Understatement for the ages...Her questions and the assumptions upon which they rest were pathetic.
Understatement for the ages...Her questions and the assumptions upon which they rest were pathetic.
---"...settled in the scientific community..."
That, as history has repeatedly demonstrated; means almost nothing. If anything, it should raise a red flag.
Science is quite literally BUILT on skepticism. Setting aside the consensus and group think has led to the most impactful discoveries in all of humankind.
"...settled in the scientific community..."
That, as history has repeatedly demonstrated; means almost nothing. If anything, it should raise a red flag.
Science is quite literally BUILT on skepticism. Setting aside the consensus and group think has led to the most impactful discoveries in all of humankind.
No one wants to hear climate change is not an existential threat. No one wants to hear government cannot change the weather. No one wants to hear economic policies are not related to climate change.
The real money is in the perpetuation of fear.
Some people learned zero from the pandemic. It's really sad to see how easily weak minds are taken over by government propaganda.
Most people who deny that human activity is warming the planet just dismiss a massive body of scientific evidence as a big hoax.
But there’s a more sophisticated set of climate “skeptics” who make arguments that, at least to the lay ear, sound like they’re grounded in scientific evidence. And because most of us lack the background to evaluate their claims, they can muddy the waters around an issue that’s been settled in the scientific community.
Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists | BillMoyers.com
The more sophisticated climate change deniers go further than just dismissing the science as a hoax.billmoyers.com
There's nothing political about the subject that's the point.You mean like the article you posted? If you don't like the politics then stop bringing the politics. Pretty simple.
Joshua Holland was a senior digital producer for BillMoyers.com and now writes for The Nation. He’s the author of The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy (and Everything Else the Right Doesn’t Want You to Know about Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America) (Wiley: 2010), and host of Politics and Reality Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @JoshuaHol.
There's nothing political about the subject that's the point.
The fact that members of one political party support the science
Don’t you wish that were true? If true, we would be on the verge of a nuclear revolution in this country, instead of having the political narrative keep us from nuclear. If true, we would acknowledge that data is parsed through for the worst case projections for politicians and news media to harp. If true, we would not have politicians and news media constantly speaking about climate change for every fire, hurricane, and political policy. If true, we would speak regularly of the positives associated with warming. If true, scientists who disagree with the political narrative would not be regularly demeaned. If true, we would never have spoke about carbon credits. If true, we would not have monster home owning jet setters telling us how we need to change our lives. If true, we would not be lying to people about only having EVs in 2030 or demeaning fossil fuels. We would have a common sense approach to energy.There's nothing political about the subject that's the point.
“Only those who have the most to gain from using climate change to radically transform society have the ability to discern the truth.”Most people who deny that human activity is warming the planet just dismiss a massive body of scientific evidence as a big hoax.
But there’s a more sophisticated set of climate “skeptics” who make arguments that, at least to the lay ear, sound like they’re grounded in scientific evidence. And because most of us lack the background to evaluate their claims, they can muddy the waters around an issue that’s been settled in the scientific community.
Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists | BillMoyers.com
The more sophisticated climate change deniers go further than just dismissing the science as a hoax.billmoyers.com
What about the ones from 200, 500 years ago?Someone explain how a hurricane evolves due to climate change/global warming, versus the Biden-esque liberal take of "we are seeing more natural disasters due to cg/gw" (which we aren't)
Tell me how it happens, and then explain if this is what caused hurricanes 50-100 years ago.
By climate deniers, you mean those that think human efforts are the largest threat to a possible temperature increase when in fact nothing significant is going on?There's nothing political about the subject that's the point.
The fact that members of one political party support the science and some (but not all) of the other don't doesn't change anything. If anyone want's to post articles written by climate deniers with known political opinions that's perfectly fine. Having political views of any type doesn't disqualify an article from being posted here unless they are political articles in which case we have a separate thread where that's allowed.
Oh, there is. To deny that is denying political science.
Pass....we see where supporting the science got us w/ covid.
