Climate Change Deniers among our Elected Representatives

[skookerasbil]

You act like they spent billions on a charity. They did spend 866 million dollars attempting to convince the public that AGW was wrong, that a major debate still brewed on the topic within the ranks of climate scientists and that those of us concerned with global warming were actually liberals and socialists trying to destroy the global economy.

Where do you see they spent billions on green energy that wasn't just a freaking investment? It looks to me as if they can see which way the wind is blowing.

Holy ****...…...this guy really does think that people interested in green energy are doing it because of the environment!

Renewable Energy Stumbles Toward the Future

I really do think there are progressives why really do walk around early in the morning hoping to get a glimpse of a unicorn! What we do know is they definitely were daydreaming about something like that during economics and business classes.

s0n...….people invest in green energy for a profit. As the Times article says, its like navigating in a mine field...…..in other words, there is a vast amount of uncertainty, unlike fossil fuels btw. For example.....BP invested just 1% last year in renewable energy. Only you think its because they are against clean energy!!. Epic levels of duh.

 

[Flopper]

You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.

Bwhahahahahaha!!!

What YOU are showing is strong evidence of a POLITICAL behavior, since consensus and authority doesn't advance science research at all, it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters.

Meanwhile you and another warmists are ignoring the utter failures of the IPPC prediction/projection that have been made since day one in 1990.

SSDD is correct there have been HUNDREDS of new science papers THIS YEAR, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture. Many hundreds last year and the year before that means that over 2,000 papers have been published against the AGW conjecture, in the last few years.

Consensus doesn't publish papers, that is why your argument is dead on arrival.

Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.

So you see, acceptance of new ideas and theories is always about getting a consensus, yet no theory is every written in stone. It will always be a theory subject to change.

Bullcrap.

The entire community has made it toxic to not agree.

By consensus, I mean consensus of peers in academies of science, scientific societies, and research groups. Methods and conclusions have to be defended with solid scientific evidence.

What strong evidence ?

They've not produced a pre or post predictive model that is worth crap.

I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect an accurate prediction of the climate 20 or 30 years from now when they can't predict with any great accuracy next weekend.

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist so there's not much data to construct a model since the only thing we have are ice cores samples and geological subsidies. Scientists can tell us what will happen if current trends continue but they can't tell us with any accuracy when it will occur. Once it really get's started, Scientist will able to give us a better picture of not only the changes that will occur but also a time line.

It would be great if nations of the planet would begin reducing CO2 in the atmosphere but I don't see any major effort until, it's crystal clear that we are in the greatest disaster man has ever faced.

 

[Flopper]

It never fails to astound me that deniers completely ignore the possibility that fossil fuel industries who have billions and billions of dollars at stake might be pushing a few false memes but have no apparent difficulty accepting the absurdity of tens of thousands of scientists in a massive conspiracy for decades without the slightest hint of evidence.

The year is not 2003, it has already been established

1. that fossil fuel has spent billions of dollars since the 1970s on green energy

2. They admitted man has some effect by burning fossil fuels and deforestation

3. Green peace buget alone is like 40 million dollars, fossil fuel company's are dwarfed compared to what activist and governments spend.

So stop the nonsense.


.

Big Oil spent 1 percent on green energy in 2018 | Reuters
And 99% on fossil fuel

Why are you changing the goal posts and why dont you post the rest of the story, or are you affraid to say that Fossil fuel after the billions of dollars they spent on green energy since the 1970's found out they can not make any money on it?

.

I have no idea whether giant oil companies can make a profit out of green energy. Considering what they have invested in the fossil fuel industry, you can bet they certainly aren't going to change unless they have to.

 

[Crick]

They may be greedy, lying crooks, but they're smart, greedy, lying, crooks. They know that eventually their PR scheme will fail and that petroleum is going to become non grata. They will tell us they were pushing green all along.

 

[Crick]

Federal judge overrules Trump order, restores Obama-era drilling ban in Arctic

Trump, the Denier-in-Chief, gets his hat handed to him as he tries and fails to revoke Obama environmental policy. Yee Haw.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Federal judge overrules Trump order, restores Obama-era drilling ban in Arctic

Trump, the Denier-in-Chief, gets his hat handed to him as he tries and fails to revoke Obama environmental policy. Yee Haw.

That's okay.....a couple more conservatives on the Supreme Court and we'll be drilling in ANWR.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Bwhahahahahaha!!!

