We're not capable of cleaning up our messes because we don't have some bureaucrats in Paris telling us how to do it don't you know?
Al Gore admits that Paris would not have solved "the problem."
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
We're not capable of cleaning up our messes because we don't have some bureaucrats in Paris telling us how to do it don't you know?
Billions and Billions of American dollars paid into a global slush fund that after more than 8 decades (nearly 100 years) only allegedly reduces global temperatures less than .2 degrees. That's not even a full degree in nearly 100 years and hundreds of billions of dollars.
I sell automobiles. If I offered the crappiest deal I could imagine to my customers I couldn't make one as bad as THAT Turkey!
Again you cite studies and authors you like while discarding those you don't like. Cafeteria-style.
You do the same. The point is, different scientists have different opinions. Different researchers find different results. Science is all about skepticism. Man made global warming is becoming a religion, not science. The science is not settled. The 97% figure is bogus and has been thoroughly debunked. Climate science is relatively new and we have lots to learn.
Great point. Even after all that money and damage to the U.S. economy and jobs, the sea levels will still rise.
You conveniently ignore the fact that the current scientific consensus is against you and has been for awhile now.
I think I'm mostly accurate making a statement that the vast majority of Scientists don't believe the Earth was "created", yet not a one of them can detail with any specificity exactly how it got here and manages to remain constant in its perfect biorhythms and precision designed path rotating around the Sun like clockwork. Intricately timed perfection out of nothing which they can all observe yet only speculate on as to it's origins or preciseness in both design and execution.
And we're going to "change" the climate around it when we can't even figure out how to keep the Earth from turning on its axis?
They don't have a clue about anything except what they still don't know.
I can show you a petition of over 1,000 scientists that disagree. The science is NOT SETTLED. Again, the 97% figure is completely bogus. BTW, A consensus on what? That our planet has warmed? We all know that is true. Do they all agree on what percentage of our very modest warming is due to man? What is the % that all these scientists agree on?
At one time, I think most "scientists" thought we were entering another ice age in the early 1980's. Were they right or wrong? At one time scientists thought the earth was about 50 times younger than current scientists believe. Scientists got DNA wrong in the beginning. Scientists once thought the universe was in a "steady state" which we now know is not true. I could go on and on about the massive mistakes made by scientists.
This post is bad even by your standards. You have the Internet at your disposal. If you're truly interested in what scientists think on such matters you can look it up.
The first part of your post tells how many scientists agree with you and the second part tells how useless the opinions of scientists are. Okay.
The current scientific consensus is against you. Scientists, being human, can be wrong, but the current scientific consensus is against you.
You did not even address my question. Consensus on what? That the planet has warmed? We all agree with that.
I ask you to tell me the consensus. If you mean consensus that warming is man-made, then what percentage is man-made? 25%? 50%? 100%? What is the consensus regarding these percentages of the scientist that you speak of?
And are these the same scientists that produced the climate warming models that have all been wrong?
I don't know a lot about what scientists think about how the Earth got here but I know there are theories about how planets form. Why don't you look it up? You have Google. Think of a question you want answered and type it into Google and read. I get the impression you think that they're completely throwing darts in the dark on this. They're not, even though it happened 4.5 BILLION years ago.
You're dissing people because they can't explain precisely how Earth formed 4.5 BILLION years ago. Can you explain how the computer monitor works that you're looking at right now?
So you're saying the planet has warmed? Show me your evidence. Remember, you can't use evidence that normal science says because you don't believe that stuff.
I don't know what percentage they think is man-made. Why are you asking me? They're the scientific community that investigates and discusses such things, not me (or you).
You keep discussing this with me instead of the folks generating the scientific consensus. Very telling.
No I'm not, I'm stating that as a fact about Scientists. I love their inquiry & discovery, in fact I'm fascinated by it. But they can no more explain how the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago than they can explain what generates the forces that regulate gravity on it.
How does one regulate it? How do you "turn it off"? Where is it's source? Where does it come from? How? They have only questions, but very few hard concrete answers.
This is why I'm so skeptical of their assurances that Men are causing our climate to "change". We can't even stop the wind from blowing, or the Sun from rising up over the horizon. Those two common everyday occurrences have more to do with our climate "changing" than than anything Humans are doing on any given day Op2!
They (Scientists) don't know where ANY of it comes from. They don't even know if the Earth really formed 4.5 billlion years ago because there is no common reference point that is year Zero! It's their best guess based on what they currently can observe in a specific time reference based on their current ability to measure time backwards.
