Why do liberals have to make up climate change?

[bripat9643]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

If climate change isn't happening, then doing things to prevent it wont have any consequences.

If climate change is happening, and we do nothing, we're dead.

Exactly. The worst that could happen is we clean up the place. Oh the horror.

Spending $73 trillion is nothing?

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe the schemes of the AGW cult have no downside.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do liberals have to make up climate change?

Money....power.
If they were really worried about CO2, they'd support building 100 new nuke plants.

-- because when you're generating energy, there's just nothing like having a good waste product that's going to sit around and be lethal for a period longer than humans have existed. What could possibly go wrong....

There's tons of radioactive materials lying all around in nature, numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

If climate change isn't happening, then doing things to prevent it wont have any consequences.

If climate change is happening, and we do nothing, we're dead.

Exactly. The worst that could happen is we clean up the place. Oh the horror.

Our place gets cleaner all the time.
Get China and India to reduce their CO2, damage their economy, we'll wait.

It's funny how conservatives want us to stand still and force other countries to act, except when it comes to the middle east, where they have no problem sending our soldiers to die for no reason while the rest of the world does nothing.

I couldn't care less if other countries want to destroy their economies with this nonsense. AGW is a fraud.

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps if "scientists" would stop fudging data so they can continue to receive funds people would take this more serious.

In the interest of providing evidence that science keeps fudging data to receive grant monies, please post probative evidence that this is so. And, then explain who provides the millions of dollars necessary to bribe scientists to defraud the public.

Since you can't do so, I'll state with confidence that you are full of bullshit, and furthermore that Stephanie and Rabbi(t) ARE at risk of not being the dumbest partisanS to post on this message board.

The government provides it, numskull. It's called a "research grant."

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps if "scientists" would stop fudging data so they can continue to receive funds people would take this more serious.

Perhaps if the Kochs and Monsantos would stop funding Fox Noise to fudge data, people would take that seriously.

Unlike MSNBC, FOX makes a profit. It doesn't need "funding" from anyone.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Perhaps if "scientists" would stop fudging data so they can continue to receive funds people would take this more serious.

Perhaps if the Kochs and Monsantos would stop funding Fox Noise to fudge data, people would take that seriously.

Unlike MSNBC, FOX makes a profit. It doesn't need "funding" from anyone.

"It doesn't need funding from anyone"? So it broadcasts commercials freely? LOL, the more you post, the more I've come to believe you will soon be declared brain dead.

 

[Flash]

Global warming

Scientist first came up with a theory that because burning fossil fuels produces CO2 gasses then the CO2 will produce a greenhouse effect on earth raising temperatures.

That was a valid theory. They even looked at preliminary data that showed a rough correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and world wide temperatures and it showed a rise in both.

However, then is where the real science began to fall apart and the scam began.

Because the initial correlation showed rise in CO2 levels and temperature there was a lot of money put into research. The research mostly consisted of computer modeling.

The science was distorted in order to provide the computer models with the data to support the theory to continue with the funding sources.

For instance, the data that shows historically that CO2 levels lag temperature was ignored. The lag was both in the increase in temperature and the decrease sides.

Data showing that in the past the CO2 levels were ten times higher but yet the earth was much cooler and data showing that at times the CO2 levels were lower but yet the earth was warmer were mostly ignored in the computer models.

World wide temperature data was manipulated like we saw in Al Gore's hockey stick picture where data was cherry picked. When the scientist used all the data then the picture was different.

Assumptions were made about historical temperatures that were indefensible based upon the sparse data collected. “World wide temperature data” was based upon some very flimsy tree ring and ice samples in just a few locations and temperature measurements, mostly in the universities in Europe and North America, in the last couple of hundred years at best. Southern Hemisphere data was very sparse and large areas like Siberia and Asia were mostly ignored not to mention most of Africa and South America.

The empirical data about how CO2 really chemically reacts in the atmosphere were mostly ignored. CO2 does not react the same in real life that it does in the theoretical computer models. The chemistry in the atmosphere is much more complex than the computer models forecast.

Then there was the Climategate revelations that data was manipulated by the scientists in order to prove what could not be proven with real data. This really blew the whistle on the scam.

Then you have the fact that after 30 years of this theory there is no credible evidence that the climate on earth is getting warmer due to man made influence. In fact the climate has been relatively stable for the last 15 years despite counties like China putting out tremendous more amounts of CO2 gasses. There is very credible evidence that the earth may be moving back into another mini ice age like happens every few hundred years. The last one was in medieval times.

