Climate change ?? Really?

[Greenhorn]

Sad day when they fall for all the BS.

[JBen]

Fast forward a thousand years or so, when things start to cool once again. I'm sure our descendants will be taxed for not doing enough to warm the planet

/wonders how all the intellectuals would have managed to tax the ice into submission and prevent it?
When the Dr Suzukis, Ms Wynnes, JTs can answer how they would have forestalled the ice age.........

[rick_iles]

Yup, just another tax grab ! Anyone thinking otherwise is delusional. Alberta's scheme will add 7 cents per litre of gas, oh goodie! Just what we need to save the planet.

[skypilot]

Gotta be about taxes, the alternative is pathetic. You know, that the long but distinguished list of people are simple dumbazzes or can be so totally fooled by mickey mouse science or actually Goofy science. Pun intended.

[kickingfrog]

Why are so many Americans skeptical about climate change? A study offers a surprising answer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...3756&tid=ss_tw


It's one thing for big oil to spoon feed junk, it is another for people who enjoy the outdoors so much to eat it... with relish.

[trimmer21]

Why are so many Americans skeptical about climate change? A study offers a surprising answer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...3756&tid=ss_tw


It's one thing for big oil to spoon feed junk, it is another for people who enjoy the outdoors so much to eat it... with relish.

Essentially,this article cites corporate funding as being responsible for an anti-AGW/climate change sentiment. It makes no mention of funding provided by academia for PRO-AGW/climate change,does it? Of course not because there's thousands of academics and universities making billions of dollars from this scam. Without doubt,they've managed to reveal many ecological disasters and outright negligence by big industry that were quite content to keep up their nonsense to protect profits and it's a sure slam-dunk that it would still be happening if someone hadn't the juice to take them on and ultimately drag them into court and win. All I'm saying is that we must balance the rhetoric,examine motives and biases and take it all with a grain of salt.

[Rugger]

One of the things that irritates me about this discussion is that we mix politics/ policy (ie. carbon linked revenue tools) with the SCIENTIFIC discussion of whether ANTHROPOMORPHIC climate change is fact or fiction. In the ensuing chorus of "Everything Liberal is STUPID" we lose track of the scientific discussion; lets concentrate on that.

Let's talk about the science.

I'm not going to do any spoon feeding; so someone else find the info so that it is not tainted by my bias.

Find the following info:
1. What was the makeup of the earth's VERY early atmosphere?
-What was it like? (temp, livability...)

(spoiler alert)
2. Where did all the carbon go?

3. What is the carbon cycle?

4. What is the relationship between fossil fuels and the carbon cycle?

5. Does the burning of fossil fuels upset the relationship seen in question 4.?

[Rugger]

Sorry, just realized that this is in the politics forum . My bad, carry on with the bashing

[skypilot]

The minute any government is involved, and revenue realized all neutrality is lost.

There has been way more temperature(greenhouse) in the past than now.
Big governments needs tax food to survive and will create problems in order to tax it.

"Science" has been repeatedly caught in lies along with well known "leaders" and there life style. From suzuki and the Santa. polar bear fiasco and gore's waistful energy on his estate, boat and jet trips to odumbo keeping the oval office set at 86 deg F(30C). However he wants me to check my auto tires for proper inflation....I can't post my response to that idiot.

Not to mention that royal dufas wingnut headed charles and the good air he breathes

[Rugger]

That's the spirit!