• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Honest Politicians Answer for solving Climate Change

Yeah yeah it's a big worldwide conspiracy involving millions of corrupt scientists from countries all over the world with different governments all living it up big on government grants. They've even managed to lie about the laws of physics. Sounds rational and sane. Not.

Nah. Mostly in the United States, but yes, most government funded scientists are the same way way, dealing with their governments that want the same thing: power.

They are not lying about the laws of physics, they simply ignore them. They gotta eat, dude. They don't get their grant money unless they toe the government line. You DO realize, don't you, that the UN and the IPCC are international in scope? You discard the conspiracy as crackpot. It's real. So is Marxism.
 
Void argument. Let's first define 'pollution'. What specific pollution are you referring to? You are using it like a buzzword.

Wow, define pollution? The stuff spouted from the right regarding climate change, brain pollution. Have you been drinking the flint water again? Please don't bother responding, I see you are not here to discuss if you need me to define pollution. Maybe it's easier to ask what isn't polluted.
 
Nah. Mostly in the United States, but yes, most government funded scientists are the same way way, dealing with their governments that want the same thing: power.

They are not lying about the laws of physics, they simply ignore them. They gotta eat, dude. They don't get their grant money unless they toe the government line. You DO realize, don't you, that the UN and the IPCC are international in scope? You discard the conspiracy as crackpot. It's real. So is Marxism.

"They are not lying about the laws of physics they simply ignore them"? LOL! Hopelessly irrational insanity.
 
...They are not lying about the laws of physics, they simply ignore them. ...

They also adjust/correct the historical data. For example:

The latest GISSTEMP's Land Ocean Temperature Index LOTI came out a few days ago,
and compared to the November 2018 edition, 47% of the 1668 monthly entries had been
changed. All of the adjustments for the months of 1972 through 2018 (except for December
2004) were adjusted up. Of the 442 adjustments prior to the 1972 data 90% were adjusted
down.

This goes on every month.
 
They also adjust/correct the historical data. For example:

The latest GISSTEMP's Land Ocean Temperature Index LOTI came out a few days ago,
and compared to the November 2018 edition, 47% of the 1668 monthly entries had been
changed. All of the adjustments for the months of 1972 through 2018 (except for December
2004) were adjusted up. Of the 442 adjustments prior to the 1972 data 90% were adjusted
down.

This goes on every month.

LOL! So you think all the scientists are 'ignoring the laws of physics' too? Do you realize how insane that sounds?

And about those adjustments, we've been through this just a few weeks ago with you and lil' bubba. Guess your extreme ideological bias and conspiracy ideation is too strong for you to acknowledge any facts that burst your little conspiracy bubble.

That's what comes from spending all your time on dishonest pseudoscience conspiracy blogs like the fake Steve Goddard (Tony Heller) blog or WUWT blog. Do you also listen to Alex Jone's Infowars?
 
LOL! So you think all the scientists are 'ignoring the laws of physics' too? Do you realize how insane that sounds?

And about those adjustments, we've been through this just a few weeks ago with you and lil' bubba. Guess your extreme ideological bias and conspiracy ideation is too strong for you to acknowledge any facts that burst your little conspiracy bubble.

That's what comes from spending all your time on dishonest pseudoscience conspiracy blogs like the fake Steve Goddard (Tony Heller) blog or WUWT blog. Do you also listen to Alex Jone's Infowars?

I provided you with the links to the actual data:


Here's the last line from those two data links and differences:

Year...Jan...Feb...Mar...Apr...May...Jun...Jul...Aug...Sep....Oct...Nov...Dec
2018....78....85....92....88....82....75....79....74....77....100....78....92
2018....76....84....91....87....81....74....78....72....75.....98....77
delta....2.....1.....1.....1.....1.....1.....1.....2.....2......2.....1

They increased every darn one of 'em

GISSTEMP says to "divide by 100 to get changes in degrees Celsius (deg-C)",
so these changes are in fact minuscule but they do add up when they are
made month after month after month after month after month after month
after month after month after month after month after month after month
after month after month after month after month and it looks like this if you
plot it all out:

GISSTEMP-Changes-2018-05.gif



I didn't quote Tony Heller, WUWT, or Alex Jones. I quoted GISSTEMP data
from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Is it a repeat of previous posts? And I'll probably post similar stuff again.

Oh, Do I think "Climate Science" ignores physics? I think they pick and
choose methods and data that give them the answers they are looking for.
That's a little different than ignoring physics, but it's probably worse.
 
You didn't answer his question. His question was: "Can you name one major scientific organization that agrees that "man-made climate change" is a hoax?". Clearly you can't, because there aren't any.

So instead you provide a link to an old opinion piece by The Heartland Institute's non-scientist spin-doctor James Taylor in Forbes magazine that completely misrepresented the original article from the business Journal "Organizational Studies"

How about the original article?

