CDZ I AM NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I AM NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

I don't want to spend trillions on "green" energy.
How many climate scientists want us to do that?

What will the temperature be in 2080, within 0.1 degrees if we spend those trillions?
What will the temperature be in 2080, within 0.1 degrees if we don't spend those trillions?

That is not the subject of this thread, and don't try to hijack it to something else

You don't want to talk about what the scientists want us to do?
Why not?
They must be more reliable than the liberal politicians pushing AGW.

All I want to talk about in this thread is why the vast majority of scientists stick with their previous claims if they have been proven wrong. It is unreasonable to think that many would not change their stance in the face of credible proof that they are wrong, so who is forcing them to stick with what you call a disproven theory instead of embracing what you think is fact?

All I want to talk about in this thread is why the vast majority of scientists stick with their previous claims if they have been proven wrong.

All I want to talk about is why the liberal solution is always higher taxes and more government control over the economy.

It is unreasonable to think that many would not change their stance in the face of credible proof that they are wrong

Did the ones caught lying, fabricating and exaggerating in Climategate change their stance?

If you only want to talk about is liberal solutions or higher taxes then start your own thread.

If you want to avoid the real topic, go play with yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're the one who posited a conspiracy. If you think there is one, document it for us.

I don't think there is one, but many right wingers claim there is. Without specific education in climate science, I, and the vast majority of people have no way to evaluate if the scientists claims are valid or not. I keep hearing "follow the money" as an explanation of why so many scientists stick with their claims when right wingers claim they have been discredited. I don't know if they have been discredited or not. Neither do you. So who is in charge of the conspiracy?

Uh.......what conspiracy?

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

What is the original assessment you feel the 97% agreed with?
97% of how many? Got a link?

That climate change is real, and man is affecting it.

Excellent. Link?

 

[BULLDOG]

That is not the subject of this thread, and don't try to hijack it to something else

You don't want to talk about what the scientists want us to do?
Why not?
They must be more reliable than the liberal politicians pushing AGW.

All I want to talk about in this thread is why the vast majority of scientists stick with their previous claims if they have been proven wrong. It is unreasonable to think that many would not change their stance in the face of credible proof that they are wrong, so who is forcing them to stick with what you call a disproven theory instead of embracing what you think is fact?

All I want to talk about in this thread is why the vast majority of scientists stick with their previous claims if they have been proven wrong.

All I want to talk about is why the liberal solution is always higher taxes and more government control over the economy.

It is unreasonable to think that many would not change their stance in the face of credible proof that they are wrong

Did the ones caught lying, fabricating and exaggerating in Climategate change their stance?

If you only want to talk about is liberal solutions or higher taxes then start your own thread.

If you want to avoid the real topic, go play with yourself.

The real topic is in the OP.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't think there is one, but many right wingers claim there is. Without specific education in climate science, I, and the vast majority of people have no way to evaluate if the scientists claims are valid or not. I keep hearing "follow the money" as an explanation of why so many scientists stick with their claims when right wingers claim they have been discredited. I don't know if they have been discredited or not. Neither do you. So who is in charge of the conspiracy?

Uh.......what conspiracy?

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

What is the original assessment you feel the 97% agreed with?
97% of how many? Got a link?

That climate change is real, and man is affecting it.

Excellent. Link?

No, I don't know exactly how many scientists constitute 97% of the worlds credible climate scientists, and I don't care to try to find out. Are you saying that they are a small enough number that they could individually be manipulated, or that they are all colluding among themselves, perhaps on a conference call, to defraud the public? And, why would they do that?

 

[CultureCitizen]

I AM NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

I don't want to spend trillions on "green" energy.
How many climate scientists want us to do that?

What will the temperature be in 2080, within 0.1 degrees if we spend those trillions?
What will the temperature be in 2080, within 0.1 degrees if we don't spend those trillions?

There are other factors at stake , many unrelated to "global warming".

Pollution and high CO2 concentrations contribute to ocean acidification which in turn destroys the ecosystem of the seas.
Pollution increases the incidence of respiratory diseases.

While the warming is debatable, these other factors have been clear for a long time. In the near future China will become the largest consumer of green solutions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Uh.......what conspiracy?

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

What is the original assessment you feel the 97% agreed with?
97% of how many? Got a link?

That climate change is real, and man is affecting it.

Excellent. Link?

