Key is word LET. You do not have rights superior to my rights. So for you to LET me means you believe in your superiority.
Mom died in the spring of 1980 and she used to say about government ... we will see them regulating our air and our water. And she was devoted as a Democrat but i believe in her mind it would be republicans. But it turns out it was Democrats.
Democrats, like many scientists, and many other human beings will tell lies to win - and for money. "1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895 1902 – "Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing." – Los Angeles Times 1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912 1923 – "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada" – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune 1933 – "…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?" – Federal Weather Bureau "Monthly Weather Review." 1954 – Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine 1970 – "…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there's no relief in sight" – Washington Post 1974 – Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine 1974 – "…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence" – New York Times 1975 – "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind" Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine 1976 – "Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend" – U.S. News and World Report 1981 – Global Warming – "of an almost unprecedented magnitude" – New York Times 1993 – "Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture." – U.S. News and World Report 2006 – "It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…" — Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT 2006 – "What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it's never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years." —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London 2007– "I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, 'We agree with you, but it's not worth our jobs to say anything.' So what's being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people's jobs dependent on it." – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007 2011 – Where Did Global Warming Go? "In Washington, 'climate change' has become a lightning rod, it's a four-letter word," said Andrew J. Hoffman, director of the University of Michigan's Erb Institute for Sustainable Development. – New York Times, Oct 15, 2011. 2013 – Global-warming 'proof' is evaporating. The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don't expect anyone who pointed to last year's hurricanes as "proof" of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don't work that way. New York Post, Dec 5, 2013 2014 – Climate change: It's even worse than we thought. Five years ago, the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change painted a gloomy picture of our planet's future. As climate scientists gather evidence for the next report, due in 2014, Michael Le Page gives seven reasons why things are looking even grimmer. – New Scientist (undated in 2014)" THE AMERICAN THINKER, Where's the press after a century of bad climate predictions?, By Jack Hellner, August 4, 2018. https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...ter_a_century_of_bad_climate_predictions.html
That is a mistake many Republicans and Democrats make. They can't imagine ever not holding the whip hand.
The article cites 17 just in the House. Of course, there are always far more Democrats willing to support Fake Science. It's their thing.
If oil goes away, our entire way of life changes, dramatically. The plastic in the computers we are using to have this conversation require oil. Same with the servers were using for it, and every router and computer our messages bounce off of in between. Same thing for every piece of plastic in our homes, cars, etc.. The electricity we're using to power them is most likely coming from a coal fired power plant. This conversation would literally be impossible. Those "green" electric cars simply are switching from gasoline (oil) to coal power, they're just not burning the actual coal in the vehicle. I did an ROI analysis on my house to go solar, and the payoff was over 40 years. IF I didn't have to replace it before then, which I highly doubt. Plus, I'd say I probably (though it's not impossible) that I won't be here in 40 years. As for global warming, I live in a coastal community. Haven't lived here my whole life, but for the first 29 years give or take. Been back for 8. There is no visual evidence that the sea levels have changed one bit, and I'm now 49. Yes, South Tampa tends to flood during heavy summer thunderstorms, but that always been the case. I concede that's anecdotal, but if you listened to Al Gore in the early 2000s, by now my entire county should be under water permanently. So it really is a case of "the boy who cried wolf" combined with a realization of what a dramatic change eliminating "fossil fuels" could cause. We should be converting to 100% nuclear, but the same people who whine about global warming cry about the idea of nuclear power, so it tends not to happen.
Fake Science has gone viral. "Can’t take criticism? Just make up your own reviews! It may sound far-fetched, but we’ve now counted more than 270 retractions, more than half of them this year, which occurred because authors or editors compromised the peer-review process in some way—most egregiously, some authors faked email addresses for peer reviewers and gave their own papers a green light." THE SCIENTIST, The Top 10 Retractions of 2015, A look at this year’s most memorable retractions, By Retraction Watch | December 23, 2015. https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44895/title/The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2015/
I have NO PROBLEM with any personal opinion any one makes. But, you’ve recognized, we are talking about a GOP by you’re own reference where there were only 17 active participants in climate change initiatives. Climate change is not a “ choice anymore.” to all the countries of the world and every major corporation and every accredited university. If you as a Republican feel insulted by me pointing this out, that’s too bad. Ignorance can’t be rewarded when it’s in a position of power. You have a president who has to be convinced that science isn’t a hoax ? Good grief, that’s grounds for impeachment right there. He is not my boss, I am his. . If the Gop continues to support this imbecile on matters that affect all of us, they both deserve criticism.
The French people have just risen up over the use of Fake Science to oppress them. Do you think Macron should kill his opposition - now 88% of the French people - you know - to "Save The Planet"?
