work made it possible to safely balance the needs of two businesses that benefit people up and down the east coast; fisheries and off shore wind farms. You take people to look at houses. You're children must be so proud of what you have done to contribute to society.
I personally think Trump doesn't have a clue about science and will never have a clue about science. But in this case that is good, because the armageddoninst public-grant whoring welfare recipient climate scientists want to turn the clock back on the Industrial Revolution while also siphoning off trillions of tax dollars to their Big Environmentalist cronies. Essentially, climate scientists are cronyists. But instead of building anything or discovering anything, they want the easy money that comes from fear mongering. So they are lower on the food chain than the industrial cronyists, but really are essentially the same thing.
As far as real estate, the environment in NJ is just fine. The air and water are basically clean. We need to get rid of the Highlands Water Protection Hold Up Developers and Steal Their Money Act, but other than that, doing nothing for the next 8 years with respect to the envirofascist collectivist agenda is the correct thing.
So Trump, although he is scientifically illiterate, actually gives us exactly what we need environmentally: OBSTRUCTION.
Oh, I'm sure it is. That was EXACTLY my point. You're being deliberately obtuse, and you know fine well what I was asking.
For example, how would YOU like an oil pipeline being put through YOUR neighborhood? How would you like manufacturers dumping toxic waste into lakes and rivers in YOUR area? How would you like YOUR water to be poisonous like it has been for the residents of Flint, Michigan?
I know you WOULDN'T like it. But you don't care that it DOES happen, because I'm willing to bet that YOU live in an UPSCALE area of New Jersey. You SELL homes in an upscale area of New Jersey. These environmental issues don't touch YOU or YOUR family and friends because YOU live and work (and garden and golf and swim and sail and take your kids to the park, etc.) around wealthy, beautiful, green, leafy, safe environments. And your clients probably, do, too.
So, OF COURSE YOU don't care about environmental issues. Golly, what a BIG surprise. As long as YOU get what YOU and YOURS need and want, to hell with everyone else! Everything is about YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU.
I am an oceanographer. If you would like to talk ice core data, please present a reference.
As for your apparent issue with the data set, is this related to climate forcing vs lagging?
But what you have done in the above is literally what your whining about. You cherry picked three items from the hundreds of thousand of papers, tens of thousands of lines of evidence, and pretend that somehow equals out.
Two simple facts, carbon dioxide IS a greenhouse gas and it is increasing due to anthropogenic activity. These are undeniable on a scientific level. Now we can still debate over the effects of these two facts, we can certainly argue over what we should do about these to facts, but given that the majority of deniers will not even acknowledge the factuality of those two things, they lose all credibility in a scientific debate.
So maybe start there, do you acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it has increased in the atmosphere over the last 150 years do to anthropogenic activity? If so, great, let's talk about the scientific issues of anything else you like but if not, than don't pretend you are actually using science or reason to draw the conclusions you have.
It really does not matter if AGW is true or false. Freedom and liberty are more important than AGW, even if it means the planet will cease to exist. The old line used to be better dead than Red. That line holds true today also. We should react to the climate by moving cities inland and utilizing all fossil fuels until they run out and are rendered economically infeasible. We should not knuckle under to environmental taxes that redistribute wealth from the first world to the third world to influence their behavior.
Adjust to the new climate, do not try to control it. We are smart enough to do that. And we also have to investigate the possibility that a warmer climate will HELP the planet with new biodiversity, newly available arable lands to produce food for higher populations, and many other positive factors. Rising oceans might provide excellent new opportunities.
It's evidence of the bubble climate change deniers live in that they come onto an obscure forum like City Data to ask for evidence disproving climate change. "Well if it's real prove it! hurr durr..." How bout you google it OP? Just a thought.
Unless the only reason you posted was so you could try to "win" an argument on points with an anonymous internet poster....hmmmmm
Do you ever pick up a book and, like, actually READ it? From cover to cover?
William Lind presented his findings to numerous prominent groups including Congress. He was kind enough to film and preserve those findings. His group and others were kind enough to share some of the videos on YouTube. I'm sorry if the easiest manner for me to provide you with the information doesn't meet your standards.
I still hope you will watch the video and maybe learn something from it.
I am an oceanographer. If you would like to talk ice core data, please present a reference.
As for your apparent issue with the data set, is this related to climate forcing vs lagging?
But what you have done in the above is literally what your whining about. You cherry picked three items from the hundreds of thousand of papers, tens of thousands of lines of evidence, and pretend that somehow equals out.
