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'm to believe mans use of 100 million barrels of fossil fuels per day has no climatic consequence?
I'm also to believe all the scientists claims of extreme weather as a consequence of using that much fossil fuel is not to be taken seriously?
And i'm to believe all the science behind the scientific claims are wrong or a hoax according to a bunch of rightwing keyboard commandos who have done no scientific research on the issue other than cherry pick a few blogs from a few dubious rogue scientists and the endless drivel from rightwing sources like FOX and Limbaugh and Beck.
IMO the scientists have more credibility.
I'm to believe mans use of 100 million barrels of fossil fuels per day has no climatic consequence?
IMO, it most likely it does, though I'm dubious of the current research that attempts to prove it. But no matter because, here's the thing.
Who is standing in line to actually do something about it?
Politicians pandering to climate change while flying around Earth in private jets which burn huge quantities of fossil fuel?
Celebrity environmentalists who preach to rest about climate change while live in 25,000+ sq/ft homes which take large quantities of fossil fuel to maintain?
Anyone siring more than 1 child? Each new birth will be many many more tons of fossil fuel burned.
Anyone who uses electricity, drives car, eats globally sourced food, buys materialistic things manufactured on other side of planet?
Until all of these and more are willing to make personal sacrifice, and I'm not seeing it, nothing will change.
IMO, it most likely it does, though I'm dubious of the current research that attempts to prove it. But no matter because, here's the thing.
Who is standing in line to actually do something about it?
Politicians pandering to climate change while flying around Earth in private jets which burn huge quantities of fossil fuel?
Celebrity environmentalists who preach to rest about climate change while live in 25,000+ sq/ft homes which take large quantities of fossil fuel to maintain?
Anyone siring more than 1 child? Each new birth will be many many more tons of fossil fuel burned.
Anyone who uses electricity, drives car, eats globally sourced food, buys materialistic things manufactured on other side of planet?
Until all of these and more are willing to make personal sacrifice, and I'm not seeing it, nothing will change.
Waldo you seem to be implying unless people live in caves and use no resources whatsoever they are relegated to hypocrite status if they happen to side with the scientists on this issue?
Was there a similar anti science movement when the scientists proclaimed the Earth was round and not flat?I'm not a scientist and on this issue just read what the scientists say and what is reported in the media .
Scientists say we are screwing up our atmosphere,OK i have no reason to question their findings and have done no research to refute their findings i also have no reason to believe they are perpetrating some global hoax on the worlds population.
I lost all respect for her when she left science behind and started cosying up to junk science conspiracy bloggers a few years back.
You could be right that she isn't worthy of respect, but she seemed pretty rational to me from that show. Are there specific things you can refute that she's said, or do you just not like her because of who she's interviewed with? I only heard her side of the story, but it seemed like she was the one dedicated to actual science and has been criticized for not accepting questionable data as fact.
"The idea behind this link is based on very well-established physics, so it's appealing to think that nature works this way. But our analysis shows that it's not that simple,".
Waldo you seem to be implying unless people live in caves and use no resources whatsoever they are relegated to hypocrite status if they happen to side with the scientists on this issue?
Was there a similar anti science movement when the scientists proclaimed the Earth was round and not flat?I'm not a scientist and on this issue just read what the scientists say and what is reported in the media .
Scientists say we are screwing up our atmosphere,OK i have no reason to question their findings and have done no research to refute their findings i also have no reason to believe they are perpetrating some global hoax on the worlds population.
I have a minor in environmental studies, but I'm far from being an expert either...it's tough to know who's being objective and who isn't.
There are a lot of people on both sides who benefit from spreading their narrative. It's more self-interest that they rationalize as science so they can continue their careers. A lot of politicians and environmental scientists and authors benefit from the climate change scare, and many people in fossil fuel industries, etc. benefit from the opposite side of the story.
Personally, I think the 70% number looks low. How can anyone believe that the Earth's climate doesn't change or isn't changing? It always has been and always will be.
You disputed your own narrative of the poll
But the support is complicated. Pollsters found that only 27 percent of respondents agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is the main cause of climate change.
Yes, climates change, always has been as you noted, even without human activity, and thus the answer to the poll question, asking if human activity is the MAIN cause, should be no, since the facts are there is no proof, and a "consensus" isnt proof.
I'm to believe mans use of 100 million barrels of fossil fuels per day has no climatic consequence?
I'm also to believe all the scientists claims of extreme weather as a consequence of using that much fossil fuel is not to be taken seriously?
And i'm to believe all the science behind the scientific claims are wrong or a hoax according to a bunch of rightwing keyboard commandos who have done no scientific research on the issue other than cherry pick a few blogs from a few dubious rogue scientists and the endless drivel from rightwing sources like FOX and Limbaugh and Beck.
IMO the scientists have more credibility.
Prior to "humans", forest fires burned uncontrolled, which warmed up the area in which they were located, but that really isnt "climate", change, is it?
But the support is complicated. Pollsters found that only 27 percent of respondents agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is the main cause of climate change.
Yes, climates change, always has been as you noted, even without human activity, and thus the answer to the poll question, asking if human activity is the MAIN cause, should be no, since the facts are there is no proof, and a "consensus" isnt proof.
I don't think we are in disagreement. The 70% number was the headline of the article. However, you are correct that the real news here is that according to this poll, only 27% are apparently swallowing whole the AGW alarmism propaganda in a blind and thoughtless manner.
People have gotten more educated on what the actual issues are here and are not impressed with the knee-jerk leftist talking points, or the personal attacks or smear campaigns if you dare to think for yourself a little bit and do not agree with the AGW alarmists about this.
no, 70% of the poll believe, 80% of the population doesnt
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.
