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.
Just want some input on this. Science is not bad. Pretending that agendas don't infect science is questionable though.
Why is it that believers in man caused climate change think that the government approved story is the most trustworthy one?
One of the reasons I ask is because it is usually the same people who are highly skeptical of other types of science. For example, even though studies show that chemicals like Round Up breakdown very quickly and pose no environmental threats, the climate changers usually deny this as fact and look to other studies instead of what the government has deemed as acceptable through the EPA.
Also, medicine. While medical studies that are based on science give us government approved guidelines on nutrition and approved pharmaceuticals and treatments for disease, it is usually the environmentalists and liberals who are most skeptical of the science that the government has approved through the FDA and USDA, not to mention liberals who think the FDA and USDA are mostly influenced to make decisions based on benefitting large corporations who stand to profit from their decisions (Monsanto, Con-Agra, pharma-giants, etc).
Personally, I am skeptical of any science that is pushed by governmental organizations. The EPA, FDA, and USDA all have very obvious problems with being run by people who are closely tied to companies and organzations that stand to profit from favorable regulations and rules. Considering there is an entire network of companies and even a stock market for climate change regulation forced products which are made up of fat cats who stand to profit handsomely by government regulations against CO2 emissions, I cannot understand why it is usually the left who has no problem with it while they simultaneously rail against other big businesses or organizations that seek to force government regulations that will bring them fat profits.
This is NOT a thread about the actual science of climate change. Instead, I want to know why there are people who trust the government position on climate change while regularly dismissing other government positions and policies that are also science based.
Do you agree or disagree that science in every form is at risk of being tainted by politics, special interests, power, and greed?
Just want some input on this. Science is not bad. Pretending that agendas don't infect science is questionable though.
Why is it that believers in man caused climate change think that the government approved story is the most trustworthy one?
One of the reasons I ask is because it is usually the same people who are highly skeptical of other types of science. For example, even though studies show that chemicals like Round Up breakdown very quickly and pose no environmental threats, the climate changers usually deny this as fact and look to other studies instead of what the government has deemed as acceptable through the EPA.
Also, medicine. While medical studies that are based on science give us government approved guidelines on nutrition and approved pharmaceuticals and treatments for disease, it is usually the environmentalists and liberals who are most skeptical of the science that the government has approved through the FDA and USDA, not to mention liberals who think the FDA and USDA are mostly influenced to make decisions based on benefitting large corporations who stand to profit from their decisions (Monsanto, Con-Agra, pharma-giants, etc).
Personally, I am skeptical of any science that is pushed by governmental organizations. The EPA, FDA, and USDA all have very obvious problems with being run by people who are closely tied to companies and organzations that stand to profit from favorable regulations and rules. Considering there is an entire network of companies and even a stock market for climate change regulation forced products which are made up of fat cats who stand to profit handsomely by government regulations against CO2 emissions, I cannot understand why it is usually the left who has no problem with it while they simultaneously rail against other big businesses or organizations that seek to force government regulations that will bring them fat profits.
This is NOT a thread about the actual science of climate change. Instead, I want to know why there are people who trust the government position on climate change while regularly dismissing other government positions and policies that are also science based.
Do you agree or disagree that science in every form is at risk of being tainted by politics, special interests, power, and greed?
One of these assertions is a near-consensus among scientists. The others are not.
Most climate scientists believe global climate change is occurring. We are heating the planet, from most of the data that is available.
The issue with climate change is that even if we take to the conclusion that we are warming, we don't know if we are actually the root cause, we don't know if we can change anything, and even if we stopped all carbon emissions tomorrow, we don't know if anything would change.
In reality, even if stopping all carbon emissions would do something the world wouldn't do it. Most of the people on the planet would not stop.
So whats the answer? The answer to fighting climate change is not changing the way you live. Its reducing emissions or more efficient forms of energy. Maybe in 50 years we'll find a good clean alternative energy source.
If there is one thing everyone can agree on its this. Humans, in general, screw everything up we touch. The less impact we have on the environment the better.
Why do climate change believers hold climate science in such high regard?
Generally speaking, climate science is based on evidence rather than on political opinion. So, it's not based on belief, but on facts. Those denying the reality have talking points. But all of you wingnuts who hate science and nature have your hero, too.
