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.
You have to present your data. Others can not work from there if you don't. "How did you arrive at this conclusion"?
"I'm not going to tell you".
That is not science.
I'm not a scientist. I studied science in college, but I am not a scientist.
There IS data out there, and you CAN review it.
Look, say you don't believe it, fine. But science doesn't have to believe in YOU in order to work. It just does. There are things happening that have been observed by those with the education to understand it. Sticking your fingers in your ears & closing your eyes won't make it go away.
It is not a hoax. It is not a lie. It is not a fraud. It is not fake. It is not going away.
Natural climate change has happened. It will continue to happen. Accepting that does NOT mean that humans are currently impacting the earth's climate.
I don't know many rich research scientists. If you can write a good book, or host an interesting show, maybe you can earn some real $$$$. But you are not going to become wealthy by getting ice core samples in Antarctica.
Are there bad scientists? Of course. Just like bad doctors, lawyers, teachers, bartenders, ballet dancers, and cab drivers. But are most of them bad? I sincerely doubt it.
Your denials (yours & those of other posters) are based on bad science (at best), lack of understanding, and inflated egos. People who get up & yell to the masses that scientists are all a greedy bunch of dummies--consider the source, truly.
And "global warming" became "global climate change" because it is about more than warming, and there has been a general lack of understanding about the difference between weather & climate (in other words, a bunch of idiots saying, "Der, it's cold here, where's your global warming?" proves that point.
And "global warming" became "global climate change" because it is about more than warming, and there has been a general lack of understanding about the difference between weather & climate (in other words, a bunch of idiots saying, "Der, it's cold here, where's your global warming?" proves that point.
Yet it is OK to demand extreme, forced financial redistribution for a few decades of weather. Most scientist are liberal/progressive. They have a philosophical reason to support man made climate change, as well as a job security motivation. I'm not saying they are more greedy than anyone else, but they like to have a job, especially in their field.
Much of scientific research is done in universities. They are by nature liberal. Schools are not going to give big research grants to scientists who disagree with the school's point of view. My son has a Phd. in plant science. They are pushed in a certain direction with research. In fact, he left the original university that he did research for because of the push to find certain results.
Yet it is OK to demand extreme, forced financial redistribution for a few decades of weather. .
Scientists are not demanding any such thing. Scientists are merely reporting the data they collect and the conclusions they draw from it.
The existence of global warming is a scientific question. What to do about it is a political question. This being a Politics forum, it would be good if everyone here stops debating the evidence for climate change, which no one here is qualified to judge, and rather discuss what to do about it.
For example, we can debate ideas like switching from fossil fuels to solar or other alternatives, and whether it is worth negatively impacting the economy "for a few decades of weather", as you put it. We can debate whether our money would be better spent on mitigating the effects of warming (moving cities away from the seashore, for example) than on trying in vain to stop climate change from happening. But we can't have these debates until we all agree to accept the scientific conclusions - with the understanding that there is always an element of uncertainty in these findings and plans may need adjustment as more data is available.
Yet it is OK to demand extreme, forced financial redistribution for a few decades of weather. Most scientist are liberal/progressive. They have a philosophical reason to support man made climate change, as well as a job security motivation. I'm not saying they are more greedy than anyone else, but they like to have a job, especially in their field.
Please, get up to date. Here, now, in 2018 -- solar and wind power are the number one choice for new energy plants because that's the choice of the free market, not some liberal plot to take over the world.
"In the first two months of 2018, the United States installed 1,568 megawatts of wind and 565 MW of solar — which accounted for a whopping 98 percent of all new power generation capacity. Meanwhile, only 40 MW of natural gas capacity was installed in the same time period."
Scientists are not demanding any such thing. Scientists are merely reporting the data they collect and the conclusions they draw from it.
Politicians are.
Quote:
The existence of global warming is a scientific question. What to do about it is a political question. This being a Politics forum, it would be good if everyone here stops debating the evidence for climate change, which no one here is qualified to judge, and rather discuss what to do about it.
That's not how it works. If you want people to accept and get behind something you have to convince them it needs addressed.
Quote:
For example, we can debate ideas like switching from fossil fuels to solar or other alternatives, and whether it is worth negatively impacting the economy "for a few decades of weather", as you put it. We can debate whether our money would be better spent on mitigating the effects of warming (moving cities away from the seashore, for example) than on trying in vain to stop climate change from happening. But we can't have these debates until we all agree to accept the scientific conclusions - with the understanding that there is always an element of uncertainty in these findings and plans may need adjustment as more data is available.
Please, get up to date. Here, now, in 2018 -- solar and wind power are the number one choice for new energy plants because that's the choice of the free market, not some liberal plot to take over the world.
"In the first two months of 2018, the United States installed 1,568 megawatts of wind and 565 MW of solar — which accounted for a whopping 98 percent of all new power generation capacity. Meanwhile, only 40 MW of natural gas capacity was installed in the same time period."
I DON'T believe your numbers at all. Libs love to LIE. You're no different. How much of the total energy needs of the U.S. does wind, and solar comprise?
Also, even if your numbers are true, you are cherry picking TWO MONTHS. That is an abysmally small sample size.
I DON'T believe your numbers at all. Libs love to LIE. You're no different. How much of the total energy needs of the U.S. does wind, and solar comprise?
17% of US energy comes from renewable sources, including hydro power.
In Texas, 18% comes from solar and wind alone.
Took me all of 43 seconds to find out.
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.