What YOU are showing is strong evidence of a POLITICAL behavior, since consensus and authority doesn't advance science research at all, it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters.

Meanwhile you and another warmists are ignoring the utter failures of the IPPC prediction/projection that have been made since day one in 1990.

SSDD is correct there have been HUNDREDS of new science papers THIS YEAR, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture. Many hundreds last year and the year before that means that over 2,000 papers have been published against the AGW conjecture, in the last few years.

Consensus doesn't publish papers, that is why your argument is dead on arrival.

Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.

So you see, acceptance of new ideas and theories is always about getting a consensus, yet no theory is every written in stone. It will always be a theory subject to change.

Bullcrap.

The entire community has made it toxic to not agree.

By consensus, I mean consensus of peers in academies of science, scientific societies, and research groups. Methods and conclusions have to be defended with solid scientific evidence.

What strong evidence ?

They've not produced a pre or post predictive model that is worth crap.

I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect an accurate prediction of the climate 20 or 30 years from now when they can't predict with any great accuracy next weekend.

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist so there's not much data to construct a model since the only thing we have are ice cores samples and geological subsidies. Scientists can tell us what will happen if current trends continue but they can't tell us with any accuracy when it will occur. Once it really get's started, Scientist will able to give us a better picture of not only the changes that will occur but also a time line.

It would be great if nations of the planet would begin reducing CO2 in the atmosphere but I don't see any major effort until, it's crystal clear that we are in the greatest disaster man has ever faced.

You just made NO ARGUMENT whatsoever for reducing CO2 emissions.

Good job.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It never fails to astound me that deniers completely ignore the possibility that fossil fuel industries who have billions and billions of dollars at stake might be pushing a few false memes but have no apparent difficulty accepting the absurdity of tens of thousands of scientists in a massive conspiracy for decades without the slightest hint of evidence.

The year is not 2003, it has already been established

1. that fossil fuel has spent billions of dollars since the 1970s on green energy

2. They admitted man has some effect by burning fossil fuels and deforestation

3. Green peace buget alone is like 40 million dollars, fossil fuel company's are dwarfed compared to what activist and governments spend.

So stop the nonsense.


.

Big Oil spent 1 percent on green energy in 2018 | Reuters
And 99% on fossil fuel

Why are you changing the goal posts and why dont you post the rest of the story, or are you affraid to say that Fossil fuel after the billions of dollars they spent on green energy since the 1970's found out they can not make any money on it?

.

I have no idea whether giant oil companies can make a profit out of green energy. Considering what they have invested in the fossil fuel industry, you can bet they certainly aren't going to change unless they have to.

Please provide the data that shows green energy can sustain our current consumption of energy.

 

[Crick]

Study: wind and solar can power most of the United States | John Abraham

 

[SSDD]

That's not quite right. The greenhouse effect was first observed in 1827 and expanded on by many scientist. It was widely acceptable in the early 20th century. The theory simply stated is greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere reflect heat back to the earth thus forming a blanket around the earth. Without these gases the planet would go into a deep freeze. Too much and temperature rises to a point of treating life on the planet.

That isn't quite right either...A greenhouse effect was first thought to have been observed, and was written up in a paper in 1827....shortly afterwards, one professor woods performed a series of experiments and discredited that first paper on the greenhouse effect. He demonstrated that what was thought to have been a greenhouse effect was actually nothing more than blocking of convection by glass panes... The present day climate crisis is based on a failed experiment done in the early 1800's.

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.


To date, there has not been a single paper published in any scientific journal in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly where does the certainty that we are altering the global climate come from?

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.

The Greenhouse Effect is demonstrated and observed in just about ever high school in the country.



Similar experiments have been duplicated many times in large atmospheric chambers containing various concentrations of CO2, methane, water vapor, and trace gases. Temperature changes of course vary by concentrations and mixtures but it always shows increases in temperatures compared to the control.

The results are confirmed by measurements at Mauna Loa and Baring Head. In addition the Greenhouse Effect has been used by planetary astronomers to help explain temperature differences between planets. Furthermore every modern weather forecasting model has a radiative transfer model in its core, which is based on the Greenhouse Effect. People who don’t accept the greenhouse effect are simply not dealing with reality.