We also need to understand that the “normal” temperature of the earth has been warmer than now with little permanent ice on the planet. That is the way it has been for a substantial part of the existence of the earth. This age of ice that we are in now is only about 2.7 million years old. However, there were other times in the Cryogenian period and the Late Ordovician Period where we had “snowball earth”.

AGW is just bad science because it has become a political issue. It has nothing to do with real science and more to do with the redistribution of wealth from the industrialized countries to the Third World. That is the real root of the scam.

 

[Redfish]

the climate of planet earth is controlled by the sun, the tilt on its axis, and global ocean currents. Man has never had anything to do with it, and absent a global nuclear war, never will.

IF the climate is changing, and the data is not conclusive either way, there is nothing man can do to stop, change, or reverse it.
But liberals are free to drive tiny dangerous tin cans and wipe their asses on leaves.

this whole AGW cult is based on bullshit and lies.

 

[Pogo]

"Tiny dangerous tin cans"?

Isn't that revealing.

 

[Redfish]

"Tiny dangerous tin cans"?

Isn't that revealing.

what exactly would you call a Smart car?

 

[Pogo]

"Tiny dangerous tin cans"?

Isn't that revealing.

what exactly would you call a Smart car?

The first time I saw a SmartCar (before it was marketed here, made by Mercedes) it was parked on a street in the French Quarter. Sideways.

I'd say that's above all practical.
Although the gas mileage isn't what it should be for that size, but that's because of diesel restrictions. So in that sense, not as practical as it should be.

But "dangerous"? Hardly.

 

[Pogo]

the climate of planet earth is controlled by the sun, the tilt on its axis, and global ocean currents. Man has never had anything to do with it, and absent a global nuclear war, never will.

IF the climate is changing, and the data is not conclusive either way, there is nothing man can do to stop, change, or reverse it.
But liberals are free to drive tiny dangerous tin cans and wipe their asses on leaves.

this whole AGW cult is based on bullshit and lies.

But it's not at all arrogant to declare you know that...

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps if "scientists" would stop fudging data so they can continue to receive funds people would take this more serious.

Perhaps if the Kochs and Monsantos would stop funding Fox Noise to fudge data, people would take that seriously.

Unlike MSNBC, FOX makes a profit. It doesn't need "funding" from anyone.

"It doesn't need funding from anyone"? So it broadcasts commercials freely? LOL, the more you post, the more I've come to believe you will soon be declared brain dead.

Revenue isn't "funding," which implies a charitable contribution, you fucking moron.

 

[Misty]

This is why it's made up;

"Communists along with a few environmental groups staged a “People’s Climate Rally” in Oakland, California on Sunday, September 21, in conjunction with the larger “People’s Climate March” in New York City on the same day.

Wait — did I say communists? Isn’t that a bit of an exaggeration?
Well…no.

At the New York event, many people noticed that gee, there sure are a lot of communists at this march. But in Oakland — always on the cutting edge — the entire “climate change” movement at last fully, irrevocably and overtly embraced communism as its stated goal. Any concerns about “optics” or operating in “stealth mode” were abandoned.

The “climate change” “crisis” is now nothing but the latest justification for “total revolution” and getting rid of capitalism forever.



Read more: Climate Movement Drops Mask Admits Communist Agenda Zombie

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Perhaps if "scientists" would stop fudging data so they can continue to receive funds people would take this more serious.

Perhaps if the Kochs and Monsantos would stop funding Fox Noise to fudge data, people would take that seriously.

Unlike MSNBC, FOX makes a profit. It doesn't need "funding" from anyone.

"It doesn't need funding from anyone"? So it broadcasts commercials freely? LOL, the more you post, the more I've come to believe you will soon be declared brain dead.

Revenue isn't "funding," which implies a charitable contribution, you fucking moron.

Nice try. Have the doctors, or have they not, found you to be brain dead?

"DEFINITION of 'Revenue' The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income."

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps if "scientists" would stop fudging data so they can continue to receive funds people would take this more serious.

Perhaps if the Kochs and Monsantos would stop funding Fox Noise to fudge data, people would take that seriously.

Unlike MSNBC, FOX makes a profit. It doesn't need "funding" from anyone.

"It doesn't need funding from anyone"? So it broadcasts commercials freely? LOL, the more you post, the more I've come to believe you will soon be declared brain dead.

Revenue isn't "funding," which implies a charitable contribution, you fucking moron.

Nice try. Have the doctors, or have they not, found you to be brain dead?

"DEFINITION of 'Revenue' The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income."