No, I don't know exactly how many scientists constitute 97% of the worlds credible climate scientists, and I don't care to try to find out. Are you saying that they are a small enough number that they could individually be manipulated, or that they are all colluding among themselves, perhaps on a conference call, to defraud the public? And, why would they do that?

I don't know exactly how many scientists constitute 97% of the worlds credible climate scientists

So you're quoting a number you heard somewhere and we're supposed to take you seriously?

and I don't care to try to find out.

Of course not, you're a liberal.

 

[BULLDOG]

I AM NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

I don't want to spend trillions on "green" energy.
How many climate scientists want us to do that?

What will the temperature be in 2080, within 0.1 degrees if we spend those trillions?
What will the temperature be in 2080, within 0.1 degrees if we don't spend those trillions?

There are other factors at stake , many unrelated to "global warming".

Pollution and high CO2 concentrations contribute to ocean acidification which in turn destroys the ecosystem of the seas.
Pollution increases the incidence of respiratory diseases.

While the warming is debatable, these other factors have been clear for a long time. In the near future China will become the largest consumer of green solutions.

That is all true, and important. However, I'm trying to find the answer to a couple of specific questions, and no one seems to be able to answer.

 

[BULLDOG]

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

What is the original assessment you feel the 97% agreed with?
97% of how many? Got a link?

That climate change is real, and man is affecting it.

Excellent. Link?

No, I don't know exactly how many scientists constitute 97% of the worlds credible climate scientists, and I don't care to try to find out. Are you saying that they are a small enough number that they could individually be manipulated, or that they are all colluding among themselves, perhaps on a conference call, to defraud the public? And, why would they do that?

I don't know exactly how many scientists constitute 97% of the worlds credible climate scientists

So you're quoting a number you heard somewhere and we're supposed to take you seriously?

and I don't care to try to find out.

Of course not, you're a liberal.

I'm quoting a number from a credible source. Besides not being a scientist, I'm not a survey taker either. If you are, then perhaps you have something to add of interest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're the one who posited a conspiracy. If you think there is one, document it for us.

I don't think there is one, but many right wingers claim there is. Without specific education in climate science, I, and the vast majority of people have no way to evaluate if the scientists claims are valid or not. I keep hearing "follow the money" as an explanation of why so many scientists stick with their claims when right wingers claim they have been discredited. I don't know if they have been discredited or not. Neither do you. So who is in charge of the conspiracy?

Uh.......what conspiracy?

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

What is the original assessment you feel the 97% agreed with?
97% of how many? Got a link?

That climate change is real, and man is affecting it.

That climate change is real,

Of course climate change is real. 15000 years ago, there was a mile of ice on this very spot.

and man is affecting it

This gets back to my questions on the other thread.
The ones you avoided.
How much is man affecting it?
If the temperature is going to increase 2 degrees in the next 100 years but we're only responsible for 0.02 degrees of that rise, how much money should we spend to keep the planet cooler?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

What is the original assessment you feel the 97% agreed with?
97% of how many? Got a link?

That climate change is real, and man is affecting it.

Excellent. Link?

No, I don't know exactly how many scientists constitute 97% of the worlds credible climate scientists, and I don't care to try to find out. Are you saying that they are a small enough number that they could individually be manipulated, or that they are all colluding among themselves, perhaps on a conference call, to defraud the public? And, why would they do that?

I don't know exactly how many scientists constitute 97% of the worlds credible climate scientists

So you're quoting a number you heard somewhere and we're supposed to take you seriously?

and I don't care to try to find out.

Of course not, you're a liberal.

I'm quoting a number from a credible source. Besides not being a scientist, I'm not a survey taker either. If you are, then perhaps you have something to add of interest.

I'm quoting a number from a credible source.

A source you won't provide.

I'm not a survey taker either.

If you ever find the survey, I'll be happy to discuss it.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't think there is one, but many right wingers claim there is. Without specific education in climate science, I, and the vast majority of people have no way to evaluate if the scientists claims are valid or not. I keep hearing "follow the money" as an explanation of why so many scientists stick with their claims when right wingers claim they have been discredited. I don't know if they have been discredited or not. Neither do you. So who is in charge of the conspiracy?

Uh.......what conspiracy?

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

What is the original assessment you feel the 97% agreed with?
97% of how many? Got a link?

That climate change is real, and man is affecting it.

That climate change is real,

Of course climate change is real. 15000 years ago, there was a mile of ice on this very spot.

and man is affecting it

This gets back to my questions on the other thread.
The ones you avoided.
How much is man affecting it?
If the temperature is going to increase 2 degrees in the next 100 years but we're only responsible for 0.02 degrees of that rise, how much money should we spend to keep the planet cooler?

