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 not a climate change denier. I just don't believe that high taxes, Al Gore's software and Goldman Sachs trading carbon derivatives will save this planet.
I'm not a climate change denier. I just don't believe that high taxes, Al Gore's software and Goldman Sachs trading carbon derivatives will save this planet.
And the sad part is, not a thing you mentioned had anything to do with climate change.
I'm not a climate change denier. I just don't believe that high taxes, Al Gore's software and Goldman Sachs trading carbon derivatives will save this planet.
Exactly. Even if we ban all plasma TVs (in California) and implement cap-and-trade, the following will still happen:
I have a question: What is your real motivation for denying climate change?
Is it an economic reason that you deny this is happening largely as a consequence of man made global pollutants, or is it a political reason, as the right has used Al Gore as their lightning rod to politicize a scientific argument, not a political one. If neither of those, how do you consistently deny that rising temperatures are not showing copious examples of potentially irreversible change?
I would estimate between 40 to 60% of deniers have no clue as to why they think man is not causing this but instead do so for a combination of reasons, mainly the radical rightwing attempts to deny this is happening (George W. Bush, Sen. Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh, FOX, etc., etc..) being the primary reason(s).
It is a scam perpetrated by Gore and his minions for millions. You gus are dupes. I would estimate that 80-100% of proponents have no clue that the scientific community and Egore have duped them for their own gain. Did you send them any money yet?
I dont know how any information that anyone is posting here proves anything is either true or bunk. Everyone is looking at the same data but just gives their own uneducated hypotheses as fact in BOTH directions.
Factually, Nature is in a delicate balance. As an example, if you simply introduce a plant species to a new non-native area, it has the potential to take over the region, and completely change the ecosystem in that area.
Same goes for introducing non native insects, bugs, and animals. By introducing anything that wasnt part of the natural setting is going to change the immediate environment.
On the same principle, the additional C02 that is emitted from factories, cars, etc. is certainly changing the atmosphere in some way. I have no clue whether the effects would be warming, cooling, or nothing at all...
There is no reason to resist using more current technologies if they are in existence whether or not global warming is true or false. If there are ways to usher in a new cleaner, more renewable source of energy, it SHOULD be done just on the premise that tinkering with mother nature generally does not go without consequence.
Trying to predict the consequence or deny the consequence is equally foolish. Ultimately there is far more cause to operate as smartly as possible rather than open up all the smokestacks full throttle just because SOME people say it doesnt matter.
Perhaps you did not read these points. Can you explain these?
1. I agree with the concept of looking for clean alternative energy, but despise the academic fraud of man-made "global warming". It is factually incorrect and academically disingenuous. Anyone who have published in the peer reviewed literature blushes at the "science" of global warming.
2. CO2 rises in response to temperature, not the other way around. Ice cores show this to be true.
3. There are fossilized tropical plants in Antartica and the Arctic which post date continental drift. How were these frigid areas once tropical?
4. There is coal north of the artic circle and oil. Hmmmmmm fossilized plants. I wonder how they got there?
5. There are two "layer cake" lake beds which show a cylical warm and cold period about every 10,000 years for the last several million years. It is a cyclical phenomenon that demonstrates that the cyclical change in the earth's eliptical orbit around the sun causes "climate change", not CO2.
8. Temperatures prior to the "Little Ice Age" of 1350-1800 are nearly identical to those today.
9. Ice core CO2 levels at many times in the earth's past have been much higher than present levels.
10. Methane contributes more to "warming" (several fold, as a matter of fact) than any potential changes due to CO2.
11. The "science" of "gobal warming" has been faked. No where else in the history of science have so many been so intent on discarding the facts simply to arrive at a pre-concieved conclusion. It is an academic embarrassment and will be viewed (as we are entering the beginning of a new Ice Age) as one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the scientific community.
I have a question: What is your real motivation for denying climate change?
Is it an economic reason that you deny this is happening largely as a consequence of man made global pollutants, or is it a political reason, as the right has used Al Gore as their lightning rod to politicize a scientific argument, not a political one. If neither of those, how do you consistently deny that rising temperatures are not showing copious examples of potentially irreversible change?
I would estimate between 40 to 60% of deniers have no clue as to why they think man is not causing this but instead do so for a combination of reasons, mainly the radical rightwing attempts to deny this is happening (George W. Bush, Sen. Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh, FOX, etc., etc..) being the primary reason(s).
The climate is always changing, so to call people "climate change deniers" is seen as belittling those you disagree with. So you start a discussion on a topic by insulting those you wish to dialogue with.
We have good reason to doubt the people, their motivations, their over the top rhetoric, and the way they distort and manipulate the data behind the AGW theory, that man-induced CO2 is causing a rise in world climate temperatures.
The world's climate is always in flux. Today on the weather channel the record high temp for my area was 65 degrees in 1914, which is 25 degrees warmer then today, and about 35 degrees warmer then it was last year.
Anyone who is not a skeptic, when so much is at stake, needs to rethink their blind faith in the people like al Gore, and the man made global warming movement.
What is at stake? The way we and our children and grandchildren live their lives will be completely controlled by domestic and foreign governments.
Using the club of global warming, world governments are continually coming up with new ways to raise taxes on their citizens, mandate what cars they can drive, what light bulbs and appliances they can use. Thru draconian legislation they are, or desire to control industry, manufacturing and international trade. If the United Nations has its way, they will force the taxpayers of America to pay trillions thru Climate Debt reparations to the rest of the world, in the form of trade restrictions and penalties, and out right gifts of taxpayer money.
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.