There is no way to directly measure temperature change in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation, agriculture, ocean absorption, or other sources because there is no way to isolate a single source. We can calculate the amount of greenhouses gases produced by various sources and thus determine which sources are of greatest concern. However, due to political and economic reasons reducing the greatest contributor may not be possible. In the end, the most important thing is reducing amount of greenhouse gases. How we do it will be a political decision.

Thank you ..........for demonstrating just how easily you are fooled...greenhouse in a bottle experiments demonstrate all sorts of things...a radiative greenhouse effect is not one of them...but it is always good to see how low a person sets the bar for what they believe to be evidence...

 

[SSDD]

Without consensus there would be no accepted theories.

You really don't know much about science do you. Reference quasi crystals...for a very long time, the consensus said that quasi crystals could not exist...the man who said that they did was ridiculed, and even booted out of his scientific society... I suppose they let him back in when he got his Nobel Prize for the discovery of quasi crystals...and there are literally hundreds of similar examples where individuals proved that they were smarter than the group think majority...

You have some very wrong ideas about science...what it is, and what it does....but consensus is not part of science...

So again..can you name any other field of science where consensus is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct? Any at all other than climate science?

 

[SSDD]

I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect an accurate prediction of the climate 20 or 30 years from now when they can't predict with any great accuracy next weekend.

And yet, that is precisely what they are doing. You acknowledge that we can't predict the weather next weekend, but believe that they can predict the climate 100 years out...what sort of circular thinking is required to believe that?

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist so there's not much data to construct a model since the only thing we have are ice cores samples and geological subsidies.

Really? Guess you never saw this...

This graph is the product of over 90,000 actual measurements of atmospheric CO2...this graph wasn't produced by people with an agenda...it was produced by scientists who just wanted to know what percentage of the gas was in the atmosphere..and it wasn't measured from the top of a volcano...

 

[Sunsettommy]

I notice that after Bear513 clobbered him on the bogus CO2 "experiments" (Really more like excrement's) he suddenly ignore it to babble about 'big oil" not trying hard enough to dive into the "green energy" boondoggle.

Go back to post 382 to see the best post of the thread as it was a MASSIVE smackdown, one flopper (who is flopping all over the place now) runs away from it. His feeble math skills were exposed since the math DETALS of that bogus experiment was alone enough to destroy it, the experiment was dead before it got started.

Don't you agree that you look stupid and ignorant at the same time?

 

[Flopper]

Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.

So you see, acceptance of new ideas and theories is always about getting a consensus, yet no theory is every written in stone. It will always be a theory subject to change.

Bullcrap.

The entire community has made it toxic to not agree.

By consensus, I mean consensus of peers in academies of science, scientific societies, and research groups. Methods and conclusions have to be defended with solid scientific evidence.

What strong evidence ?

They've not produced a pre or post predictive model that is worth crap.

I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect an accurate prediction of the climate 20 or 30 years from now when they can't predict with any great accuracy next weekend.

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist so there's not much data to construct a model since the only thing we have are ice cores samples and geological subsidies. Scientists can tell us what will happen if current trends continue but they can't tell us with any accuracy when it will occur. Once it really get's started, Scientist will able to give us a better picture of not only the changes that will occur but also a time line.

It would be great if nations of the planet would begin reducing CO2 in the atmosphere but I don't see any major effort until, it's crystal clear that we are in the greatest disaster man has ever faced.

You just made NO ARGUMENT whatsoever for reducing CO2 emissions.

Good job.

I didn't intend to. There are plenty of people providing that argument, probably more effective than I can. I was stating my opinion, that regardless of what scientist say, most people are not going make significant scarifies to save the planet since the chances are very good that it will be around regardless throughout their life.

Does anyone really believe that China is going to sacrificed economic growth to clean up it's act or Brazil which has been deforesting the nation and destroying rain forest at an alarming rate for agriculture is going to convert farmland back to jungle, or dozens of third world countries are going to deny their people an industrial revolution to fix a problem that they did not cause. The only way this will happen is if people become convinced that their life and that of their children depends on it. For that to happen, there're going to have to see it for themselves.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Bullcrap.

The entire community has made it toxic to not agree.

By consensus, I mean consensus of peers in academies of science, scientific societies, and research groups. Methods and conclusions have to be defended with solid scientific evidence.

What strong evidence ?

They've not produced a pre or post predictive model that is worth crap.

I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect an accurate prediction of the climate 20 or 30 years from now when they can't predict with any great accuracy next weekend.