You think Google has all the answers and I'll agree it's a marvelous research tool, but all Google allows you to understand is how much more you or anyone else really doesn't know.
How about a sensible plan where we incentivize private R&D until it's a cost-effective product, and continue to allow the market to dictate what works?
I'd think this would work better in the long run than pushing products that aren't market ready, and gifting our wealth to third world countries.
You know there are many, many studies in the field over the last 30-20 years, and not one of those studies do not note massive changes to the environment over that time. Studies, by credible scientists, that measure the health of coral reefs, the breeding patterns of humpback whales, the size and health of polar bears, the growth or retreat of glaciers, etc, etc... Climate change is not as abstract of a happening as many think. The picture has been rendered from an enormous amount of work by dedicated people in the field. Not simply from climate models.
Im not someone who thinks I know more than I do. This is a plan that requires the best minds in government (yes it is a process that requires knowledge), business, and science to come together and commit to a solution. I have faith that technology is moving where we need it to be. But that movement needs to be expedited, imo. And developing nations with large populations will need help in this expedited process. IMO, we are in dire need of a substantial reversal. The market doesn't always fix everything.
boom all these "climate change" alarmists offer as a solution is a different way to organize how money is spent. They're not telling us what steps we take and when temperatures start going down, or why what's been tried to date isn't working? Their predictive models are always wrong.
Why is that?
Last edited:
I see you've been reading Answers In Genesis again.
We can't stop the wind from blowing or the Sun from rising. Wow, how lame we are that we can't do
those things. Stopping the Sun from rising is so easy. You'd think we'd have figured that out by now.
What the hell is "no common reference that is year zero" mean as far as the age of the Earth goes? Nothing. Babble.
You have no idea what scientists believe or why they believe because you let religion not only run your spiritual life but you also let it determine what you think is true about the natural world.
And that, plus unmitigated immigration and globalism deserves us sacrificing our entire kids' future? When they can't even predict 10 years out effectively?
Boom, if it does NO GOOD. If It DOESN"T WORK. If it a giant WASTE OF MONEY. If it is ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY anyway and you're relying on the Chinese and Indians to live up to their word, yes scrap it.
Have you ever, every been in business. When something is not going to achieve your goals, you don't throw money on it saying at least we are doing something. That is the classic definition of insanity.
No the classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. Have you ever negotiated a global accord including 195 nations? I imagine it isn't as simple as one would expect.
Op, let me give you an example of atheist scientists. Scientists first came up with the static universe theory. Then we found the universe continue to expand and we came up with the Big Bang theory. The problem, however, are several fold. We have a magnetic Monopole problem.
The universe should not be flat given the Big Bang. It is flat, not curved. We should be able to see the Big Bang or at least its beginnings, but the further we look back, nothing. The galaxy is not uniform, big problem for Big Bang. We must have dark matter and dark energy for the universe to exist. We can't find any. There are many more.
The biggest problem is that the universe is so delicately balanced, that a single explosion could not possibly have created this kind of balance. The mathematical odds make it all but impossible. Thus atheist scientists had to come up with another theory to combat this. Thus the multi-universes theory that holds that universes are being created all the time (like water boiling in a pot creating bubbles and the bubbles represent universes). No proof whatsoever, but they are going with it. Why? Because they can''t bring themselves to acknowledge a designer. So they make up theories to account for things the Big Bang does not account for.
Boom, what part of the fact that the Accord does almost nothing to address the "problem." If it is ineffective and negative toward the U.S. economy and our workers, and it is voluntary, why stay in? It makes ZERO sense. And yes, this is the definition of insanity.
I have read your definition which comes from Einstein, I believe. But this is just as insane.
Mixing scientific theory with religious components is a failure in recognizing the essence of scientific theory. You're asserting that the components of the Big Bang are measurable, have been measured, analyzed and found to be false?
Great, go tell them that in the journals and then they'll all know the truth. Oops, I forgot, they're incapable of being enlightened because they're evil atheists.
BTW, the scientist that came up with the idea that the Universe was expanding was also a Catholic priest. And when the Big Bang was first proposed the Catholic Church (and probably some other religious groups too) took it as proof of the Genesis account of the creation of the Universe.
Some scientists are atheists and some aren't but it doesn't matter except to people like you. "Acknowledging a designer" is outside the purview of science. If you acknowledge a designer then whatever it is you're doing, it isn't science.
I'm sure one could look up details about what you wrote but since you could have easily done it but didn't what's the point of me doing it?