Two simple facts, carbon dioxide IS a greenhouse gas and it is increasing due to anthropogenic activity. These are undeniable on a scientific level. Now we can still debate over the effects of these two facts, we can certainly argue over what we should do about these to facts, but given that the majority of deniers will not even acknowledge the factuality of those two things, they lose all credibility in a scientific debate.
So maybe start there, do you acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it has increased in the atmosphere over the last 150 years do to anthropogenic activity? If so, great, let's talk about the scientific issues of anything else you like but if not, than don't pretend you are actually using science or reason to draw the conclusions you have.
Are you one of them thar oceanographers that makes up stuff so's you can git money from the gubmint?
William Lind presented his findings to numerous prominent groups including Congress. He was kind enough to film and preserve those findings. His group and others were kind enough to share some of the videos on YouTube. I'm sorry if the easiest manner for me to provide you with the information doesn't meet your standards.
I still hope you will watch the video and maybe learn something from it.
Thank you.
But you didn't answer my question: how often do you read?
And I'm not talking about James Patterson or Nora Roberts.
Oh, I'm sure it is. That was EXACTLY my point. You're being deliberately obtuse, and you know fine well what I was asking.
For example, how would YOU like an oil pipeline being put through YOUR neighborhood? How would you like manufacturers dumping toxic waste into lakes and rivers in YOUR area? How would you like YOUR water to be poisonous like it has been for the residents of Flint, Michigan?
I know you WOULDN'T like it. But you don't care that it DOES happen, because I'm willing to bet that YOU live in an UPSCALE area of New Jersey. You SELL homes in an upscale area of New Jersey. These environmental issues don't touch YOU or YOUR family and friends because YOU live and work (and garden and golf and swim and sail and take your kids to the park, etc.) around wealthy, beautiful, green, leafy, safe environments. And your clients probably, do, too.
So, OF COURSE YOU don't care about environmental issues. Golly, what a BIG surprise.
I care about rational environmental issues, not irrational ones. Pipelines are absolutely fine, under my house if necessary. They help the environment by reducing the possibility of accidents and spills. Note I said reduce, not eliminate. We will always have accidents, and they will ALWAYS be worth it to enjoy the standard of living we enjoy. I do not favor anyone dumping poisons into waterways. Where that happens, the court system is available to handle those damages. However, we must always remember what comes first: freedom, individualism, Capitalism. These are primary, and are more important than planetary survival. Surviving under tyranny IS death. So knuckling under to irrational envirofascism creates a "deck chairs on the Titanic" scenario.
It really does not matter if AGW is true or false. Freedom and liberty are more important than AGW, even if it means the planet will cease to exist.
That is not so etching YOU get to decide for everyone. What makes you think you have that right? If you are so against regulation that you don't care if there is the human race ceases to exist (anthropogenic climate change doesn't threaten the planet ) then go get your drinking water out of the Passaic and let the rest of us decide for ourselves,
Quote:
The old line used to be better dead than Red. That line holds true today also. We should react to the climate by moving cities inland and utilizing all fossil fuels until they run out and are rendered economically infeasible. We should not knuckle under to environmental taxes that redistribute wealth from the first world to the third world to influence their behavior.
Ah, trust a real estate agent to respond to a global crisis by suggesting v rybody move to a new house. With a 3% commission right? There is no possible conflict of interest for you there either, right?
And you appear to know as much about "environmental taxes" as you do science, which is very little. Here in NJ, one our largest environmental "tax" (really its regulatory but let's be honest you don't know the difference) is the superfund. This piece of legislation that is u dear attack right now mandate that corporations that dump in our lands and waters in specific sites be required to pay for their clean up. Do you know who had to pay the bill for that clean up before this legislation went into effect? The TAXpayer and is exactly why we have clean water and air in this state to the degree that we do now. Educate yourself just a little.
Quote:
Adjust to the new climate, do not try to control it. We are smart enough to do that. And we also have to investigate the possibility that a warmer climate will HELP the planet with new biodiversity, newly available arable lands to produce food for higher populations, and many other positive factors. Rising oceans might provide excellent new opportunities.
New biodiversity? You really are dumb. We are in the middle of the 6th major extinction event. One of the reasons, is species cannot adapt to the rate of change of the climate. Newly available,e arable lands? You mean Antarctica? So we have established you don't understand that thermal expansion would cause sea level rise, losing the arable land all along the coast. What do want to bet that you have no idea during the last glacial minima NJ, prime time "arable land", was underwater and that the coastline had moved inland by hundreds of miles. The thing is in all likelihood we will survive as a species, just civilization as we know it will collapse. You're making me think that might now be such a bad idea.
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.
) then go get your drinking water out of the Passaic and let the rest of us decide for ourselves, 
