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

Scientists are paid to study climate no matter if it is warming or cooling.

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?

Companies are special interests. They are interested in profit.

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.

If they are polluting and policies meant to stop polluting are getting in the way of profit, then they attack the people pushing those policies.

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)

Why do you make this into a politically charged question?

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.

Do you think the greenhouse effect is beyond the limits of science? What about the absorbance spectra of carbon dioxide?

No. It's measurements are well within the limits of actual science.

To me, it looks like carbon dioxide has an absorbance peak within the Earth's emission spectra. Do you agree? Do you have any problem with this 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.

That principle never incorporated the right to hurt other people through pollution.

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.

The CO2 in our breath comes from the carbohydrates we ingest. Those carbohydrates were produced in plants by capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. It's a closed loop. No matter how many people were exhaling, it couldn't increase CO2 levels in our atmosphere.

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.

We are putting way more than enough CO2 into the air to account for the increase. It's a matter of just doing the math.

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.

Rush Limbaugh for instance. In my opinion anyone listening to his garbage opinions is a gullible minion. And yes that includes a lot of Americans. He's not a scientist, he's a hate filled conspiracy monger. He knows nothing about climate change. The way he discusses women is revolting.

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.

marc9000 writes: "Revise our culture", that means that humans have been TOO FREE in their choices to use fossil fuels for the past several hundred years, that fossil fuel use needs to be policed. All we need is perfect people to do that policing. Who are the perfect people? No it means using education and letting an educated population decide.

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.

Coastal flooding is a fact. The ocean level is already higher on average than at any time in human history.

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.

Sorry you lose, reality wins. Let's just hope it's in time to save the human race from themselves.

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.

marc9000 writes: Who pays them?

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's a difference between "attacking" and questioning.

There is a difference between questioning and cover ups.

Because it's a politically charged subject.

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.

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.

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.

marc9000 writes: 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.

People in Denmark and Sweden seem pretty happy.

marc9000 writes: 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.

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.

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.

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.

marc9000 writes: 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's a flat out lie. You are trying to spread doubt about the existence of human caused climate change.

That people are, and have been TOO FREE. That total socialism / communism can perfectly reverse it.

People in the deeply socialist countries of Denmark and Sweden are some of the freest people on the planet.

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.

That's a flat out lie. You are trying to spread doubt about the existence of human caused climate change.

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.

Debunking: "Drug Decriminalization In Portugal Is A Failure!" — A Skeptical Human | Anton Dybal

Chiroptera writes: 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.

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.

Most grants are from the government, such as the National Science Foundation, EPA, NOAA, and so forth.

All taxpayer money.

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.

They don't have a financial interest in receiving those grants?

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.

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?

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?

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.