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.
No I just one who counts the Billions upon Billions of dollars being spent in places like Moore OK picking up all the pieces and rebuilding or the bailout and subsidies that will be payed out to corporate Farms and agribusiness when they fail to produce stuff and the bottom line goes red as their politics. Can one assure me Jim Inhofe and Sen Coburn will cut or abolish the programs that inject all this cash? Are they that confident AGW is not real? Was the devastation in Moore OK some Hollywood special effect?
A storm hit Moore. Not AGW or a derivation of it. Storms have been wasting the central plains for 100's of years only now man is the cause of it? Do you realize how utterly stupid that sounds?
As for farm subsidies, that's another issue not to be included in AGW statements.
Oh, and the earth heats and cools periodically. Has happened, is happening, will happen.
Most of the liberals and greens who opine on this this issue constantly are nothing more than armchair "scientists" who think that an internet connection and access to Google makes them informed and critical thinkers on the subject when all they are really doing is cherry picking what they were pre-disposed to believe in anyway.
All of this talk about money going to denying climate change, etc. How about the reverse? How much money has the Federal government spent on studying climate change? So, how much money in grants and funded studies are these scientists putting at risk if they deny climate change? Well let's see. I have it here.
This is a look at Federal funding for climate change research from 2008-2014. In 2008, the amount was a staggering $1.8 billion dollars. But that's chump change compared to what it is now. In 2013, the taxpayers expended $2.4 billion dollars on climate change research. The administration asked for $2.6 billion for 2014.
Show me one private corporation that can even come close to matching that amount (psst - you can't). So if you want to claim money is the root of a scientist's opinion on something, then look no further than our own Federal government. Remind me again, where does Obama stand on climate change? Oh that's right, the science is settled for him and his budget ensures it stays settled with the scientists he employs with those billions. And you wonder why things like Climategate happens???
A storm hit Moore. Not AGW or a derivation of it. Storms have been wasting the central plains for 100's of years only now man is the cause of it? Do you realize how utterly stupid that sounds?
As for farm subsidies, that's another issue not to be included in AGW statements.
Oh, and the earth heats and cools periodically. Has happened, is happening, will happen.
Nothing more.
Adapt or die.
If we get hit with a huge snowstorm, that's just weather. But if it fits their agenda, it's climate change. Don't you know that by now?
This is really rich coming from the same crowd who keeps insisting there is a 97% consensus in order to shut down debate and skepticism!!
A consensus of scientists is dramatically different, when it comes to scientific debate, than a popular vote of non-scientists. And the point of the 97% figure is not to "shut down" debate, but to emphasize the serious nature of the issue. The anti-AGW folks like to say that use of the 97% figure is a logical fallacy, but here, again, they miss the point. The argument is NOT: "97% agree, therefore it must be true" rather, the point is that 97% is an indication that you can't just blow off the notion of AGW as the babbling of a few fringe cranks. The science should to be taken seriously by the public because the scientists themselves take it seriously. Sure, the majority of climatologists could be wrong, but, generally speaking, non-scientists are well-advised to place their bets in favor of the majority of scientists. It's a matter of probabilities. (Personally, I'm not convinced that we can plausibly stop GW at this point, but I'm not running around trying to convince people that the climatologists are incompetent or corrupt. I'm just offering my own hunch, which is virtually worthless to anyone but me, and I totally admit this.)
All of this talk about money going to denying climate change, etc. How about the reverse? How much money has the Federal government spent on studying climate change? So, how much money in grants and funded studies are these scientists putting at risk if they deny climate change? Well let's see. I have it here.
This is a look at Federal funding for climate change research from 2008-2014. In 2008, the amount was a staggering $1.8 billion dollars. But that's chump change compared to what it is now. In 2013, the taxpayers expended $2.4 billion dollars on climate change research. The administration asked for $2.6 billion for 2014.
Show me one private corporation that can even come close to matching that amount (psst - you can't). So if you want to claim money is the root of a scientist's opinion on something, then look no further than our own Federal government. Remind me again, where does Obama stand on climate change? Oh that's right, the science is settled for him and his budget ensures it stays settled with the scientists he employs with those billions. And you wonder why things like Climategate happens???
This issue came about in the late 80s, early 90s. I would LOVE to see an accounting for all of the billions spent since then and what we have to show for it, other than a cottage industry of professional alarmists who keep telling us the sky is falling unless we continue to hand them money.
A consensus of scientists is dramatically different, when it comes to scientific debate, than a popular vote of non-scientists. And the point of the 97% figure is not to "shut down" debate, but to emphasize the serious nature of the issue. The anti-AGW folks like to say that use of the 97% figure is a logical fallacy, but here, again, they miss the point. The argument is NOT: "97% agree, therefore it must be true" rather, the point is that 97% is an indication that you can't just blow off the notion of AGW as the babbling of a few fringe cranks. The science should to be taken seriously by the public because the scientists themselves take it seriously. Sure, the majority of climatologists could be wrong, but, generally speaking, non-scientists are well-advised to place their bets in favor of the majority of scientists. It's a matter of probabilities. (Personally, I'm not convinced that we can plausibly stop GW at this point, but I'm not running around trying to convince people that the climatologists are incompetent or corrupt. I'm just offering my own hunch, which is virtually worthless to anyone but me, and I totally admit this.)
Well in my opinion it HAS been used as the means to shut down debate. That and I am skeptical of the 97% figure itself, I think that has been skewed to include non-climate scientists as well as non-alarmist opinions.
Either way though. Consensus is the realm of politics, not science. Science should embrace skepticism, not marginalize it and shut it out.
A consensus of scientists is dramatically different, when it comes to scientific debate, than a popular vote of non-scientists. And the point of the 97% figure is not to "shut down" debate, but to emphasize the serious nature of the issue. The anti-AGW folks like to say that use of the 97% figure is a logical fallacy, but here, again, they miss the point. The argument is NOT: "97% agree, therefore it must be true" rather, the point is that 97% is an indication that you can't just blow off the notion of AGW as the babbling of a few fringe cranks. The science should to be taken seriously by the public because the scientists themselves take it seriously. Sure, the majority of climatologists could be wrong, but, generally speaking, non-scientists are well-advised to place their bets in favor of the majority of scientists. It's a matter of probabilities. (Personally, I'm not convinced that we can plausibly stop GW at this point, but I'm not running around trying to convince people that the climatologists are incompetent or corrupt. I'm just offering my own hunch, which is virtually worthless to anyone but me, and I totally admit this.)
Of course it's been used to shut down debate. Where do you think the phrase 'the science is settled' came from?
If we get hit with a huge snowstorm, that's just weather. But if it fits their agenda, it's climate change. Don't you know that by now?
I do, I just have to call them on their stupidity.
I really hate stupid.
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.
