Why do you throw "doomsday" in there? There is very, very, very little "doomsday" in scholarly studies. What you see is mainstream media alarmism trying to sell copy and I'm quite certain you know that.
Not getting published is not censorship and I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by canceled. There are a number of scientists on your side of this argument still gainfully employed: Spencer, Christy, Soon, Bailunas, Lomborg, Happer and Legates (for god's sake). And, of course, a significant number of your supporters are retired. How do you know that their studies aren't being rejected for bad science? The only opinion you folks ever bring up are those of the folks who got rejected. And all of the names I've listed HAVE been published in several different journals.
I disagree. You know I support nuclear power, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima have all clearly illustrated that it needs to be done VERY, VERY carefully. The potential for harm from a nuclear plant is many orders of magnitude greater than the potential of a wind farm or a solar PV facility.
Where have you seen that take place?
Phased out. Just like we phased out leaded gasoline. They are harmful. Governments are acting in the common interest as is their obligation.
It was actually a scientific study that showed that result - and I believe that it was making children with asthma worse, but I could be wrong - and it has no ties to global warming.
Because that wouldn't silence them and you've created another unlikely group. This charge now requires all the publishers and the peer reviewers (who are often selected by authors) to all be cooperating in your conspiracy.
Todd, you have not been one to bring up bad science in an attempt to refute AGW. I see you're concerned about the cost and you're as suspicious of politicians as the next fellow. But its long past time to accept that global warming is taking place, that it is of a magnitude to be threatening and that its primary cause is human CO2 emissions. These points are simply irrefutable.
Why do you throw "doomsday" in there?
I'm feeling like a hockey stick today.
The fastest rate in the last million years (or was it 170,000 years?)
sounds a little doomsday to me.
Not getting published is not censorship
Of course not. Neither is not being funded. Or not being hired.
and I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by canceled
It's when you say something that doesn't agree with the current liberal mantra
and the howling mob tries to destroy your life. Check out what the trans mob
is trying to do to J.K. Rowling.
Where have you seen that take place?
Similar policies have been debated across the country. A few dozen cities, including San Francisco, Berkeley and San Jose in California; Cambridge, Mass.; and Seattle, have moved to ban natural gas hook ups in some new buildings as a way to combat climate change.
The measure will go into effect at the end of 2023 for some buildings under seven stories and in 2027 for taller buildings.
www.cnbc.com
Phased out. Just like we phased out leaded gasoline. They are harmful. Governments are acting in the common interest as is their obligation.
ICE cars are harmful like leaded gasoline? That's funny!!
What is the common interest in the extra deaths caused by higher CAFE standards?
It was actually a scientific study that showed that result -
Was it by the same guys who whined about coconut oil in movie popcorn?
and I believe that it was making children with asthma worse, but I could be wrong - and it has no ties to global warming.
If it weren't for all the other "ban natural gas" idiocy, that could almost be believable.
Because that wouldn't silence them and you've created another unlikely group.
But it has silenced them.
his charge now requires all the publishers and the peer reviewers (who are often selected by authors) to all be cooperating in your conspiracy.
If the colleges don't fund the study, there is no paper to review.
Remember the ClimateGate emails where they were talking about preventing
skeptics from getting published? That was great, wasn't it?
But its long past time to accept that global warming is taking place,
Yes. It's warmer.
that it is of a magnitude to be threatening
I disagree. Certainly not threatening enough to justify the trillions of dollars of idiocy
that's been going on. The money that's wasted and the bad priorities that are being pushed
are causing real damage. Actual deaths.
Remember all those California wildfires that were caused by powerlines recently?
Do you think PG&E should have been spending more on powerline infrastructure?
On clearing dry fuel from around their towers? Do you think maybe, just maybe,
the billions they've been forced to spend on green mandates may have taken
precedence over mundane maintenance that could have prevented or reduced
those disasters?
www.dailymail.co.uk
apnews.com
