- Thread starter
- #21
OR...maybe the reality is it's happening...does THAT ever cross your mind?
The question in my mind is, "WHAT is it that's happening?" According to the experts, there was a decline of ice. They showed pictures, they said it indicated warming and that CO2 emitted by activities of man is to blame. That the CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of warming.
When they hold up an example one year, call it proof and recomend a course of action, why is it heresy to re-examine that "proof" as time goes on? The Ice Extent, which they said was decreasing and was therefore a proof of warming caused by CO2 emitted by the activities of man as the PRIMARY cause would continue to decrease if we did not stop the emissions.
We did not stop the CO2 emissions. In truth, we increased the CO2 emissions. The ice extent decrease stopped anyway. I have made a living seeing the obvious when the "experts" are telling me that up is down and left is right and light is dark. I have a healthy suspiscion of anyone who tells me to trust them in spite of what I can SEE to be true.
The prediction is that ice extent will decrease. Ice extent has increased. The prediction was wrong. This is not an isolated case of the prediction being wrong.
If all predictions were right, I would be less skeptical of their expertise. As it is, I remain a skeptic, no a denier, a skeptic.
My question for you is why skepticism does not seem to be in your wheelhouse at all.
Isn't the complete lack of accuracy in the predictions of the Warmers cause for you to have even the slightest doubt of their knowledge on this topic? It seems like it should. If anyone else continuously makes wrong predictions, their credibility eventually suffers.
Why not this group?
I am a skeptic, but I don't believe the scientists have an ulterior motive...
YOU are the one that said: "Maybe the reality of the funding"
When you do even a little bit of research into deniers it always leads back to funding by the very corporations that have billions at stake if we turn away from fossil fuels...WHY are you not skeptical of the reality of THAT funding?
While that is the ongoing drumbeat of the warmers, that sourcing is harder to find than you might think. Care to show links from the recent past that expose these frauds for what they are? Let's limit this to 2005 and following. What you need to show is the expenditures, not a referance in an article with that date that sites something from the 80's.
Government funding, on the other hand, is easily found and is supporting funding that would raise taxes to continue research and justify draconian limitations on activities and justify huge transfers of wealth to UN developing nations.
NASA, NOAA and Had Crut are 3 right off the top of my head.