Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Oh good god!

You yourself presented us with a link to Americanprogress.org!

You freaking scream at others over and over about "mainstream media". Who are you referencing for your "information"?

The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a public policy research and advocacy organization which presents a liberal viewpoint on economic and social issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cente...erican Progress,on economic and social issues.

You are using a freaking using a politically biased site for your information, and you dare to scream at others?

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/center-american-progress

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/we-rebut-american-progress-action-funds-rebuttal/

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/528-center-for-american-progress/

So let me be clear here. How freaking dare you say anything about somebody using a source, when you yourself use some of the most biased and political (and non-scientific) sources there is! You have no right to even make that claim, after some of those you have used.

 

No, only trust them if they agree with his sources.

If they do not agree with his, then they should all be ignored.

 

Well the source I used in my example was the BBC. Should that be considered a biased site?

 

That isn't the point, the point is, which path is the wiser, from the vantage point of policy makers?

On which side is it wiser to err?

If we do something and we are wrong, all we've lost is money and effort. If we do nothing and we are wrong, we could lose the planet where it might have been worth trying to save it, even if the chances of saving it are slim.

 

If it does not 100% agree with his beliefs, it is.

 

Here is my point, why should "policy makers" be involved at all?

Now realize this, I am in no way a believer in "conspiracies", but one thing I do recognize is that some people simply love to have power. And handing people such as that power to try and do things for the "greater good" is almost always a bad thing. Either because they will misuse that power, or simply because most will ultimately end up doing little than to justify their own positions and actually do nothing. Trust me there, over a quarter century of working for the Government has shown me that first hand.

Simply the need to keep their own position will cause jobs to be filled and keep people employed, even if they are doing nothing at all.

Tell me, what if we made a "Department to Stop Earthquakes"? Now of course, there is nothing we can do to stop earthquakes, but some will urge that we spend huge amounts of money into such a department, with the hope that someday we might be able to stop them. Then you will get lots of grants to research institutions into finding ways to stop them. And of course they will always be releasing papers, showing that they now understand what causes them, and may in the next decade or so find a way to stop earthquakes. They only need more time and money in order to do so.

And of course then you will have competing camps, as two or more come up with differing ways to prevent earthquakes. And each will insist on more money, as their way is obviously the best way to achieve their goal. Then yet another camp will pop up, saying that stopping earthquakes is bad, and instead we need to control them instead. Yet more bureaucracy to help find even better solutions.

But ultimately, what is the end result? Nothing, other than a lot of people now have jobs, and a very real interest in doing whatever they can to preserve those jobs. And even more people that have been given various levels of power, even if only over another group of people with no influence outside of that.

This is how government works. We see it at all levels, from the small local government to the Federal Government. People demanding we give them power, and that we let them make and change policy. How long now have they been saying that the cure for cancer is just around the corner? The cure for HIV? And end to poverty? Universal literacy? An end to hunger? An end to drugs? An end to hate and crime? Gee, seems to me I have been hearing all of those for half a century and more, but none has ever gone away. But we have huge government agencies involved in ending all of those and more.

Hell, want a perfect example of "Organizational Survival", look no farther than the March of Dimes. Yes, it sounds good, a non-profit that exists to end birth defects. And I am not saying it is not a good organization. However, most do not even know that it was created with the goal of ending Polio. Yep, that's it. Founded in 1938 by FDR, to help find a cure for polio (which he himself suffered from). It provided a ton of money to Dr. Salk and was involved in testing and spreading his vaccine. However, by 1958 it had largely found itself out of a job. Polio was well on the way to being eradicated. So did they just go away?

Well, they had a big meeting and the President of the organization suggested disbanding. But instead, they changed their focus from polio to birth defects. And this was such a wonderfully generic term that covered so many things that will never be "cured" that they will always have a mission. And all of those that work for the organization (many of which I honestly believe are honest and sincere) will continue to keep their jobs. And the money will continue to pour in forever.

And that is the thing, I do not believe that their goals are real when it comes to "climate change". It has changed before, it will change again, and it is sheer arrogance that anything could be done about it. Oh, I am all for much of their goals, we should take the best care as we can for the planet and the environment. But they are trying to bash everybody in the head with a hammer and making claims and statements that simply do not hold water. And if their predictions are wrong, they bury them. And if right, they scream non-stop and use that to bash us some more.

I simply do not trust "policy makers" like that. Especially since none of them really are even elected. They are bureaucrats who are simply in a position, and can never be fired. The VA is full of them, which is one reason why it is such an awful mess. And trust me, ask a bunch of Veterans what we think of the VA. Most of us tend to have a rather negative view of those "policy makers" that claim to be helping us. Because in the end they help themselves a lot, talk a lot of talk and make a lot of promises, and not a damned thing ever changes.

 

And that would be the end of it. The rest of your post is just wild speculation about some imaginary cause. It is not a reflection of the real science going on every day.

If there were ideas floating around that suggested that we might be able to stop earthquakes, then it might get some research money. We don't hand out money arbitrarily when no one claims they can do something.

 

"Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?"

I would say that neither is right. To deny the climate is changing is to not understand that the climate has always been changing, and will forever be changing. Conversely, to become alarmed that the climate is changing is to deny that the climate should been changing. What would truly be alarming is if the climate stopped changing.

