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.
Even if man-made "climate change" were true, how does raising taxes (read: more corruption, more government waste, etc) lower the temperature of the planet??
Would a liberal explain to me how giving more money to (already) billionaire men/billionaire companies will "lower the earth's temperature"?
Also, please explain to us why the so-called "green climate activists" do not practice what they preach and drive around in $50-$80k huge gas guzzling SUVs, huge gas guzzling limousines, gas guzzling private jets, have huge gas guzzling luxury boats, etc?
Please explain how less money in working folks pockets (due to more taxes/more regulations) will cause the temperature of the earth to go down?
Also please explain why "only" Western countries are required to increase taxes and regulations, while China and the third-world can pollute pollute pollute as much as they want and there's not a PEEP from you enviro-lefties/greenies
Second, giving more money to billionaires will not "lower the earth's temperature."
Most green climate activists I know actually do practice what they preach, don't drive SUVs or take limousines, own jets or boats.
Less money in working folks' pockets will not cause the temperature of the earth to go down.
Third-world v. first-world responsibilities: Complicated. But let's just say this: the U.S. and first-world nations are primarily responsible for climate change, so they carry the primary responsibility to do something about it.
If you want to know more, read. Of course, that will be difficult to do if you're so brainwashed that you think anything a so-called "liberal" or "greenie" or "enviro-leftie" has to say is, by definition, not true. But here's the deal: American conservatives of the FOX news/Donald Trump variety are the only people in the world who think that climate change is a "hoax." Just think about that. How likely do you really think it is that the GOP--none of whom have the slightest education in climate or the environment, but who do live in the pockets of the oil and coal companies-- is right about this, and the rest of the entire world --including every climate scientist on the planet (you know, people who've devoted their lives to these issues)--is wrong? Get a clue.
I still don't understand why people need science to determine what is or isn't happening. My opinion is that the climate IS changing; does it matter if it is naturally occurring or if it is man made? I don't think so. What I care about is a clean environment to live in while I am here on earth as well as for future generations. I feel like a broken record as I have posted on this before, but isn't wanting a clean environment common sense? WHy are people so focused on whether or not man adds to climate change?
I personally feel that it is naturally occurring with perhaps a small percentage of the change attributed to us but that doesn't mean I want to pollute. We are driven by greed instead of common sense. We are selfish and only care for our lifetime here on earth, not those of our children and grandchildren. Taking a stand for pollution has two outcomes...one; we clean up the earth and have clean air to breath and clean water to drink and climate change stops proving certain scientists were correct. Two; we clean up the earth and have clean air to breath and clean water to drink disproving certain scientists and the climate continues to change anyway. The common denominator here is a clean environment.
I can only answer for myself, but science is sort of the lens through which I view the natural world. I am one of the grown ups who was those 20 questions kids. Why is that happening, how is it happening, how do we KNOW it is happening. Science helps answer those questions. It is useless when it comes to the objectively really important ones, like "what do we do about it?" but I suppose that is for a different thread.
I think many people rely on science to answer those questions, because frequently, as humans, our individual experiences and perspectives so often don't show the big picture.
I also think nothing you have said is wrong, but my admittedly limited knowledge of economics, is going to say that people act in their own financial best interests. And for many, they feel their best interest is to not believe in climate change as there is no doubt that keeping the air, water, and so on "clean" costs money.
I also have to be honest and admit, that I believe (not scientifically just on a personal level) there exists a small, even tiny subset of people who actively try to profit from polluting because it doesn't personally effect them or the people they do care about. I am going back in time quite a bit, but my state basically inspired Superfund, and if you read up about some of the stories here in NJ and the even worse ones in Tennessee, there were a set of really bad people, knowingly doing some really bad things, in the name of the bottom line. For the most part I do not think that is the case with most people and climate change. I just think it is a complicated issue, with a complicated set of policy "solutions".
No, what I have a problem with is believing that the bogus failed scare tactics are going to work. They are doing the opposite. Climate change or not, we should try and be as clean as reasonably possible.
I want us to move to cleaner technologies. I support the investment in new sources of energy. I do what I can without jumping off a cliff. I've long supported the protesters in North Dakota. They have done more good than a building full of "climate scientists". I despise the lies dressed up as "peer review" that is only harming us from moving forward.
The polar bears are not dying off. They don't have to be dying off for us to move to more efficient modes of transportation.
Why do you believe the research involved is intended to scare, if you live in certain areas like Miami or anywhere along the eastern seaboard or gulf you should be concerned. Climate change is already having an impact, go visit one of these areas and speak to the residents. The impact will be far worse in 3rd world countries, that don't have the funding to just raise a house or a road as we do in the US.
Polar Bears are dying off because sea ice is that is critical to their habitat for hunting seals is disappearing, in many places they are reduced to scavenging near the Inupiat Villages. It's an indisputable fact that there numbers are reduced.
Another issue is with scientists themselves. Regardless of the issue, they present facts from their findings and these facts sometimes conflict with other findings science has proved. Then you have two groups of people who believe what they want based on the science that relates closest to their beliefs. Science can be and often is very bias.