"Science or Science Fiction? Professionals' Discursive Construction of Climate Change"


It was a survey of engineers and geoscientists (and their "attitudes towards regulatory measures") who worked in petroleum and related industries in Alberta Canada. It was published in a Business Journal. ;)

What were you trying to prove? That you're prepared to use lies and misrepresentation to support your opinion? Or that you're too silly to not even fact-check your own link?

I've seen many other science deniers post this same link in the past and none of them ever fact-checked Taylor's opinion article either.

I am not trying to prove anything other then I do not buy into the junk science that leads the left to worship at the altar of the man-made climate change hoax.
 
Oh yawn... just another irrational low information conspiratorial Climate Truther

I will assume from that weak response that you did not actually click on the link and view the 120 year history of nutjob climate change hysteria.
 
Yeah yeah it's a big worldwide conspiracy involving millions of corrupt scientists from countries all over the world with different governments all living it up big on government grants. They've even managed to lie about the laws of physics. Sounds rational and sane. Not.

The millions of scientist claim is 100% bogus.
 
Production of alternative energy is not easy nor cheap. Alternative power will not ultimately be regulated locally, it will be owned by large cooperations and handled as all business coorperations, out of the national office. If you think you can charge enough for alternative fuels to persuade consumers to use less, then realize the poor will not be able to afford to pay for it and so as always these plans will hurt the poor the most and the wealthy will just spend more to get what they want. Not to mention that the means to produce the amount of alternative fuel we need to replace carbon fuels is simply not available. So I guess we can go back to oil lamps, (nope cannot use that stuff), and horse and buggy,( nope because methane gas is 85 times worse than CO2). How will we get around? How will Al Gore travel the world without his private jet?
 
I am not trying to prove anything other then I do not buy into the junk science that leads the left to worship at the altar of the man-made climate change hoax.

So you don't know anything about the science then, and just want to repeat nonsense conspiracy memes. Okay.
 
I will assume from that weak response that you did not actually click on the link and view the 120 year history of nutjob climate change hysteria.

Seen that rubbish too many times from the church of science denial climate truther crowd. At least you guys recycle your rubbish. You'll believe any old claims on the internet if it suits your ideology, but reject science outright.
 
The millions of scientist claim is 100% bogus.

I suppose you have no clue about how many fields of science are relevant to climate change? That's why the evidence is so robust. There is a very strong consilence of evidence from many lines of investigations across many fields of science (not just climate science).
 
1) Why are you using a pickup truck to drive back and forth to an office?
2) Why are you using an SUV to drive kids around the neighborhood?
3) Why is your family living in a 3,000sf home instead of a 1,500sf home?
4) Why are you going to a huge open air, high ceiling office space for work every day?
5) Why are you tearing up farm land over an hour drive from your work to get an oversized home cheaper and then spending the difference in mortgage on gas and cars?
6) Why are you even thinking of drinking out of bottled water. Do you know how much gas it took to get that bottle to your lips?


There are a ton of other questions we need to ask ourselves

As a politician, I am going to tell you to stop looking for someone else to solve these problems. If you are a democrat and you care about the environement, then go on a web site and get a carbon consumption analysis for yourself and family. If you are a conservative republican, can I please ask you what conservative means? Would conserving natural resources fall under the mantra of conservative thinking?

There are two ways to solve this problem. One is to tax income higher to solve this problem, but I do not like that because there is no association between cost and source of cost.

Increasing taxes to drive people into smaller homes and increasing energy cost to drive people to use less of it. That is the basic solution to all of our problems.

thanks for reading, we are all human beings, lets treat each other with respect no matter what the views or intellectual level!!!

Red:
Some of those questions are just absurd and others are ill-phrased. For instance:
  • "Why are you using an SUV to drive kids around the neighborhood?"
    • There're plenty of good reasons why one might do so. When my kids were young, the answers included:
      • Because I had more of them than, with my wife and me would fit in my other vehicles. Had you rather we used two vehicles? Surely you're not of a mind to dictate how one opts to transport one's kids from place to place, be it near or far?
    • A more reasonable question is, "Why buy, and in turn, drive an SUV, instead of a car, when the added space and towing capacity isn't needed?"
      • Watch rush-hour traffic and you'll see the point. Scads of SUVs having but one single-passenger who's done nothing other than drive to work, park, and return home, maybe with a stop at the gas station or grocer. Nobody needs an SUV for that genre of transportation.
      • Of course, a huge part of the matter stems from carmakers' business/profit/pricing models. Simply, carmakers like selling SUVs because there's more profit in them, largely because people will pay disproportionately more than it costs to produce a tall vehicle instead of a lower sitting vehicle. I don't know why folks will do that, but I know they will. I prefer station wagons, but it seems not many makers still offer them. (I have an SUV; I drive it when there's a functional reason to do so.)
  • "Why is your family living in a 3,000sf home instead of a 1,500sf home?"
    • People want the space they want. How much space a person's home occupies is rather irrelevant, IMO.
    • A more reasonable question: "Is your house energy efficient? If not, why not?"
      • Two of my homes (each is over 3000 sq. feet) are energy efficient enough that they use about $30-$50/month from the electric utility, unless I host an event or need to heat the driveway. One thing that surprised me was how much switching to "on-demand" hot water instead of maintaining a water heater full of hot water.
Be that as it may, you asked what you asked. I suspect, however, you're going to get a lot of "carrying-on" in the answers.


