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.
Let's hire the Koch brothers. They only get paid if the CO2 level drops.
Liberals would bust a head gasket at the thought or prospect of them solving the "AGW" problem. It is about money AND control. The environment? Nah.
If that's what it took, so be it. But let's face it... if the Koch’s suddenly decided that they weren’t going to fund the anti-science movement of climate deniers, that sonic boom you hear would be from the about face that 95% of Republicans make when they realized they could stop sounding like idiots.
I honestly don't understand why. If climate change turns out to be wrong, and we (as a society) had to endure some extra economic hardship isn't that worth it if climate change turns out to be a very real with disastrous consequences?
I mean the only reason why I can imagine it is because the congressmen are simply bought by the Oil & Gas industry and honestly just don't care about what the evidence has to say.
So, it's totally worth destroying the economy and millions of middle-class families on a theory based on climate models that have never predicted one thing accurately? We need to focus on adaptation and getting people out of poverty, not on putting more people in poverty through climate change legislation.
I honestly don't understand why. If climate change turns out to be wrong, and we (as a society) had to endure some extra economic hardship isn't that worth it if climate change turns out to be a very real with disastrous consequences?
1. Because the AGW alarmists want to increase our cost of living (the costs are huge) and expand government control of our lives.
and
2. Because even if the earth is warming there is absolutely no evidence that we can do anything about it. 100% of the trillions of dollars being spent on the AGW hoax are a waste.
If that's what it took, so be it. But let's face it... if the Koch’s suddenly decided that they weren’t going to fund the anti-science movement of climate deniers, that sonic boom you hear would be from the about face that 95% of Republicans make when they realized they could stop sounding like idiots.
But let's face it... if the AGW alarmists suddenly decided that they weren’t going to fund the anti-science movement of climate alarmists, that sonic boom you hear would be from the about face that 95% of Democrats make when they realized they could stop sounding like idiots.
But let's face it... if the AGW alarmists suddenly decided that they weren’t going to fund the anti-science movement of climate alarmists, that sonic boom you hear would be from the about face that 95% of Democrats make when they realized they could stop sounding like idiots.
I love how you're comparing people who have no vested financial interest in the climate change debate to the people whose ENTIRE LIVELIHOOD depends on delaying any changes to our energy production...
You guys need new talking points...China is rated as the best at dealing with climate change.
by whom, the IPCC? so china, the largest emitter of CO2 on the planet, and putting out more all the time, is now the best at dealing with climate change? why, because they said they needed to do something about it? the US has REDUCED its output of CO2, your magical green house gas, but china is better than the US. if that doesnt tell you what a racket the alarmists are pushing, then you are not as intelligent as i thought you were.
I honestly don't understand why. If climate change turns out to be wrong, and we (as a society) had to endure some extra economic hardship isn't that worth it if climate change turns out to be a very real with disastrous consequences? I mean the only reason why I can imagine it is because the congressmen are simply bought by the Oil & Gas industry and honestly just don't care about what the evidence has to say.
Which is more comforting: James Inhofe points to the bible as proof that global warming is a hoax because he really believes it, or James Inhofe points to the bible as proof that global warming is a hoax because he doesn't want to rock the energy industry's boat but knows saying so outright will win fewer votes than being all pious an' stuff?
As for our learned colleagues here, well, that just baffles me. It's just science, the findings are what they are and further research doesn't seem to be casting much doubt on previous findings. Kinda weird that people see conspiracies in this. And kinda sad that people think tabloids and op-eds in right-wing business magazines and blogs in which any ****** can say whatever they like make the grade science-wise.
And, much like with James Inhofe and his kind, I don't know which is worse: thinking that people are so desperately lacking in critical thinking skills or thinking that people aren't lacking in such skills but instead are being deliberately dishonest ideologues. And here I thought things would improve once Miss Cleo and the televangelists disappeared.
ETA: That's censored? Hmm. How about 'shnook'. That's close.
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.
