Do you believe we landed on the moon?

 

Do you believe in discussing a topic?  We can see that science is being rejected.  For instance, if other planets in the solar system are warming it is certainly not due to human activity.  It would almost certainly be due to increased sun activity.  But rising temps on other planets are not considered part of the "science" of "man made global climate change"; they are ignored.  This is not science.

 

Shouldn't we be asking scientists other than "climatologists" if their field of study supports the theory of "man made global climate change"?  I saw a talk by a geologist suggesting the Earth has thrived with much higher CO2 levels and temps than we have now. 

---

Do you believe in discussing a topic? We can see that science is being rejected. For instance, if other planets in the solar system are warming it is certainly not due to human activity. It would almost certainly be due to increased sun activity. But rising temps on other planets are not considered part of the "science" of "man made global climate change"; they are ignored. This is not science.


Shouldn't we be asking scientists other than "climatologists" if their field of study supports the theory of "man made global climate change"? I saw a talk by a geologist suggesting the Earth has thrived with much higher CO2 levels and temps than we have now.

So you believe in a conspiracy theory. Good for you. Hope that works out for ya.

---

So you believe in a conspiracy theory. Good for you. Hope that works out for ya.

No, he said he doesn't believe in the global warming, climate change, or whatever it is they are calling it now. Keep up.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

No, he said he doesn't believe in the global warming, climate change, or whatever it is they are calling it now. Keep up.

That's also true. But he clearly believes in conspiracy (why they say it's true when it's not). He'll tell you if you don't believe me. Keep up.

---

The knowledge of the climate is still in it's infancy. For most of the recent geological history glaciers covered much of the land in the northern hemisphere. What if the climate is actually set to go into the next glaciation? All of the "solutions" proposed by the left would exacerbate the disaster. Warmer is better. If it were just a scientific discussion with no political ramifications then there would be no 55 page thread here.


 

What do the "likes of Obama" gain? Labeling climate change as a problem is a means of justifying complete control over the energy sector, and an excuse to redistribute wealth. This is ideal for authoritarians like Obama, and especially to One World proponents who want the UN to control everything, since the "problem" is global. Bureaucracy grows too, which the establishment of both parties loves. 


 

http://www.investors.com/politics/editor...apitalism/

 

How does climate change kill capitalism? Do you not think the big global companies wouldn't compete in the renewable energy sector instead? Once the resources run out they have to diversify anyway...

 

Also how does it redistribute wealth? Most the costs of the taxation solution are passed on to the little guy anyway?

---

Apparently you believe. Consider the word "believe." Global Warming as a disaster scenario is a religion, not science. It has lots of the hallmarks of religion. Mankind is sinful, and the high priests demand absolution. Science proposes a theory and then tests it, looking for flaws. Religion looks for supporting evidence and dismisses evidence that disagrees with the dogma. The Global Warming elite follow the second path, that of religion.


 

The science itself drives my opinion. The actual data, rather than the alarmist press releases and statements, show there is no problem. The planet is slowly warming, and has been doing so since the 1700s. The climate back then was way too cold. Warming is good.


 

And it's not "a few dollars." The proposed solutions are vastly expensive. The proponents have liked the spending to insurance. Makes sense. But the proposed spending is equivalent to paying twice your homes value in fire insurance every year.

 

You mean you don't believe the scientists you believe the bloggers...

 

Why so fanatical about it though? 

---

Come on, they were caught suppressing opposing research.  They tossed out traditional models and created new models that "proved" the theory.  They also rigged the data by placing measuring stations in hotter locations.  Move the sensor from the bushes to the middle of the parking lot and - OMG, temperatures in Bakersfield are averaging 3 degrees hotter than last year!  This is gonna cost you bad humans!  But how does paying a tax lower the temperature?  We're not supposed to think about that part.

---

You mean you don't believe the scientists you believe the bloggers...

 

Why so fanatical about it though? 

 

No, I look at the data and see where it points. It shows there was some warming between 1979 and 1998, but nothing to be concerned about. It also shows that the models used to predict the future global temperature are worthless garbage, and that the theory has a huge flaw by predicting a tropical mid-tropospheric hot spot which is not there in the observations.


 

I don't "believe" what someone says just because they claim to be an expert. The data has to support their statements. Nor do I "believe" what bloggers say unless they provide data to support their statements. Belief is for religion.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

That all sounds good but how do you know what to look for and what is concerning? Like me you probably have no knowledge in the area.


Can you answer why it seems all climate change non believers seem to be right wing though?

---

How does climate change kill capitalism? Do you not think the big global companies wouldn't compete in the renewable energy sector instead? Once the resources run out they have to diversify anyway...

