I don't deny "climate change" I question how much we can really do about and the motives politicians have. Personally I'm big into composting and recycling stuff like that but it's not something I could ever see working on a large scale forcing people to be responsible with waste.

 

You end up with things like the carbon tax, seattle's garbage police ect.....

This is how I feel about it.

 

Kind of like how you can't legislate morality, you can't legislate people to recycle or compost. Heck, could you see composting working in cities like LA, NY, Chicago, Baltimore? Or any city for that matter? There is no education or infrastructure for it. Most people wouldn't even know what to do. They think composting is throwing food into a pile in the yard. That would get nasty and unsanitary real quick.

 

Also, there are towns, like mine, who don't offer recycling services for those who live out of city limits and have no recycling center for those who would be willing to take it in. You can't not offer a service then tax or fine folks for not doing whatever it your taxing or fining them for. 

---

 

 

I will however counter with this, what's so bad about doing everything possible to ensure clean air/water and alternative sustainable energy regardless of weather man is the cause of global climate change? 

Apparently it can't be done without fighting and bickering and finger pointing. Our society/country had become a bunch of pansy whiners. Finger pointing instead of actually doing something has become the status quo for both sides. Nothing gets done for all of the whining and blaming.

---

This is how I feel about it.

 

Kind of like how you can't legislate morality, you can't legislate people to recycle or compost. Heck, could you see composting working in cities like LA, NY, Chicago, Baltimore? Or any city for that matter? There is no education or infrastructure for it. Most people wouldn't even know what to do. They think composting is throwing food into a pile in the yard. That would get nasty and unsanitary real quick.

 

Also, there are towns, like mine, who don't offer recycling services for those who live out of city limits and have no recycling center for those who would be willing to take it in. You can't not offer a service then tax or fine folks for not doing whatever it your taxing or fining them for. 

 

Excuse my mini-rant: a pet peeve of mine - of course you can legislate morality - that's what laws do. Now, will many break the law? Yes. But that doesn't mean you take the law off the books. (And we can have a long talk about if they should be on the books in the first place.)

 

I think your view is common and similar to many, many of us. We want to do right/good, we're just not sure it's feasible. Or maybe we're just lazy.

 

I think most of us subscribe to the standard American outlook - we assume some form of technology will be devised at the last minute to save us.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Here is an interesting expose of one of the most-cited denialist scientists.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/tie...-news&_r=0

 

"For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on <a class="" href='http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier' title="Recent and archival news about global warming.">climate change</a> have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity."

 

<p class="">"One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

<p class="">But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests."

<p class=""> 

<p class="">"He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers."

<p class=""> 

<p class="">And it goes on from there.  

---

Here is an interesting expose of one of the most-cited denialist scientists.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/tie...-news&_r=0

 

"For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity."

 

"One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests."

 

"He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers."

 

And it goes on from there.  

 

Whatever they can do to burn the heretics.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

http://nyti.ms/1DIYhU3


Whoopsie

---

http://nyti.ms/1DIYhU3


Whoopsie

 

Did you not see the post before mine? Your research is as good as the zealots! :teehee:

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Did you not see the post before mine? Your research is as good as the zealots! :teehee:

 

I'm glad you're an omnidsciplinary scientist who knows all the answers so you can choose which articles to believe, and which ones to ignore.  I'm awed at your omnipotence.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I'm glad you're an omnidsciplinary scientist who knows all the answers so you can choose which articles to believe, and which ones to ignore.  I'm awed at your omnipotence.

 

You should be.

 

Of course I'm also bright enough to know that when the government alone is paying upwards of 22 BILLION per year to get the answers they want then it's quite funny that one guy who makes a Million gets burned at the proverbial stake.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Excuse my mini-rant: a pet peeve of mine - of course you can legislate morality - that's what laws do. Now, will many break the law? Yes. But that doesn't mean you take the law off the books. (And we can have a long talk about if they should be on the books in the first place.)

 

I think your view is common and similar to many, many of us. We want to do right/good, we're just not sure it's feasible. Or maybe we're just lazy.

 

I think most of us subscribe to the standard American outlook - we assume some form of technology will be devised at the last minute to save us.