Point out any of the 3400 plus accredited universities, major corporations or countries in the free world that engage in fake science. Go for it, make a list. The gop and their followers that actually believe this, should check their shorts for stains.
It is like my being a pilot. I get why airplanes fly. I trust the pilots will safely carry us to any destination. I know their training. I know the aircraft. I trust the aircraft. We also studied weather. Sure weather over a span gets called climate, but that is not the argument. You do not have climate with no weather. So first know weather. Know the way it circulates the globe both West to east and also what causes weather to move up to poles and away from poles. Key to understanding all of this is the basis behind the science of weather. Were the alarmists correct, there would be zero scientists that studied weather that would fight against blaming man. Man is blamed not by all scientists, but by a particular collection of them. Think all NASA scientists blame humans for weather or climate? They do not. I repeat, not all scientists blame man. Think all NOA scientists are blaming man? The noisy ones blame man but there are many more that do not blame man. Why blame man? Man is the one thing that can be regulated. Man can have laws made to stop him. Man can be forced to obey Democrats in other words. Democrats are the grandfathers of the bulk of the laws you follow today. What about your militia laws? Came from Democrats. What about the vast bulk of your other laws? Most came from Democrats.
Do you know what AGW means and is subscribed to by the AAAS and literally, every accredited related institution in the world. You just made up a lot of BS and next, you’ll whine that you’ve bern insulted.
Exactly right. Science is not the problem Fake Science is the problem, and it has become a very big problem. Crooked Climate Science is just one example. "[A]fter confessing to spiking samples for an HIV vaccine experiment, Dong Pyou-Han—whose case we mentioned in last year’s retractions roundup—was sentenced to nearly five years in prison and ordered to pay back millions of dollars in grant funding. It’s not the only time we’ve seen felony counts for fraudsters, but the sentence makes it the most remarkable one. (He’s appealing the decision.)" THE SCIENTIST, The Top 10 Retractions of 2015, A look at this year’s most memorable retractions, By Retraction Watch | December 23, 2015. https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44895/title/The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2015/ More felony counts - less Fake Science.
Name an institution that uses fake science. Not an individual, as we know the idiot sevant Trump is a doubter, but an institution.
AAAS, has given awards for scientists who encourage other scientists to fudge their data. AAAS promotes Fake Science. "To do that (reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climactic change) we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This "double ethical bind" that we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." atmospheric scientist Stephen Schneider, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "Discover" magazine, Oct. 1989. In 1991 Schneider won the AAAS(American Association for the Advancement of Science) "Award for the Public Understanding of Science." Paul R. Gross, and Norman Levitt, "Higher Superstition," Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994, pp 167,168. Science has lost credibility because too many scientists have been caught lying about their data.
As I pointed out AAAS is pretty dirty. The problem is serious and it is just now being exposed. "Two years ago this month, news of the replication crisis reached the front page of the New York Times. “Psychology’s Fears Confirmed: Rechecked Studies Don’t Hold Up,” read the A1 headline on the morning of Aug. 28, 2015. The journal Science had just published a landmark effort to reproduce the findings of 100 recent peer-reviewed psychology experiments, and just 39 of those replications succeeded. This dispiriting result, the Times reported, “confirmed the worst fears of scientists who have long worried that the field needed a strong correction.” SLATE: SCIENCE, Is Science Broken? Or is it self-correcting? By Daniel Engber, Lisa Larson-Walker, AUG. 21 2017. http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...is_not_self_correcting_science_is_broken.html
Congratulations, because you believe science has lost all credibility, you’re officially a Republican Trump supporter. Well, we know you can copy and paste Faux tripe. So, where is the evidence that the AAAS is dirty ? Paul Manfort ? Are you the expert ?
Of course not. But that doesn't mean we can't still draw conclusion about what was happening in the past. And it certainly doesn't inhibit us from drawing conclusion about the climate today.
Exactly. The deniers think their ignorance is shared by everyone. In reality, they may have just dozed off for those five or six years they had science in school.
Well, the good part is, climate change, like gravity, doesn’t really care what you believe. You will face the consequences either way if you disregard either .
Your problem is trying to talk for others and think for them. Won't work bub. Asking me questions that you know very well i know the answer to scores no points to you either.
What you can't grasp is we believe Climate changes. I bet if you ask any of us if Climate is static, we all say hell no it is not static. It changes. We will even hand you for no added cost examples of climate changing. We do not deny climate changes. We will face what happens even if you believe some serious bad science or learn the hard way not all is doom as your side presents things.
None of the science taught in school had to do with climate. But where I got a huge dose of it was during flight training. Did you take flight training?