Again, not what this thread is about. Conservatives say the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists is wrong. The cost is a totally different subject. Are they saying it is wrong because they think it might cost money? If so that is disingenuous. Cost is certainly worthwhile to discuss, but it has nothing to do with what the facts of climate change are.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I AM NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

I don't want to spend trillions on "green" energy.
How many climate scientists want us to do that?

What will the temperature be in 2080, within 0.1 degrees if we spend those trillions?
What will the temperature be in 2080, within 0.1 degrees if we don't spend those trillions?

There are other factors at stake , many unrelated to "global warming".

Pollution and high CO2 concentrations contribute to ocean acidification which in turn destroys the ecosystem of the seas.
Pollution increases the incidence of respiratory diseases.

While the warming is debatable, these other factors have been clear for a long time. In the near future China will become the largest consumer of green solutions.

That is all true, and important. However, I'm trying to find the answer to a couple of specific questions, and no one seems to be able to answer.

Oh , I've heard such conspiracy theories :
The conspiracy would be a combination of government and "green tech" corporations.
The government would be interested in having more control on how people spend energy, increase the vigilance mechanism to make sure you comply with energy regulation and ... would still allow the ultra rich to squander energy in any imaginable way.

That's what I heard in one of Alex Jones' videos, although I don't really believe this theory.

 

[Cosmos]

Seriously, what would a real climate scientist think about the recent deal ODumbshit made with China that allows them to continue to increase CO2 emissions unabated? Good for the climate?

Off subject. Who is in charge of the so called conspiracy, and what do they gain by it?

You're the one who posited a conspiracy. If you think there is one, document it for us.

I don't think there is one, but many right wingers claim there is. Without specific education in climate science, I, and the vast majority of people have no way to evaluate if the scientists claims are valid or not. I keep hearing "follow the money" as an explanation of why so many scientists stick with their claims when right wingers claim they have been discredited. I don't know if they have been discredited or not. Neither do you. So who is in charge of the conspiracy?

Uh.......what conspiracy?

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

I've made no such claim. Seriously, I think maybe you should have made this thread in the taunting area.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Uh.......what conspiracy?

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

What is the original assessment you feel the 97% agreed with?
97% of how many? Got a link?

That climate change is real, and man is affecting it.

That climate change is real,

Of course climate change is real. 15000 years ago, there was a mile of ice on this very spot.

and man is affecting it

This gets back to my questions on the other thread.
The ones you avoided.
How much is man affecting it?
If the temperature is going to increase 2 degrees in the next 100 years but we're only responsible for 0.02 degrees of that rise, how much money should we spend to keep the planet cooler?

Again, not what this thread is about. Conservatives say the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists is wrong. The cost is a totally different subject. Are they saying it is wrong because they think it might cost money? If so that is disingenuous. Cost is certainly worthwhile to discuss, but it has nothing to do with what the facts of climate change are.

Conservatives say the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists is wrong.

I've never heard the opinions of the vast majority. I have seen a couple of ready silly surveys though.
I'm more concerned about the cost of the policy recommendations.
Warmer is better. Why spend trillions to make it cooler?

Cost is certainly worthwhile to discuss, but it has nothing to do with what the facts of climate change are.

If we were just discussing climate, I'd agree.
But we're really talking about giving bozos like Obama trillions of dollars to shovel to their supporters to fix a "problem" that might not exist and might not be a problem if it did.

 

[BULLDOG]

I AM NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

I don't want to spend trillions on "green" energy.
How many climate scientists want us to do that?

What will the temperature be in 2080, within 0.1 degrees if we spend those trillions?
What will the temperature be in 2080, within 0.1 degrees if we don't spend those trillions?

There are other factors at stake , many unrelated to "global warming".

Pollution and high CO2 concentrations contribute to ocean acidification which in turn destroys the ecosystem of the seas.
Pollution increases the incidence of respiratory diseases.

While the warming is debatable, these other factors have been clear for a long time. In the near future China will become the largest consumer of green solutions.

That is all true, and important. However, I'm trying to find the answer to a couple of specific questions, and no one seems to be able to answer.

Oh , I've heard such conspiracy theories :
The conspiracy would be a combination of government and "green tech" corporations.
The government would be interested in having more control on how people spend energy, increase the vigilance mechanism to make sure you comply with energy regulation and ... would still allow the ultra rich to squander energy in any imaginable way.