 

Also how does it redistribute wealth? Most the costs of the taxation solution are passed on to the little guy anyway?

 

Climate change doesn't kill capitalism.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN framework on Climate Change, expects that using the climate change hobgoblin as a political tool would allow the ruling elite to kill capitalism. You originally asked what "the likes of Obama" gain. That was an example in the words of one of "the likes of Obama."

 

I agree that most of the proposed 'solutions' would be paid for on the backs of the poor. Isn't taking money from the poor and giving it to the UN bureaucracy a form of wealth redistribution? How about taking money from productive citizens and giving it to Solyndra so they can kick back 10% to Obama's campaign fund. Isn't that wealth redistribution? There is also the matter of just about every 3rd world country claiming "climate injustice" and seeking reparations. If the UN bureaucracy is in charge that would be a fait accompli.

 

 

 

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

That all sounds good but how do you know what to look for and what is concerning? Like me you probably have no knowledge in the area.


Can you answer why it seems all climate change non believers seem to be right wing though?

 

1. The alarmist press does a good job of exaggerating what to be concerned about. Take sea level rise for example. 
Humanity only started significant CO2 release after WW2. Go to NOAA.gov and look through the tide gauge records. Do you see a change in the rate of sea level rise after WW2? The data says that there is no observable effect of CO2 on the rate of sea level rise. So who or what do you believe, the data or the prophets of doom?

 

You probably aren't old enough to remember the cold in the 1970s. I am. Warmer is better. A lot more people retire to Florida and Arizona than to Alaska and North Dakota.

 

2. First off, pretty much everyone believes that climate changes. The question is the role of enhanced CO2 in climate. Not every person who dismisses the alarmist claims is on the right. But most leftists put policy before science*, so that leaves mostly the political right to defend the science. The data shows that nothing bad is happening (outside of the way it always has been) and that the models that predict high rates of warming are wrong. Maybe the warming will continue unabated, and humanity will have to address it. But there is plenty of time to see what happens, rather than wasting trillions of dollars right now on worthless attempts to make the world colder.


 

*if you don't believe that's true, then at least admit that the left puts policy before (let's call it) evil. A murderer was elected and reelected to the Senate his entire life because of his political leanings. The current Dem nominee will be a woman who sold US policy for personal gain. She'll still get just about every vote from the progressives.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

What i'm saying is that it is weird that man made climate change non beliving seems to be interlinked with right wing politics only. Not to say all people on the right don't believe. The British and Australian Prime Minister's believe in it and are conservative politicians.

 

You keep saying the data shows it not to be true, but the environmental scientist seem to disagree? Would you go to a blogger instead of a doctor? Seems odd that you think you know what the statistics show more than professionals in the area?

---

What i'm saying is that it is weird that man made climate change non beliving seems to be interlinked with right wing politics only. Not to say all people on the right don't believe. The British and Australian Prime Minister's believe in it and are conservative politicians.

 

You keep saying the data shows it not to be true, but the environmental scientist seem to disagree? Would you go to a blogger instead of a doctor? Seems odd that you think you know what the statistics show more than professionals in the area?

 

It's not weird if you consider that the goals of the left can be aided by demonizing CO2, so why should they bother to consider that it might not be as bad as the extreme statements some 'experts' make. That would just slow their path to the eventual goal of total control by the elite experts. And you keep using the term "believe." That should tell you something. Science is not about belief.


 

The measurements are what they are. If your doctor took your blood pressure and it was normal and the doctor told you that it was high and you needed an expensive treatment for high blood pressure, would you just pay up because the professional said so? That's your position here.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I come from a public health system. The doctor doesn't benefit to do as you say.


Why would some conservative politicians agree if it is some lefty rubbish?

---

I come from a public health system. The doctor doesn't benefit to do as you say.

Why would some conservative politicians agree if it is some lefty rubbish?

Because half the populace votes Democrat.

---

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

Interestingly though politicians from Norway believe and they have a state owned Oil assets...

 

Weird.

---

http://qz.com/680661/germany-had-so-much...ectricity/


We'll, this is nice anyways.

---

Why would some conservative politicians agree if it is some lefty rubbish?

 

Because they believe what they are told to believe, or they don't stay in power very long.  Besides, their pockets get fatter with the scam than without it. 

---

Because they believe what they are told to believe, or they don't stay in power very long. Besides, their pockets get fatter with the scam than without it.

Mm hmm.


This is just a reminder that there is a reality to deal with too:

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming</a>

---

That's also true. But he clearly believes in conspiracy (why they say it's true when it's not). He'll tell you if you don't believe me. Keep up.

How low were those jets this time.... :woot: you got whooshed.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"