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.
Politicians made this political, not scientists. If you knew anything about scientists you'd know they police themselves like few groups do.
Nope, politics has destroyed the peer review process. It's a cash train to scientists who proclaim global warming, it's a boot from the clubhouse if you have questions. This isn't how scientists used to behave, but with billions being tossed at them, it's tough to resist.
Nope, politics has destroyed the peer review process. It's a cash train to scientists who proclaim global warming, it's a boot from the clubhouse if you have questions. This isn't how scientists used to behave, but with billions being tossed at them, it's tough to resist.
Work around lots of scientists, I feel like people have this vastly inflated idea of how much money your average scientist actually makes. Average pay of a climatologist is ~85k with the majority falling between 49k and 135k, which is certainly not destitute, but its not like they are buying private islands with their ill gotten government gains and swimming in their Scrooge McDuck money bins. Most of the politicians pushing the "scientists are in it for the grant money" message probably make far more money annually than the scientists they are accusing of selling out.
So what, I am supposed to believe an entire generation of scientists have sold out their credibility and created a cross culture world spanning conspiracy so that they can maintain the same middle class lifestyle you can get by being a college professor, construction manager, software engineer, psychologist, medical assistant, real estate developer/agent, pilot, sales rep, etc etc?
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 06-02-2017 at 10:31 AM..
Politicians made this political, not scientists. If you knew anything about scientists you'd know they police themselves like few groups do. They require massive piles of evidence to support a claim. When 97% of scientists are on board with something, it's fact.
except that 97% of the scientists are NOT on board with AGW climate change. that 97% figure was 97% of the IPCC scientists, and they ARE colluding with politicians to drive their narrative, and have been for decades.
Quote:
US companies are investing in renewable energy because it's profitable, not in an effort to save the planet.
does it really matter why companies are investing in renewable energy? as long as it happens
Quote:
The government typically steps in with regulations only after repeated attempts to stop pollution of our water, the air or our land. They also step in if US companies are putting Americans in danger of injury or death. The government NEVER enacts regulations "just so they can have control over us." That's paranoia talking there.
bullcrap. government often times sees problems that dont really exist, or they are knee jerk reactions to what a few people want, so they do in fact enact regulations, sometime willy nilly.
Quote:
As for consumers, they are rarely as educated about a product as the corporations selling them are. So buy things that are bad for them without knowing it's bad for them. The tobacco companies knew smoking cigarettes can cause lung cancer but were advertising cigarettes as being healthy!
again rubbish. lets take tobacco for instance, have you ever tried smoking? did you inhale? did you try coughing up a lung the first time or two? that should have told you right then that smoking was bad for you, but if you continued, you didnt listen to what your own body was telling you, you instead listened to your peers because it was cool.
did tobacco companies push cigarettes? yes they did, it was, and still is, a legal product. you dont survive without advertising of one form or another. so they got doctors and movie stars, and others to hawk their legal product.
as for consumers themselves, perhaps back in the 50s and 60s consumers were ignorant of the products they bought, but these days the consumer is more aware of things. the problem though is they are constantly on the look out for the newest thing on the market, which is why the consumer is driving innovation these days.
Never mind. It looks like you are still arguing about number.
The poster's point is that tax payers are going to foot the bill.
Find a counter argument and prove him wrong.
I am not saying pollution is not a big concern. I am saying the "agreement" is deeply flawed. That's all.
the Cost is huge and depending who one believes is bad for America. As always if the US Tax put money into this , the funds would be wasted on greed. the Science on global warming changes by the day. the earth has always changed over thousands of years.
A recent study by the Heritage Foundation projects that the Paris agreement and resulting policies will increase electricity costs for a family of four between 13 ...
2 hours ago - Fact-checking Trump's speech on Paris climate agreement. Vanessa ... Trump said the agreement would cost “close to $3 trillion in lost GDP.
2 days ago - The American president came into office after promising to "cancel" the deal and after months of reconsidering has now told aides he plans to ...
All the whiny libs don't even know what they are complaining about.
They are complaining because
1) The earth will not be saved (whatever that might mean).
2) All kids are going to get asthma now.
3) NYC will soon be underwater.
4) Trump is stupid and evil and is happy kids get asthma and will make billions of dollars from withdrawing.
5) Somehow he must be colluding with the Russians about breaking accord
6) All of the above
Yet neither country is willing to foot the bill for other countries’ efforts to reduce emissions, experts say. The United States had pledged $3 billion into a Green Climate Fund to assist smaller countries on their climate change initiatives...
Zhang said China may contribute financially in smaller ways, such as contributing $20 million to its South-South Cooperation Fund to help smaller countries.
government often times sees problems that dont really exist, or they are knee jerk reactions to what a few people want, so they do in fact enact regulations, sometime willy nilly.
You're going to have to explain that because it makes no sense at all.
First, who is "government" you are referring to? Who are the people seeing ghost problems?
What are the problems they see that really don't exist?
What regulations have been passed that only a few want?
In March, Trump ordered the Department of Labor to delay implementation of the silica dust standard. Why? So contractors don't have to inform their workers of the danger? So companies don't have to protect their workers from a known carcinogen?
Is this the kind of regulation only a few people want?
china cancelled over 100 coal fired plants this year.
i guess you did not know that China is working hard to improve their pollution. and maybe it never occurred to you that china produces the products we consume. that means the pollution is directly tied to american consumers and we clearly have at least some responsibility for that.
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.
No Benefit!