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist so there's not much data to construct a model since the only thing we have are ice cores samples and geological subsidies. Scientists can tell us what will happen if current trends continue but they can't tell us with any accuracy when it will occur. Once it really get's started, Scientist will able to give us a better picture of not only the changes that will occur but also a time line.

It would be great if nations of the planet would begin reducing CO2 in the atmosphere but I don't see any major effort until, it's crystal clear that we are in the greatest disaster man has ever faced.

You just made NO ARGUMENT whatsoever for reducing CO2 emissions.

Good job.

I didn't intend to. There are plenty of people providing that argument, probably more effective than I can. I was stating my opinion, that regardless of what scientist say, most people are not going make significant scarifies to save the planet since the chances are very good that it will be around regardless throughout their life.

Does anyone really believe that China is going to sacrificed economic growth to clean up it's act or Brazil which has been deforesting the nation and destroying rain forest at an alarming rate for agriculture is going to convert farmland back to jungle, or dozens of third world countries are going to deny their people an industrial revolution to fix a problem that they did not cause. The only way this will happen is if people become convinced that their life and that of their children depends on it. For that to happen, there're going to have to see it for themselves.

And since there is no proof it is happening or will happen.....why should they ?

 

[Flash]

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
The Medieval Warm Period spanned between the 10th and 15th centuries, and corresponded with warmer temperatures in certain regions around the world. During this time, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland. North America experienced prolonged droughts. Just how hot was the Medieval Warm Period? Was the globe warmer than now? To answer this question, one needs to look beyond warming in a few regions and view temperatures on a global scale.

Medieval Warm Period

Warming through 2008

Pure unsupportable bullshit...ignoring literally hundreds of published papers which show in no uncertain terms that the MWP was both warmer than the present and global in nature.... Typical AGW alarmist hysterical handwaving lies... Of course that is about all you can expect from this guy...

Here is a link to an interactive map...every balloon links to a study done at the location indicated by the balloon. The red balloons find that the MWP was warmer than the present...the blue balloons find that the MWP was cooler than the present.. the yellow balloons find that the MWP was drier, the green balloons find that it was wetter.

Project: Mapping the Medieval Warm Period | Die kalte Sonne

Anyone who can look at this, and all these studies and still claim that the MWP was a localized phenomenon is just too stupid, and dishonest to be taken seriously on any level.

Don't dazzle these stupid Moon Bats with facts. They will just put on their pink ***** hats, go to their safe place and call you a racist.

 

[Flopper]

By consensus, I mean consensus of peers in academies of science, scientific societies, and research groups. Methods and conclusions have to be defended with solid scientific evidence.

What strong evidence ?

They've not produced a pre or post predictive model that is worth crap.

I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect an accurate prediction of the climate 20 or 30 years from now when they can't predict with any great accuracy next weekend.

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist so there's not much data to construct a model since the only thing we have are ice cores samples and geological subsidies. Scientists can tell us what will happen if current trends continue but they can't tell us with any accuracy when it will occur. Once it really get's started, Scientist will able to give us a better picture of not only the changes that will occur but also a time line.

It would be great if nations of the planet would begin reducing CO2 in the atmosphere but I don't see any major effort until, it's crystal clear that we are in the greatest disaster man has ever faced.

You just made NO ARGUMENT whatsoever for reducing CO2 emissions.

Good job.

I didn't intend to. There are plenty of people providing that argument, probably more effective than I can. I was stating my opinion, that regardless of what scientist say, most people are not going make significant scarifies to save the planet since the chances are very good that it will be around regardless throughout their life.

Does anyone really believe that China is going to sacrificed economic growth to clean up it's act or Brazil which has been deforesting the nation and destroying rain forest at an alarming rate for agriculture is going to convert farmland back to jungle, or dozens of third world countries are going to deny their people an industrial revolution to fix a problem that they did not cause. The only way this will happen is if people become convinced that their life and that of their children depends on it. For that to happen, there're going to have to see it for themselves.

And since there is no proof it is happening or will happen.....why should they ?

It is not the lack of scientific proof that keeps people from supporting the reduction in greenhouse gases. It is a very vocal minority who keeps telling people it's all a lie. It's a great worldwide conspiracy. There will be no climate change and if there were it would be God that caused it, not man. I would like to believe that as would most of the people in the world. It's reassuring. We could continue to deforest the planet, dump any amount carbon into the atmosphere and it's all good, no rising seas, no mass extension of plant and animal live, and no food shortages; nothing to worry about.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What strong evidence ?