It anyone who challenges the theory because you actually have a brain and can't make sense of a bunch of BS that gets spewed about impacts but never see anything come to fruition. But I'm from Kentucky.By climate deniers, you mean those that think human efforts are the largest threat to a possible temperature increase when in fact nothing significant is going on?
I think you may be conflating policy with issue itself. Temperature maps, and greenhouse gas monitoring equipment isn't red or blue. So the issue itself is purely a scientific one. The polices that address it like those you mentioned above, or even the question as to if it should be addressed at all, are political in nature, so there's no disagreement there.It’s really weird to read someone state this is not political when that is all their side has made it since the issue became popular. The very first move was an attempt to redistribute wealth in the name of this issue. The overwhelming politicization of the issue is good evidence that they don’t truly believe what they are promoting. Manipulation through fear has always been a powerful political weapon.
I think you may be conflating policy with issue itself. Temperature maps, and greenhouse gas monitoring equipment isn't red or blue. So the issue itself is purely a scientific one. The polices that address it like those you mentioned above, or even the question as to if it should be addressed at all, are political in nature, so there's no disagreement there.
I think you may be conflating policy with issue itself. Temperature maps, and greenhouse gas monitoring equipment isn't red or blue.
A political money grab has nothing to do with the amount of Co2 levels in the atmosphere, or the historic recording of ocean temperatures. The number of people who see it as a threat or not has nothing to do with the scientific reality, regardless of what you believe. It is what it is.I don’t think I am the one who conflated the issues. This was a political money grab from the beginning and, as stated, evidence that very few people actually see this as an existential threat.
A political money grab has nothing to do with the amount of Co2 levels in the atmosphere, or the historic recording of ocean temperatures.
A political money grab has nothing to do with the amount of Co2 levels in the atmosphere, or the historic recording of ocean temperatures. The number of people who see it as a threat or not has nothing to do with the scientific reality, regardless of what you believe. It is what it is.
The amount of CO2 levels in the atmosphere do not warrant basically bankrupting the country over. That's everyone's point. I am all for taking action to make earth a better place for the future, I am just not in for basically prioritizing spending above things that matter to peoples life right now. You believe what you want to believe and we will believe what we want to believe, but there are a lot more people starting to question it now than there have been in the past for the same reasons we have all outlined many times.A political money grab has nothing to do with the amount of Co2 levels in the atmosphere, or the historic recording of ocean temperatures. The number of people who see it as a threat or not has nothing to do with the scientific reality, regardless of what you believe. It is what it is.
---Great clip except it isn't expert ignorance; it's greed. The entire climate change premise is based solely on the notion so many experts agree. Just like other recent events driven by experts, turns out all the experts driving discussion are all paid. Just as bad, anyone opposing them are professionally destroyed.
---
That's the late astronomer Carl Sagan, BTW.
In any event, I think he was saying the public was ignorant about matters of science & technology & coupled with "experts" & their (hidden) agendas, could lead to disastrous events. I concur with you, however, about money being at the heart of a lot of this.
This is not surprising …
Home insurers cut natural disasters from policies as climate risks grow — The Washington Post
Major insurers say they will cut out damage caused by hurricanes, wind and hail from policies underwriting property along coastlines and in wildfire country.apple.news
About that....google HAARP.No one wants to hear climate change is not an existential threat. No one wants to hear government cannot change the weather. No one wants to hear economic policies are not related to climate change.
The real money is in the perpetuation of fear.
Lock downs/mask mandates are starting again in areas of New York, and California. They are preparing for next years election.The lockdown argument was nothing more than a recycled climate change argument. It was literally the exact same thing. The difference is lockdown was much more effective because it was a more immediate threat and was pitched as temporary
Not to mention that data was manipulated and emails from those manipulating it were brought out for everyone to see.I don’t think I am the one who conflated the issues. This was a political money grab from the beginning and, as stated, evidence that very few people actually see this as an existential threat.