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.
Wrong. The problem is that you are making an assumption that the observation, data and hypotheses were conducted in a truly scientifically impartial manor without any external influences from politics, activism, groupthink or greed. I hold that likelihood with a large degree of doubt..
Spoken just like a man of faith. We can't trust our scientists. . .the independent verification the very. . easily verifiable truths (i..e change in CO2 levels are greater than natural events. . we can prove it - etc).
So how do you dismiss such hard science
by trying not to attack arguments, but upholding your faith by attacking the people behind the data. We can't trust scientsts. We can't trust the consensus. why - because it has to be wrong so i'm going to guess there is some Money making conspiracy.
The reality is. . that is so crap. There aren't many who profit from climate change. There are some - I would admit. but I think that is why you see so much crap and missdirection. . not because of the money backing climate change
you made the EXACT argument of why with such overwhelming consensus from science -- so many smart people think the truth isn't clear. The reality is there is no debate on climate change and what is causing it
there are just a lot of oil, gas, and car companies who benefit from increased Co2 emission. . .
if you follow the money it doesn't flow from being green
v
Spoken just like a man of faith. We can't trust our scientists. . .the independent verification the very. . easily verifiable truths (i..e change in CO2 levels are greater than natural events. . we can prove it - etc).
So how do you dismiss such hard science
by trying not to attack arguments, but upholding your faith by attacking the people behind the data. We can't trust scientsts. We can't trust the consensus. why - because it has to be wrong so i'm going to guess there is some Money making conspiracy.
The reality is. . that is so crap. There aren't many who profit from climate change. There are some - I would admit. but I think that is why you see so much crap and missdirection. . not because of the money backing climate change
you made the EXACT argument of why with such overwhelming consensus from science -- so many smart people think the truth isn't clear. The reality is there is no debate on climate change and what is causing it
there are just a lot of oil, gas, and car companies who benefit from increased Co2 emission. . .
if you follow the money it doesn't flow from being green
v
I am not suggesting that climate scientists get rich off of climate alarmism, although some of the non-scientist mouthpieces and preachers, like Al Gore certainly do!
I am not suggesting that climate scientists become climate scientists for the $$$.
What I am suggesting is that climate science relies on funding from the federal government, funding that has only been increasing in lock step with the alarmism.
I also do not deny that big oil seeks to diminish any science that threatens their profits.
However, the notion that the science community is conducting science that is free from activism, funding considerations, politics, dogma and even greed is very naive to me
The notion that the science community is completely blind and objective in conducting science, even if it means that the science may lead to disproving the mainstream view seems ridiculous to me and utterly divorced from reality.
There are scientists who have made entire careers off of alarmism, there are entities like the IPCC which would become irrelevant overnight without it. There are entities like the EPA, NASA and the NSA who have newfound power, prestige and funding dollars because of climate alarmism and they would watch all of that dry up overnight if they stopped preaching climate fire and brimstone.
It's not exactly a yawner, when our "pen and a phone" president uses that shtick to instruct his executive branch and his administrative agencies to write new job killing laws and regulations that will cause significant harm to the economy, and drive up the cost of energy in our country.
Talk about kicking a person when they are down on their knees, between the ACA and these EPA regs, he seems to be purposely trying to put the country's economy into a comma.
I am not suggesting that climate scientists get rich off of climate alarmism, although some of the non-scientist mouthpieces and preachers, like Al Gore certainly do!
I am not suggesting that climate scientists become climate scientists for the $$$.
What I am suggesting is that climate science relies on funding from the federal government, funding that has only been increasing in lock step with the alarmism.
I also do not deny that big oil seeks to diminish any science that threatens their profits.
However, the notion that the science community is conducting science that is free from activism, funding considerations, politics, dogma and even greed is very naive to me
The notion that the science community is completely blind and objective in conducting science, even if it means that the science may lead to disproving the mainstream view seems ridiculous to me and utterly divorced from reality.
There are scientists who have made entire careers off of alarmism, there are entities like the IPCC which would become irrelevant overnight without it. There are entities like the EPA, NASA and the NSA who have newfound power, prestige and funding dollars because of climate alarmism and they would watch all of that dry up overnight if they stopped preaching climate fire and brimstone.
Talking about alarmism, the language from official government statements is nothing short of over the top alarmism:
"Climate change, fueled by carbon pollution, supercharges risks to our health, our economy, and our way of life."
Somehow, Obama claims running up the costs of electricity and killing jobs will "strengthen the economy."
Obama is well aware this will not "strengthen the economy" it will further strain struggling companies with higher operating costs and weaken the economy.
It's not exactly a yawner, when our "pen and a phone" president uses that shtick to instruct his executive branch and his administrative agencies to write new job killing laws and regulations that will cause significant harm to the economy, and drive up the cost of energy in our country.
Talk about kicking a person when they are down on their knees, between the ACA and these EPA regs, he seems to be purposely trying to put the country's economy into a comma.
I heard this on the news yesterday, someone basically said that the net effect would be that prices here in the US would go up and it would end up causing jobs to go overseas to places with less regulations.
So the net effect on the climate is the same, it's just someone else doing the polluting. It's just "feel good" legislation, like most green legislation is, that when you examine it critically, it has no net benefit to the environment.
"Climate change, fueled by carbon pollution, supercharges risks to our health, our economy, and our way of life."
Somehow, Obama claims running up the costs of electricity and killing jobs will "strengthen the economy."
Obama is well aware this will not "strengthen the economy" it will further strain struggling companies with higher operating costs and weaken the economy.
This has been going on for years. Alarmism gets attention.
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton, first IPCC chair
Q: There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?
Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
In other words, they are nothing but scare-mongers, they frighten the masses into action, until we become a country of little Henny-Pennys screaming for someone to do something, anything, because we are all doomed.
Q: There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?
Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
In other words, they are nothing but scare-mongers, they frighten the masses into action, until we become a country of little Henny-Pennys screaming for someone to do something, anything, because we are all doomed.
Yeah and instead of being called out for his scaremongering and lying he wins an academy award , the nobel peace prize and is a green hero.
Why let little things like truth and reality stand in the way the way of a good manufactured crisis, I guess.
What a dumb post...The right wing nut jobs are denying AGW, not the Holocaust...I myself am a denier...I deny the existence of the tooth fairy.
Where do they claim that there is no scientific hypothesis called anthropogenic global warming (AGW)?
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.
