Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change (greenhouse gas, environmental, compare)
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.
But what motive would they have? If you follow the money, ...
The prime directive of all bureaucrats is to preserve their own jobs. The best way to do that is to manufacture a problem that doesn't really exist. If it doesn't exist, it can't be solved. If it can't be solved, it will exist forever and the bureaucrat's job is safe forever.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy freak, I'll also point out the UN's Agenda 21. Every American should inform themselves about this document....And in the 2nd UN IPCC report, they told us their goal was to transfer money from industrialized nations to poor nations.
For the "climate scientists," they know that research funds are issued based on the existence and severity of the potential problem under investigation. No problem = no money.... so they never want to prove that there's no problem.
Pinky: What are you doing tonight, Brain?
Brain: Same thing I do every night, Pinky...make plans to take over the world!
Can we make the correlation in yet another thread that 100% of the posters who think human caused climate change is a hoax belong to the same political party?
The prime directive of all bureaucrats is to preserve their own jobs. The best way to do that is to manufacture a problem that doesn't really exist. If it doesn't exist, it can't be solved. If it can't be solved, it will exist forever and the bureaucrat's job is safe forever.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy freak, I'll also point out the UN's Agenda 21. Every American should inform themselves about this document....And in the 2nd UN IPCC report, they told us their goal was to transfer money from industrialized nations to poor nations.
For the "climate scientists," they know that research funds are issued based on the existence and severity of the potential problem under investigation. No problem = no money.... so they never want to prove that there's no problem.
Pinky: What are you doing tonight, Brain?
Brain: Same thing I do every night, Pinky...make plans to take over the world!
NASA is responsible for the civilian space program, aeronautics and aerospace research. Whether climate change is real or not has no impact on their funding.
Well at least you are not fear mongering! Oh wait.
I believe AGW is real. I don't like the prescription to fight it. I think Solar Geoengineering is the solution in the short term. The technique is called stratospheric aerosol injection.
We can take this up again in 20 or 30 years with a cooler earth and better ways to tackle it without bankrupting the world.
Ken Caldeira wasn’t so sure—though he said that last month’s meeting helped solar geoengineering seem real to him. “The meeting made me take it a little more seriously as something practical, and not just theoretical,” he said.
He continued: “I think it really rests on this question of: Is climate change going to be catastrophic, or is it going to be a nuisance and an ongoing cost? If it’s a nuisance, probably people will muddle through. But if climate change does turn out to be catastrophic, then solar geoengineering is pretty much the only way that our political system could start cooling the Earth in a few years or decades.”
NASA is responsible for the civilian space program, aeronautics and aerospace research. Whether climate change is real or not has no impact on their funding.
NASA was created in 1958. They have no need to falsify data to stay in existence.
Even some repub politicians are fully aware that climate change needs to be addressed. The climate science program trump attempted to axe was restored by the House of Representatives. To quote: The House appropriations panel that oversees NASA unanimously approved an amendment to a 2019 spending bill that orders the space agency to set aside $10 million within its earth science budget for a “climate monitoring system” that studies “biogeochemical processes to better understand the major factors driving short and long term climate change.”
That sounds almost identical to the work that NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) was doing before the trump administration targeted the program, which was getting about $10 million annually, for elimination this year.
The time to put policies and programs in place to head off climate change was in the 70's, when the predictions of these wildfires, etc. were first made and publicized.
The time to put policies and programs in place to head off climate change was in the 70's, when the predictions of these wildfires, etc. were first made and publicized.
And that is what the article I linked to addresses.
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.