They've not produced a pre or post predictive model that is worth crap.

I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect an accurate prediction of the climate 20 or 30 years from now when they can't predict with any great accuracy next weekend.

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist so there's not much data to construct a model since the only thing we have are ice cores samples and geological subsidies. Scientists can tell us what will happen if current trends continue but they can't tell us with any accuracy when it will occur. Once it really get's started, Scientist will able to give us a better picture of not only the changes that will occur but also a time line.

It would be great if nations of the planet would begin reducing CO2 in the atmosphere but I don't see any major effort until, it's crystal clear that we are in the greatest disaster man has ever faced.

You just made NO ARGUMENT whatsoever for reducing CO2 emissions.

Good job.

I didn't intend to. There are plenty of people providing that argument, probably more effective than I can. I was stating my opinion, that regardless of what scientist say, most people are not going make significant scarifies to save the planet since the chances are very good that it will be around regardless throughout their life.

Does anyone really believe that China is going to sacrificed economic growth to clean up it's act or Brazil which has been deforesting the nation and destroying rain forest at an alarming rate for agriculture is going to convert farmland back to jungle, or dozens of third world countries are going to deny their people an industrial revolution to fix a problem that they did not cause. The only way this will happen is if people become convinced that their life and that of their children depends on it. For that to happen, there're going to have to see it for themselves.

And since there is no proof it is happening or will happen.....why should they ?

It is not the lack of scientific proof that keeps people from supporting the reduction in greenhouse gases. It is a very vocal minority who keeps telling people it's all a lie. It's a great worldwide conspiracy. There will be no climate change and if there were it would be God that caused it, not man. I would like to believe that as would most of people in the world. It's reassuring. We can continue to deforest the planet, dump any amount carbon into the atmosphere and it's all good, no problem.

Garbage.

There is no scientific proof that can link climate change to man or to some doomsday future.

 

[Flash]

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
The Medieval Warm Period spanned between the 10th and 15th centuries, and corresponded with warmer temperatures in certain regions around the world. During this time, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland. North America experienced prolonged droughts. Just how hot was the Medieval Warm Period? Was the globe warmer than now? To answer this question, one needs to look beyond warming in a few regions and view temperatures on a global scale.

Medieval Warm Period

Warming through 2008

Two of those charts come from sources that have been exposed to having created false data.

What else you got Moon Bat?

 

[Flopper]

I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect an accurate prediction of the climate 20 or 30 years from now when they can't predict with any great accuracy next weekend.

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist so there's not much data to construct a model since the only thing we have are ice cores samples and geological subsidies. Scientists can tell us what will happen if current trends continue but they can't tell us with any accuracy when it will occur. Once it really get's started, Scientist will able to give us a better picture of not only the changes that will occur but also a time line.

It would be great if nations of the planet would begin reducing CO2 in the atmosphere but I don't see any major effort until, it's crystal clear that we are in the greatest disaster man has ever faced.

You just made NO ARGUMENT whatsoever for reducing CO2 emissions.

Good job.

I didn't intend to. There are plenty of people providing that argument, probably more effective than I can. I was stating my opinion, that regardless of what scientist say, most people are not going make significant scarifies to save the planet since the chances are very good that it will be around regardless throughout their life.

Does anyone really believe that China is going to sacrificed economic growth to clean up it's act or Brazil which has been deforesting the nation and destroying rain forest at an alarming rate for agriculture is going to convert farmland back to jungle, or dozens of third world countries are going to deny their people an industrial revolution to fix a problem that they did not cause. The only way this will happen is if people become convinced that their life and that of their children depends on it. For that to happen, there're going to have to see it for themselves.

And since there is no proof it is happening or will happen.....why should they ?

It is not the lack of scientific proof that keeps people from supporting the reduction in greenhouse gases. It is a very vocal minority who keeps telling people it's all a lie. It's a great worldwide conspiracy. There will be no climate change and if there were it would be God that caused it, not man. I would like to believe that as would most of people in the world. It's reassuring. We can continue to deforest the planet, dump any amount carbon into the atmosphere and it's all good, no problem.

Garbage.

There is no scientific proof that can link climate change to man or to some doomsday future.

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”
Joseph Goebbels