Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

Who pays them? I can understand corporations / individuals paying for something that effects their daily lives, like short term weather predictions etc. but who has financial interests in long term climate activities? Political interests of course. But who else? They can have several other interests. Like the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" that life in the U.S. has largely been about for 244 years. The standard of living we now have, the challenge of competition with other companies to do things slightly better and more efficiently. There's a difference between "attacking" and questioning. When "pollution" is claimed to be happening even though normal human senses can't detect it, only complex instruments of a faction can detect it, then those claims deserve to be questioned. (in a free society) Because it's a politically charged subject. It's only pushed by ONE political party in the U.S. If that party didn't politically charge it, the way it's discussed would be totally different. There's just too much obvious phoniness in the claims, predictions, and solutions that are proposed for it. Too much information is omitted, such as how the climate was actually warmer 1000 years ago. It's omitted, because it doesn't produce the desired political result that ONE political party seeks.

No. It's measurements are well within the limits of actual science. Not at all. I have a problem with the ABRUPT extension into politics, which says that an increase in the size and scope of government can fix it. That people are, and have been TOO FREE. That total socialism / communism can perfectly reverse it.

It depends on how "pollution" is determined. It shouldn't be imaginary pollution, the kind that can be pushed by a faction for political gain. I've heard the same thing about deadwood. I've heard that if allowed to decay on its own over long periods of time, it gives off exactly the same amount of heat as it does when burned quickly by humans for warmth. Yet when looking at countless websites advocating the government banning of wood burning stoves, I never see any of them trying to distinguish between cutting and burning live, green wood versus burning dead wood. It almost seems like there's more interest in BANNING, than there is in any concern for the actual science.

And then we can do the history. We can look at past governments that increased their own power and money because they thought their people were too free. And then see how much better that society became.

quote:

---

I've heard the same thing about deadwood. I've heard that if allowed to decay on its own over long periods of time, it gives off exactly the same amount of heat as it does when burned quickly by humans for warmth. Yet when looking at countless websites advocating the government banning of wood burning stoves, I never see any of them trying to distinguish between cutting and burning live, green wood versus burning dead wood. It almost seems like there's more interest in BANNING, than there is in any concern for the actual science

---

It’s pretty clear that you are only interested in objecting to the ban and not at all in the science. The heat is not the issue, it’s the particulates in the wood smoke.

I knew your opinion of him wasn't much, that's not the reason I referenced him. He's more widely listened to than any other radio talk show host, and in listening to him you'd get to hear what his callers have to say. You'd be amazed at how much knowledge he, and his listeners have of history and human nature. Uh oh, then you used a poor choice of words. REVISING OUR CULTURE doesn't go along with "letting people decide". It's about a government doing the revising. This is what I was referring to above, concerning suspicions in how climate change is discussed among the climate change alarmists. That elite humans in government can adjust the levels of the oceans is not a fact. If only someone from the future could have visited Adolph Hitler or Josef Stalin. "Poor you, you were born 80 years too early. If you were a tyrant today like you used to be, did you know that a large percentage of the population could be convinced that you could control the climate? Think of what a gold mine that could have been for you!!!! And Hitler would have said, "oh come on, people are gullible, but they couldn't possibly be that gullible!" He couldn't have comprehended what today's communications, combined with a bent press and a bent scientific community could produce. I have lost in a few ways. We now have a full blown communist closer than ever before to one party's nomination for president. But there's other ways I could lose too, we could have a virus 10 times worse than the Coronavirus be brought here from Mexico from illegal immigrants, long before any of us burst into flames from global warming. There are a lot of things I could lose from that are far more pressing, and far more possible for humans to counteract than climate change. But I'm winning too in some ways. Democrats don't have much political power on their horizon.

Most grants are from the government, such as the National Science Foundation, EPA, NOAA, and so forth. These agencies are interested in knowing what the climate is doing, be it warming or cooling. They have no financial or political interest in the answer, only the accuracy of the answer. There is a difference between questioning and cover ups. No, it isn't. It is a factual subject. The direction the climate is taking and what is causing it are questions of science and fact, not politics. If the other political party didn't try to cover up and ignore the facts then it wouldn't be politically charged. Since when did following the evidence become a partisan issue?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

People in Denmark and Sweden seem pretty happy.

The greenhouse effect isn't made up. It's been a part of science for 150 years. Svante Arrhenius did the first calculations for the impact of carbon dioxide on global temps clear back in the 1890's. This is driven by science, not political gain. Wood burning bans in my area kick in based on air quality, especially during winter inversions. I think you are getting your wires crossed.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That's a flat out lie. You are trying to spread doubt about the existence of human caused climate change. People in the deeply socialist countries of Denmark and Sweden are some of the freest people on the planet.

Until you can smoke a joint and fuck a whore in front of a cop in the USA, Holland should be called the land of the free.

Quite likely he doesn't see the difference. It's a classic Appeal to Consequences.
"I don't like the government regulating stuff (except, maybe, which bathrooms people are forced to use). Therefore, anything that might require government action cannot possibly be true."The problem is that contemporary US conservatives are now so driven by emotion and so committed to thinking that policy can be based on hope and belief rather than reality that I doubt they can recognize this is a fallacy.

Portugal seems to have figured out the solution. At least with drugs. Prostitution is still not legal.DomainMarket.com - 404

This is personified by their leader who decides that something is the greatest, finest, most everist . . . all based on just his emotions at the time, facts be damned. Why is global warming a Chinese hoax? Because Trump feels like it is, facts be damned.It almost makes you wonder how far conservatives would go. We should start making a big deal of how liberals believe the Earth is round. I wouldn't be stunned if flat earthism became a plank in the Republican platform followed by conservative posters on interweb forums proclaiming that round earthism is just a liberal conspiracy meant to take their guns away.

All taxpayer money. They don't have a financial interest in receiving those grants? Yes, the direction it's taking and what is causing it are science and fact. But that's only a very small part of the discussion, the biggest part of the discussion is the uneven placing of the blame on only some humans, and what a few humans in government can do about it. That's all politics, and the proof is how stark the political divide is on it. As I pointed out earlier, the population of the earth has gone from 1 billion to 8 billion in only a little over 200 years. It only makes sense that fossil fuel use has gone up significantly because the human race in general had found that fossil fuels have done the most efficient job of keeping that many new people fed and clothed. So why all the finger pointing by climate change alarmists? Why is the phrase "how dare you" the thing that causes climate change alarmists to idolize a foreign child? There's no evidence that it's some humans fault more than others, and there's no evidence that ANYTHING humans can do will reverse it one iota.