 

I agree with you. The caveat is that there also might not be anything we need saving from.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You should be.


Of course I'm also bright enough to know that when the government alone is paying upwards of 22 BILLION per year to get the answers they want then it's quite funny that one guy who makes a Million gets burned at the proverbial stake.

Quite funny.


So, what 22 billion? What government? Why do scientists in other countries all agree? Is it just climate science that works this way you are describing or is it all science? Do you have any proof of what you are describing? Is it really easier to believe that there is an international conspiracy amongst the world's scientists to fake science and publish fake science so they can buy lambos with their government cheese than that the politicians in opposition simply don't like the solution or don't have a solution to the problems that follow from the very real science?

---

Quite funny.


So, what 22 billion? What government? Why do scientists in other countries all agree? Is it just climate science that works this way you are describing or is it all science? Do you have any proof of what you are describing? Is it really easier to believe that there is an international conspiracy amongst the world's scientists to fake science and publish fake science so they can buy lambos with their government cheese than that the politicians in opposition simply don't like the solution or don't have a solution to the problems that follow from the very real science?

 

Where do all those other countries get their funding? The same groups that fund it here in the USA, who are all interested in having the same answers and outcomes. And yes, when the "science" is "massaged" to achieve a desired outcome then it's fake. Plain and simple.

 

Let's also not forget that the so called "97%" was purely a political statement from one John F. Kerry and has no bearing on the opinions of the world's scientists. It's just another part of the deception.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

And if you don't believe this is a witch hunt you could always peruse the information in this article that recounts the "activities" of the Warmists to discredit the good doctor. But you won't believe it because, well, you're bought in.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...l-warming/

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Every time I read a conservative website, I'm reminded why I'm not a conservative anymore.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

---

 

I actually think it's more comparable to smoking.


"My grandfather lived to be 100 years old, and he smoked all of his life.  Smoking isn't dangerous."

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I actually think it's more comparable to smoking.


"My grandfather lived to be 100 years old, and he smoked all of his life. Smoking isn't dangerous."

Or the cigarette execs lying under oath as late the mid-90s about the health risks associated with smoking despite having scientific proof of the risks since the 50s.

---

Or the cigarette execs lying under oath as late the mid-90s about the health risks associated with smoking despite having scientific proof of the risks since the 50s.

 

Yeah, doctors and scientists NEVER said that smoking was good for you (of course they did). They weren't totally wrong about Methamphetamines in the 50s either (of course they were). And, unlike the climate zealots, they didn't even "massage" their data to get the results, they just misinterpreted it altogether.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

 And hey, let's not forget that the now disgraced and criminal head of the IPCC finally got around to confessing the truth about his role as the High Priest of the AGCC Cult:

 

"For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma." - Rajendra Pachauri, head of the the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, in his resignation letter this week.

 

It's ok Raj, we all KNEW that AGCC was your religion long ago.

 

And in other news, the US government is on a witch hunt against any who might deny the "truth" of global cooling, warming, climate change!

 

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/35650/...cident.htm

 

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/27/help-2

 

I know, I know, none of this really matters because AGCC needs to be true so we alter/destroy/eliminate Western Civilization and save the planet. Even if it doesn't need it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

And hey, let's not forget that the now disgraced and criminal head of the IPCC finally got around to confessing the truth about his role as the High Priest of the AGCC Cult:


"For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma." - Rajendra Pachauri, head of the the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, in his resignation letter this week.


It's ok Raj, we all KNEW that AGCC was your religion long ago.


And in other news, the US government is on a witch hunt against any who might deny the "truth" of global <del>cooling</del>, <del>warming</del>, climate change!

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.techtimes.com/articles/35650/20150226/us-lawmakers-want-to-investigate-climate-science-funding-incident.htm'>http://www.techtimes.com/articles/35650/20150226/us-lawmakers-want-to-investigate-climate-science-funding-incident.htm</a>

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/27/help-2'>http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/27/help-2</a>


I know, I know, none of this really matters because AGCC needs to be true so we alter/destroy/eliminate Western Civilization and save the planet. Even if it doesn't need it.

Why is it so important to you that the idea of climate change is false?

---