The puzzle for the political class, and one they have figured out pretty well, is how to best exploit the climate change to generate political advantage and personal profit.

 

Is it my speculation when I give the real life example of the March of Dimes?

Name a single department of the Government that went away, ever. Hell, we still have a BIA with over 4,000 employees and a budget of over $2 billion. Even though we have not been forced to live on reservations for over a century. Ironically, provided by the same Government that is now telling us that we can not even use our own ancestors as the mascots of our school teams.

I would love to see a Bureau of Irish Affairs go and tell the Irish how to live. Oh, and that Notre Dame must remove their mascot, as it is offensive.



It is not "wild speculation", it is an extrapolation of how government operates. And they always exist to gain even more power, and more employees and larger budgets. They are almost a living entity into themselves, and will always fight to grow and thrive.

 

And in that I agree 100%.

In fact, I argue that those that scream the loudest are in fact the most anti-science, as they are denying everything we know of science, including evolution.

If you believe in science and evolution, it should be obvious that species will eventually die, and be replaced by others. That is simply how it goes. Hell, North America in many ways is still a "broken ecology" when humans arrived, because of the ice age as there are no large predators on the continent. Unlike where on most of the planet the megafauna all died off, on this continent it killed not only he large herbivores but the large predators as well. Which left a strange gap, with lots and lots of grazing animals, but damned few predators to eat them. No lions, a few scattered wolves, coyotes, and that is about it. Bears are predators, but very solitary ones and as they are "lazy omnivores", they really do not have much impact on the prey animals of a region. That is one reason that the avian birds got so exceptionally large when compared to all of the other continents. They grew larger to fill in the gap (primarily as scavengers).

And as the climate continues to change, more species will die off, or evolve into something else. But the way evolution works, you almost never have a creature rise up and push out another. Instead, one dies off, and another evolves to take the place that is now vacant in the food chain. New life follows death, it does not cause the death.

 

... and I'll raise you the entire body of science itself. Checkmate, mate.

No, they don't. --- The laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law are quite clear that "greenhouse effect" violates science. Try again.

Back to you.

 

Precisely. And here's another one for ya from more recent times...

All who do not wear a mask and get a covid vaccination must lose their jobs and be shunned from society because Fauci/CDC/WHO says so. --- Church of COVID

 

What is the reason for believing this blogger and disbelieving the vast majority of climatologists world wide?

 

You haven't cited any source of science.

In fact, I don't remember you EVER citing a source of science on any topic.

 

"How most people get their news" is NOT the topic of discussion here.

 

This isn't about "parts of the US government".

This is about those from all countries who study climatology. How is your post here NOT a claim of world wide conspiracy?

Plus, if you want to charge NASA with corruption, you better bring it.

 

I cited forecasts on this thread.

And, it's ridiculous to demand a more detailed explanation of past climate cycles in a post.

 

Why? Do I even have to explain it?

If something can be done, it should be done, and then it will take massive coordination by our government ( ergo 'policy makers') and other governments to deal with the problem.

 

The reason I posted that link is because it directly and specifically answered the question being asked.

It reported fact that can be checked by anyone. In fact, it included information that would help you check it out.

Simple straight up fact is not politics.

 

And, you think scientists don't know about Boltzmann and thermodynamics??

Seriously??

 

Here is something amazing about knowing history and science.

Over 2 years ago when the COVID thing first broke into the news, I started making predictions. On the face masks, the closing of schools and businesses, the almost persecution of those who did not wear masks. That there would be many waves, and it would last 2-3 years. Even the death rates.

And it was not any kind of rocket science, I simply looked back at the Spanish Flu Epidemic after WWI. In fact, in many forums for a decade I warned that another pandemic was coming, it was just a matter of time.

And in most ways, this was barely even close to what the Spanish Flu or other epidemics were like in the past. I am not aware of any mass graves this time through, or entire towns largely depopulated. SO my prediction still stands, we are still overdue for a huge pandemic that will kill tens if not hundreds of millions of people.

 

Then why are you always screaming where other people get their information?

If it is not the topic, then stop bringing it up.

 

Oh my goodness, really?

Oh please, if you want I can post dozens of cases of corruption at NASA. Going back for decades.

 

I agree. I think we were lucky that COVID had such a low death rate.

There is no reason to believe that the next such pandemic will be like that.

So, we lost a million Americans dead and some other large number with long lasting deficits. It could have been worse.

It also could have been better had America pulled together in its own defense.

 

Let me see if I can summarize your points:

1. The big problems are taking too long to solve so we should quit.
2. Since they are not being solved as quickly as you think they should, you assume they are doing it ONLY for jobs and power.
3. Because of #2, we should not trust policy makers.
4. Government is big, bloated, and messy, therefore government is bad.

On #1. It took centuries to find the vaccine for polio, figure out how to engineer a machine that could fly, and on and on. So, your premise is false. Just because it takes time, doesn't mean we should quit, and since the rest of your argument is predicated on that assumption, it, too, is faulty.

Yes, government is big, bloated, and messy. But all big governments are, and no one, not you, nor I, not a republican, not a democrat nor independent, can do much better (on the issue size and difficulty to manage the government) but that isn't an argument for anarchy, either.

Overall, your rebuttal is just a rant, it says 'there's no hope, all politicians are bad and corrupt, so, we should just quit', a world view typical of your common cynic, nihilist, etc., and a viewpoint I don't share.