That's what I heard in one of Alex Jone's videos, although I don't really believe this theory.

Exactly. However, a conspiracy such as that would be the only way to explain the vast majority of climate scientists sticking with their assessment of what is affecting climate. There is no shortage of people with scientific graphs and charts who claim to disprove all the climate knowledge gained through years of research and experimentation. My contention is that nobody without specific education could possibly know if those charts and graphs prove or disprove anything, so the right wing claims fail on that front. The only possibility left for them is to prove their oh so common "follow the money" claim. That is what I'm asking them to do.

 

[CultureCitizen]

But we're really talking about giving bozos like Obama trillions of dollars to shovel to their supporters to fix a "problem" that might not exist and might not be a problem if it did.

Mmm ... not sure there, I think it could be a business oportunity. The trend has been to make cars more efficient every year. A Brit friend of mine has a Vauxhall Corsa that yields abut 70 mpg. I can imagine a near future in which most chinese families will want to own a car, it will have to be a very efficient car. It could be a chance to export cars to the chinese.

 

[BULLDOG]

Off subject. Who is in charge of the so called conspiracy, and what do they gain by it?

You're the one who posited a conspiracy. If you think there is one, document it for us.

I don't think there is one, but many right wingers claim there is. Without specific education in climate science, I, and the vast majority of people have no way to evaluate if the scientists claims are valid or not. I keep hearing "follow the money" as an explanation of why so many scientists stick with their claims when right wingers claim they have been discredited. I don't know if they have been discredited or not. Neither do you. So who is in charge of the conspiracy?

Uh.......what conspiracy?

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

I've made no such claim. Seriously, I think maybe you should have made this thread in the taunting area.

So are you admitting that the assessments of all those climate scientists that climate change is real, and man is part of the cause is true? I understand you would rather taunt someone than have an actual discussion, so perhaps you should go there.

 

[BULLDOG]

If the results of their research has been disproven, as you claim, how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

how else would you describe 97% sticking with their original assessment?

What is the original assessment you feel the 97% agreed with?
97% of how many? Got a link?

That climate change is real, and man is affecting it.

That climate change is real,

Of course climate change is real. 15000 years ago, there was a mile of ice on this very spot.

and man is affecting it

This gets back to my questions on the other thread.
The ones you avoided.
How much is man affecting it?
If the temperature is going to increase 2 degrees in the next 100 years but we're only responsible for 0.02 degrees of that rise, how much money should we spend to keep the planet cooler?

Again, not what this thread is about. Conservatives say the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists is wrong. The cost is a totally different subject. Are they saying it is wrong because they think it might cost money? If so that is disingenuous. Cost is certainly worthwhile to discuss, but it has nothing to do with what the facts of climate change are.

Conservatives say the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists is wrong.

I've never heard the opinions of the vast majority. I have seen a couple of ready silly surveys though.
I'm more concerned about the cost of the policy recommendations.
Warmer is better. Why spend trillions to make it cooler?

Cost is certainly worthwhile to discuss, but it has nothing to do with what the facts of climate change are.

If we were just discussing climate, I'd agree.
But we're really talking about giving bozos like Obama trillions of dollars to shovel to their supporters to fix a "problem" that might not exist and might not be a problem if it did.

Ok. If you think the vast majority of climate scientists don't join in that belief, then by all means tell me about it. There are lots of threads to discuss Obama, or cost of policy recommendations. This isn't one of them.

 

[Darkwind]

The people who control the money are the ones who have the most to gain.

Every alleged scientist who tells the President what he wants to hear about climate change, does so because he or she does not want their funding to dry up.

You speak of oil company research and dismiss it because you think their is some kind of conflict of interest. However, when those who push this bad drug of human affected climate change, they do so because it is in their own interest.

As always, follow the money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But we're really talking about giving bozos like Obama trillions of dollars to shovel to their supporters to fix a "problem" that might not exist and might not be a problem if it did.

Mmm ... not sure there, I think it could be a business oportunity. The trend has been to make cars more efficient every year. A Brit friend of mine has a Vauxhall Corsa that yields abut 70 mpg. I can imagine a near future in which most chinese families will want to own a car, it will have to be a very efficient car. It could be a chance to export cars to the chinese.

Mmm ... not sure there, I think it could be a business oportunity.

Yes, feeding into climate alarmism is a huge opportunity.
I'd rather not waste the taxpayers money on it.
If green idiots want to waste their own money, they should feel free.