For instance even on CD there are posters that always want reference material for facts one may present. WHen that person presents the reference material those that disagree state that that isn't a credible reference. Yet for the person that just presented the reference material that was requested, they find the others reference material non credible.
I believe science can be bought much like anything else in this world. You can prove or disprove anything if you have enough money backing you.
Another issue is with scientists themselves. Regardless of the issue, they present facts from their findings and these facts sometimes conflict with other findings science has proved. Then you have two groups of people who believe what they want based on the science that relates closest to their beliefs. Science can be and often is very bias.
For instance even on CD there are posters that always want reference material for facts one may present. WHen that person presents the reference material those that disagree state that that isn't a credible reference. Yet for the person that just presented the reference material that was requested, they find the others reference material non credible.
I believe science can be bought much like anything else in this world. You can prove or disprove anything if you have enough money backing you.
All climate scientists agree that climate change is real and, this time, is anthropogenic. What they disagree about, mostly, is predictions and solutions.
All climate scientists agree that climate change is real and, this time, is anthropogenic. What they disagree about, mostly, is predictions and solutions.
LOL, "all climate scientists agree." Almost like the 97% lie. Sort of odd how no actual science ever backs up man-made climate change. It's just a lot of "omg, the polar bears are drowning!!" and "well, there's no proof, but everyone agrees" type of propaganda.
I feel like a broken record as I have posted on this before, but isn't wanting a clean environment common sense?
Sure, we should keep the environment clean, but that's unrelated to climate change.
Keeping the climate clean means don't put toxic waste into the oceans, recycle, etc.
Quote:
Why are people so focused on whether or not man adds to climate change?
Because there's no cause for alarm if it's natural. If human activity has nothing to do with climate change (It doesn't) there's no reason to write policy on it or impose taxes on C02.
The climate change globalists think they have the authority to tell people around the world what they can and cannot do. They want poor people in the developing world (Africa) to NOT use their main energy source.
Quote:
I personally feel that it is naturally occurring with perhaps a small percentage of the change attributed to us but that doesn't mean I want to pollute.
C02 is NOT pollution. Plant life thrives on C02. The global warming believers have people worried about things that are completely natural and harmless. They've even got people worried about cow flatulence. They are bat**** crazy!
I still don't understand why people need science to determine what is or isn't happening. My opinion is that the climate IS changing; does it matter if it is naturally occurring or if it is man made? I don't think so. What I care about is a clean environment to live in while I am here on earth as well as for future generations. I feel like a broken record as I have posted on this before, but isn't wanting a clean environment common sense? WHy are people so focused on whether or not man adds to climate change?
Right.
Quote:
I personally feel that it is naturally occurring with perhaps a small percentage of the change attributed to us but that doesn't mean I want to pollute. We are driven by greed instead of common sense. We are selfish and only care for our lifetime here on earth, not those of our children and grandchildren. Taking a stand for pollution has two outcomes...one; we clean up the earth and have clean air to breath and clean water to drink and climate change stops proving certain scientists were correct. Two; we clean up the earth and have clean air to breath and clean water to drink disproving certain scientists and the climate continues to change anyway. The common denominator here is a clean environment.
I have seen you post this a couple of times. Who do you think is using scare tactics? Do you think the science community? Policy makers? Maybe somebody else?
Those who claim the science community all speak with one voice when they do not.
Quote:
I would agree with the cleaner technology and the last two large scale studies I have been involved with, are part of assessing potential sites for wind energy in terms of their biological impact.
I would also ask what lies are being dressed up as peer review?
That this stuff is actually peer reviewed. It's not. Or at the very least the review is NOT what is being presented.
Quote:
Polar bears are dying off. Why do you think they are not?
Well, yes, they do die, just as everything does.
Quote:
This is an example of a paper that found a decline in polar bear populations in an area. Like any attempt to quantify an apex predator, there will be issues estimating their global populations due to their relative scarcity.
I can show where populations declined in Cleveland Ohio also but we most certainly are not dying off.
Quote:
Is this what you mean by peer review being a lie? If so could you explain why you think the authors are lying?
Ok. I prefer to allow scientists do their own speaking, and as a member of UCS we never asked Mr. Gore to represent us. He is of course allowed to say whatever he wants, free speech and all that.
And forgive my ignorance but is there a specific 500 scientists you are referring to? Or more along the lines of one politician = 500 scientists.
It was just a made up number.
Quote:
Again, as a scientist, I can speak on which parts I feel he is incorrect, but we don't "condemn" as least not as part of our role as scientists.
And what do you mean by moving forward?
I am not speaking about the role of scientists. I am speaking about the role of those that want a cleaner world.
Quote:
I used to work with a statistician who had a similar gift, though instead of tapping on his palm, he touched his thumb to different fingers (he said it had something to with powers of 10) and people thought he was "counting" on his fingers.
That actually makes sense.
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.
