Earth is safe from 'global warming'

[IDL]

In the meantime, do you think that the people, through their elected officials, should try to prevent environmental calamity using the levers of gov't?

Also, how do you square your belief that politicians are not powerful with your identification of power with the gov't, as opposed to big money?

The way I look at it is that people will be asking their government to change the tire because it's out of gas.

People should do what they believe in, but people should also have the truth made available to them.

Big money uses government power structures to play out their agenda. Legally politicians may have power but realistically they are on a tight leash, or are loyal to other entities. They wouldn't acquire those positions if they weren't.

Countries are more like child corporations that people think are independent, but what we don't see is the parent company and it's investors.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

why do climate change skeptics rarely cite climatologists? nasa engineers....smart men/women. not climatologists. not performing research. the research is all that matters. would you let a geologist perform an appendectomy on you?

insert claims of bias/corruption within climate research here:

a massive PR campaign comes from both sides. the most powerful companies on earth dont want you to become a proponent of climate change, as you may be aware.

 

[m249viking]

why do climate change skeptics rarely cite climatologists? nasa engineers....smart men/women. not climatologists. not performing research. the research is all that matters. would you let a geologist perform an appendectomy on you?

insert claims of bias/corruption within climate research here:

a massive PR campaign comes from both sides. the most powerful companies on earth dont want you to become a proponent of climate change, as you may be aware.

Because many of the scientists and all of places like bass depend on government money. If they put out info the government doesn't want....the money gets cut off. So everyone was all "global warming" then when that was exposed as a hoax it became "climate change". The same experts that backed global warming now back climate change even if it contradicts their previous "findings". The beauty of climate change is now every and all weather is proof it's true....No matter how normal. Lol. It's all a bs hoax being used to push a political agenda.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Because many of the scientists and all of places like bass depend on government money. If they put out info the government doesn't want....the money gets cut off. So everyone was all "global warming" then when that was exposed as a hoax it became "climate change". The same experts that backed global warming now back climate change even if it contradicts their previous "findings". The beauty of climate change is now every and all weather is proof it's true....No matter how normal. Lol. It's all a bs hoax being used to push a political agenda.

do you also believe that scientists used to think "global cooling" was about to take place in the 70's?

its not as easy to "find what you want" in your research as most people often believe. even when a hoax is found, it is the scientific peer review system that finds it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

why do climate change skeptics rarely cite climatologists? nasa engineers....smart men/women. not climatologists. not performing research. the research is all that matters. would you let a geologist perform an appendectomy on you?

insert claims of bias/corruption within climate research here:

a massive PR campaign comes from both sides. the most powerful companies on earth dont want you to become a proponent of climate change, as you may be aware.

Who cares what scientists think? They're all biased. The important thing to people like IDL is what oil companies want us to believe, because they just have the best interests of humanity at heart.

 

[PhitePhan]

...a massive PR campaign comes from both sides.

Agreed.

 

[IDL]

Who cares what scientists think? They're all biased. The important thing to people like IDL is what oil companies want us to believe, because they just have the best interests of humanity at heart.

By that same logic, you are supporting a one world government.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

IDL is interested in "seeking the truth."

So while he sits and waits for the truth to appear, the planet might burn, hundreds of millions more people might die. And sure, large-scale, global efforts might prevent this from happening but that'd be advocating for a one-world government. So, it's obvious which is the sensible option.

As bizarre as IDL's line of thinking is, it's in the vast minority. A few loons in the US and Canada and that's it. Most people in the world have more of an inclination to live in the real world and act on real things instead of living in abstract space, speaking in hypotheticals and not actually acting out.

In other words, we're wasting our e-time.

 

[IDL]

I don't sit and wait I seek it out. The truth is not delivered at your door.

Never stop asking questions and see where it takes you.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

I don't sit and wait I seek it out. The truth is not delivered at your door.

Never stop asking questions and see where it takes you.

 

[Quipling]

Because many of the scientists and all of places like bass depend on government money. If they put out info the government doesn't want....the money gets cut off. So everyone was all "global warming" then when that was exposed as a hoax it became "climate change". The same experts that backed global warming now back climate change even if it contradicts their previous "findings". The beauty of climate change is now every and all weather is proof it's true....No matter how normal. Lol. It's all a bs hoax being used to push a political agenda.

lol ok.

Do you know how much grant money you could get by producing even one good anti-climate change paper? Government is a major source of granting, but not the only one, and they really don't get to dictate the results to the degree that you think, or you'd see a whole lot studies on how paying taxes makes your dick bigger. Many grants are considered on their own merits.

What's really absurd about this whole argument is that the republican party used to be pro-environmental stewardship. A huge amount of pro-environment legislation and policy - including on climate change - came out through the republican party. The de-regulation lobby in the GOP quashed that, culminating with Bush/Cheney- but even Bush had climate change as part of his platform in 1992. The science didn't suddenly change - the politics did.

 

[PhitePhan]

its not as easy to "find what you want" in your research as most people often believe. even when a hoax is found, it is the scientific peer review system that finds it.

Actually, a researcher who has little/no oversight can find whatever they want.

A researcher seeking funding may actually be pressured to find the "right" results.

Contrary to your assertion that peer review catches these types of issues, it is mainly when other research is conducted trying to replicate findings that previous research is found to be erroneous. Ultimately, I believe that most research errors are not a result of conscious deception, but rather have to do with natural human error and tendencies.

For example:

 

[IDL]

haha, people think it's silly but it is very true. The truth IS out there

The internet is not censored yet. All the information is there for the seeking, if you dare to peek behind the curtain.