It's not a "try," asshole. I understand what words mean, and apparently you don't.

How does that make "revenue" the same as "funding?" Revenue is obtained by selling a product or service. "Funding" is obtained from charity or from the government.

 

[Interpol]

The debate on climate change is closed. We need only to look at all the nations who've taken real measures to address a problem that we Americans told them to address. Man-made climate change is real. The best example of it is China. Their next economic boom is going to be the green/alternative technology industry. No one in China is barking at the moon calling their pollution problem a hoax. That's because it's plainly understood to be a real problem.

Deniers in America still exist, but their numbers are negligible. 70% of Americans say they are more apt to voting for a presidential candidate who would act on climate change, not deny it, and that includes 50% of Republican voters even.

The oil & gas lobby understands this, which is why they've done their best to muddy the waters by funding junk science in order to promote the false narrative that says there is a real debate among scientists, while there is none. The consensus among the scientific community across all developed nations is astounding.

A few remaining peons can pretend all they'd like, but the debate is closed. Man-made climate change is the reality of the world we live in.

 

[Mustang]

According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.

No, the vast majority of conservatives get no money out of it. Most conservatives deny it because solely because their political cult told them to do that. A few at the top are influenced by the vast sums of cash, and they hand out the orders to those below. Any conservative who doesn't obey gets banished from of the herd, so they all fall in line.

In contrast, the rational people -- a category that cuts across all political persuasions all across the world -- ignore the politics, and go with the facts and data. If the leaders of the Democratic Party suddenly denied global warming, it would have no influence on how the rational people see the science.

Being anti-science is a rite of passage for the GOP.

They have four ways to do this:

1) Believe that the world is less than five thousand years old, that cavemen rode dinosaurs, and deny the clear evidence all around us to the contrary.
2) Rage against stem cell research, and attack it, despite the potential to allow people to walk again, and all those lovely things that make people happy.
3) Attack abortion procedures throughout the county, so that we revert to the middle ages method of drowning babies in barrels or flooding orphanages with unwanted babies.
4) Attack climate change, global warming, or any scientific concept that might bring a halt to convential exploit the earth ideas favored by corporate GOP donors.

You can't be a GOP electoral candidate without doing/believing one of the four, so the GOP tends to scare off a lot of people.

When an intelligent person, regardless of his or her ideology, is faced with evidence that contradicts their sincerely held beliefs, at the very least they are inclined to question their assumptions. When an investigation of the evidence (by reputable sources, I should add) seriously challenges those beliefs, intelligent people change their views.

For whatever reason, modern day American conservatives don't (or won't) do that. All they ever seem to do is either latch on to specious arguments that allows them to maintain their beliefs, or slightly alter their arguments to enable them to continue to support the status quo. A good example of that is when they changed their argument that climate change wasn't happening at all to their modified claim that it was a natural process with no human causal factors. So, they simply choose to do nothing. As far as I'm concerned, it's like talking to someone who's unconcerned about the smell of smoke because he doesn't see any fire.

Here's where I have a serious problem with conservatives, and I'll use the analogy of fire to make the point. If you want to take the chance that YOUR house will burn to the ground, I can live with that. I can live with that as long as it doesn't threaten my own home. But if you live in a duplex, and you smell smoke, and you do nothing, and your inaction puts my home and my life and the lives of my family in jeopardy, you're irresponsible which is the antithesis of the conservative mantra of personal responsibility.

At this point, I would offer conservatives some friendly advice in the form of a hypothetical. Imagine how the people of the world will ultimately react if and when they discover that climate change has become inevitable and it was conservatives' arguments against taking any action because there was no real threat which caused so many countries to delay doing anything to meet the threat, and THAT'S what led to its inevitability. At that point, conservatives would be lucky if they weren't lynched in the streets in the aftermath of crop failures and extreme weather that would be decimating the heartland of America and leading to social unrest like we can't even imagine today.

 

[Wyld Kard]

The OP asks the question: Why do liberals have to make up climate change? They didn't. They're just the gullible and loyal dumbasses who bought into the lies, misinformation, and fraudulent science that AGW/CC is based on.

The corrupt, power-hungry globalists are the one's have invented the massive scam that is AGW/CC, to push a political agenda to introduce more taxation, more regulations, and more government control all in the name of "saving the planet".

 

[Wyld Kard]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

If climate change isn't happening, then doing things to prevent it wont have any consequences.

If climate change is happening, and we do nothing, we're dead.

doing things to prevent it

Like what "going green"?

If global destruction is on its way, do we really think we can prevent it by "going green"?

We're dead regardless.