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.
I will believe that there is a genuine danger from anthropogenic climate change when I see the rich and powerful (and “their” government) support the following policies:
[] shoreline erosion mitigation and protection (levees and dikes, see Netherlands)
[] transition to electric traction rail (90% cut in energy use for land transportation)
[] all new home construction must feature superinsulation, disaster resistant shells (rammed earth, stone, concrete), fire resistant roofing, and any other frugal techniques to reduce fuel consumption and susceptibility to natural disasters (thus reduce cost for repeated reconstruction)
[] end all public subsidies for fossil fuel acquisition and use, especially the wasteful forms of transportation.
Why?
Because the proponents of AGCC admit that nothing we do now can stop the changes - only slow them.
When all I see are bogus “carbon counting” and carbon tax credits, I know it’s a sham to leverage more taxes from the sheeple and enrich certain insiders.
Global Warming is the antithesis of science and is a cult. There has never been any aspect of legitimate science which considers a theory to be "solved" and villifies examination of the hypothesis. Such behavior is consistent with religious fanatacism and cults, not science.
"Global Warming" takes the cornerstone of true science- disproving the null hypothesis- and turns it upside down.
If we applied the same "methods" of the global warming cult to problems of the past, we would still be using leeches and vapors to treat illness and would be burning wood and dung for fuel.
"Global Warming" is a regression of the scientific method and abandons the true principles of science in favor of the fervor of a religious cult which villifies and dismisses any questioning of the "hypothesis".
Well said! One of the clearest explanations of how this movement has become like a religion that I have read.
I read as much as I could tolerate...Enough to recognize the typical denier's lies, like...."The unpredicted 15-year global temperature standstill"..........."natural variability and possibly solar influences — are relatively more significant"......Additional CO2 and warming is a good thing....Clearly this guy has no clue about climate science.
Climate change, global warming, global cooling, climate disruption, whatever doublespeak they can use to dupe people into saying "YES! To carbon tax! You want to see what carbon taxing does to people and businesses, look no futher then australia, they're trying very hard to get their government to dump the carbon tax scheme, so lets LEARN from THEIR mistakes and not implement the watermelons ( green on the outside, red on the inside ) carbon tax agenda.
Last edited by lookb4youcross; 05-08-2014 at 08:22 AM..
There is something odd about the global-warming debate — or the climate-change debate, as we are now expected to call it, since global warming has for the time being come to a halt. I have never shied away from controversy, nor — for example, as chancellor of the exchequer — worried about being unpopular if I believed that what I was saying and doing was in the public interest. But I have never in my life experienced the extremes of personal hostility, vituperation, and vilification that I — along with other dissenters, of course — have received for my views on global warming and global-warming policies.
I've said this before. Climate deniers have much more media money than climate change supporters do. And global warming is both good and bad, the problem is just the rate of change. Slow warming is good, fast warming is bad.
That is funny. That is what I call the counter narrative deniers. A religion.
Wait how can you call global warming alarmist a religion?
We are armed with the scientist, the evidence, and the facts
The deniers are the ones who start with faith and ignore the body of evidence
Any science your on the other side of Neil Tyson or Bill Nye on. . .your probably wrong
Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are political hack scientists. The new Cosmos show is overly political with unsupported nonsense in there. The show was written by hyper partisan liberals and Neil is one of them.
I've said this before. Climate deniers have much more media money than climate change supporters do. And global warming is both good and bad, the problem is just the rate of change. Slow warming is good, fast warming is bad.
Lmao! Who do you hear bellowing the climate change agenda on mainstream news, and national tv? It sure ain't the deniers. Maybe it's the climate deniers dishonorable way of presenting things, statistics don't mean squat with weather.
Wow, I made it up to the first two sentences before I felt like throwing up:
Quote:
Anyone who wants to debate a science denier often needs a thick skin, especially concerning topics like global warming. They often hurl words like leftist, socialist, communist, fascist, sheeple, useful idiot, and worse at you.
The hypocrisy is so over the top it is nauseating! In the same sentence they use the term "science denier", a shameful association of holocaust deniers with skeptics, they whine and cry about how it's THEIR side that is being persecuted and attacked for their position on the matter!
If someone dares to be skeptical of catastrophic man-made climate change, they are IMMEDIATELY branded a science denier, and evolution denier, a right wing stooge who gets all their information from Limbaugh and Fox or they are accused of being in bed with the big oil companies.
And your side has the unmitigated GALL to claim that they are the ones being attacked for their position?
The next problem with your post is the very title of the article you posted: "Climate Science Is Based On Evidence.."
That makes the PRESUMPTION that the science in question was conducted in a truly blind, impartial manor and with no prejudice towards any particular outcome. The science should seek the truth, not someone's political or activist agenda. The skeptics hold that this has not been happening so the SCIENCE and the PEER review process are called into question for engaging in politics, activism and dogma.
Your side holds the science up like it is holy scripture that no one should ever dare question or challenge.
My side holds that the scientific community is subject to politics, activism, dogma and greed like everyone else and there has been ample evidence that they've gone down this path so it taints the science.
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.