Do you agree or disagree that science in every form is at risk of being tainted by politics, special interests, power, and greed?
Yes and at the very least it goes back to the amendment to the Clean Air Act pushed forward by then President Bush, the first one.
Quote:
Some people don't like what Edward Krug has to say about acid rain. That was apparent when he spoke at a seminar on the subject last April in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Krug, a soil scientist who had helped conduct a 10-year federal study of acid rain, spoke with some expertise. He told his audience that he and his fellow researchers on the National Acid Rain Precipitation Assessment Project had determined that acid rain was an environmental nuisance, not a catastrophe.
It was a message that environmentalists didn't want to hear. One woman hissed at him, "You need to take a reality check."
Unfortunately for Krug, she isn't the only one who doesn't like his ideas. Congress ignored NAPAP's findings, and when Krug tried to point out that the federal government is forcing utilities to spend billions of dollars to solve a problem that doesn't exist, a federal agency did everything in its power to keep the media from listening to him. Krug's research has upset the plans of some of Washington's most powerful bureaucrats, and they aren't happy. Because of them, the 44-year-old Krug has experienced numerous reality checks.
Krug is respected in his field. His mentor, John Tedrow, a world-renowned soil scientist at Rutgers University, says that Krug borders "on genius." Krug has developed an internationally accepted theory on lake acidity. He has published in prestigious scientific journals. He organized the Acid Rain Symposium at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has served as an adviser to two directors of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But today, because of politics, he cannot find work in his field.
After Krug appeared on 60 Minutes to talk about what his research for NAPAP revealed about the relationship between acid rain and acidic lakes, the EPA branded him a scientist of "limited credibility," called his statements "outlandish," and said he was "on the fringes of environmental science." The Agency, under pressure, later recanted those accusations.
After he published an internationally praised acid-rain assessment, the EPA organized a scathing secret review that other scientists called a "sham." The producer of the 60 Minutes broadcast says the EPA attempted to discredit Krug while CBS was preparing the story. The EPA denied the charges.
Why did this happen? "He was," a colleague says, "a bit immature in the area of political science."
Bigger question is why the energy goes into costly ineffective preventative actions instead of adaptation.
We exist because of adaptation, why stop now?
People on both sides agree we are powerless to prevent climate change.
Since they dropped the human caused part of global warming, it stands to reason that if we didn't cause it we can't prevent it.
They treat the earth as if they were selling a run down house they lived in for 40 years and decided to fix up just before they sold it or the house was demolished.
Good respectful ways to life should be a priority no matter what. Going overboard will hasten our demise or at least keep us busy until the end comes.
My refrain: Continentts have drifted and climates have been changing since the earth's inception. Why would you think that process would stop.
Wether shamans or witch doctors or AlGore and friends, these are people that make a living off the masses by employing the age old scam of appeasing the gods with 'human' sacrifice to bring back the sun.
When the climate does change Algore will be able to afford to move but you will be stuck in central NJ.
"Science" has long been polluted by politics which controls the purse strings of who gets continued research grants and who doesn't.
Please understand that Political Correctness has infected our society to such an extent that it may be terminal. Terminal regarding honesty, which is essential to a free nation functioning. Which means terminal to a free nation.
We've been cooling for the last 10 years. CO2 is as inconsequential as anything could possibly be regarding climate. Water vapor is significant.
There is an agenda, it's called power and control. You have to understand the dynamics of human nature and what power, even big frog in small pond power, does to people.
Think back to bullies in school. They are now running various agencies or are in power in government.
"Science" has long been polluted by politics which controls the purse strings of who gets continued research grants and who doesn't.
Please understand that Political Correctness has infected our society to such an extent that it may be terminal. Terminal regarding honesty, which is essential to a free nation functioning. Which means terminal to a free nation.
We've been cooling for the last 10 years. CO2 is as inconsequential as anything could possibly be regarding climate. Water vapor is significant.
There is an agenda, it's called power and control. You have to understand the dynamics of human nature and what power, even big frog in small pond power, does to people.
Think back to bullies in school. They are now running various agencies or are in power in government.
Do you believe in Evolution?
Im just asking not baiting you.
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.
Why do climate change believers hold climate science in such high regard?