Blue:
Well, that's good.


Pink:
I don't think we need to inspire folks to demand smaller homes or necessarily force folks to use less energy. I think we need to structure energy prices so they account for the true/full cost of producing and using whatever quantity of energy one consumes.

I think we also need to do things that lower the demand for non-renewable or slow-to-replace natural resources. For instance, there're surely things we can use instead of wood so we don't cut down so much forest. More trees means more airborne carbon consumed. Restoring the forests in places where it's been removed is also a thing we need to do more of and in more places.
 
1) Why are you using a pickup truck to drive back and forth to an office?
2) Why are you using an SUV to drive kids around the neighborhood?
3) Why is your family living in a 3,000sf home instead of a 1,500sf home?
4) Why are you going to a huge open air, high ceiling office space for work every day?
5) Why are you tearing up farm land over an hour drive from your work to get an oversized home cheaper and then spending the difference in mortgage on gas and cars?
6) Why are you even thinking of drinking out of bottled water. Do you know how much gas it took to get that bottle to your lips?

There are a ton of other questions we need to ask ourselves

As a politician, I am going to tell you to stop looking for someone else to solve these problems. If you are a democrat and you care about the environement, then go on a web site and get a carbon consumption analysis for yourself and family. If you are a conservative republican, can I please ask you what conservative means? Would conserving natural resources fall under the mantra of conservative thinking?

There are two ways to solve this problem. One is to tax income higher to solve this problem, but I do not like that because there is no association between cost and source of cost.

Increasing taxes to drive people into smaller homes and increasing energy cost to drive people to use less of it. That is the basic solution to all of our problems.

thanks for reading, we are all human beings, lets treat each other with respect no matter what the views or intellectual level!!!

I drive a 5.3 GMC Sierra 1500 4X4 around the corner to get a coffee and I don't give a **** who gets their panties in a wad over it.

You can live in a match box, and you can drive a GEO for all I care, but don't force your BS on me.
 
I drive a 5.3 GMC Sierra 1500 4X4 around the corner to get a coffee and I don't give a **** who gets their panties in a wad over it.

First chuckle of the day (-:

You can live in a match box,

Log cabin with a view would be my choice.

you can drive a GEO for all I care

Great little car three cylinders and all of 'em are workin' -
I've had three of them, and I'd get another in a New York
minute. No frills, no AC, a stick shift - just plain point A
to point B transportation.


but don't force your BS on me.

BINGO! That's what this Global Warming/Climate change BS is all about.
 
Wow, define pollution? The stuff spouted from the right regarding climate change, brain pollution. Have you been drinking the flint water again? Please don't bother responding, I see you are not here to discuss if you need me to define pollution. Maybe it's easier to ask what isn't polluted.

Can't define 'pollution', eh? I didn't think so.
 
They also adjust/correct the historical data. For example:

The latest GISSTEMP's Land Ocean Temperature Index LOTI came out a few days ago,
and compared to the November 2018 edition, 47% of the 1668 monthly entries had been
changed. All of the adjustments for the months of 1972 through 2018 (except for December
2004) were adjusted up. Of the 442 adjustments prior to the 1972 data 90% were adjusted
down.

This goes on every month.

These indexes are pure fabrication.

There are not enough thermometers in the ocean to measure the global temperature of the ocean. Ocean water temperature varies by distance. We simply don't have anywhere near the instrumentation to even begin a sensible statistical analysis such as this.

There are not enough thermometers on Earth to measure a global temperature either. The same problem. These are math problems, not one of science.

These numbers simply cannot represent either the temperature of the oceans or the temperature of the Earth. They are random numbers. A nice neat column of them, to be sure, but random all the same.
 
I am not trying to prove anything other then I do not buy into the junk science that leads the left to worship at the altar of the man-made climate change hoax.

And there is no reason to do so. Science is the falsifiable theories themselves, not any scientist or any group of scientists. Science simply does not use consensus.
 
So you don't know anything about the science then, and just want to repeat nonsense conspiracy memes. Okay.

He knows enough that your <insert large random number here> scientists believe in global warming is just making up random numbers.
He knows enough that science isn't <insert large random number here> scientists.
He knows enough that <insert large random number here> associations, academy, or societies is not science.
 
Seen that rubbish too many times from the church of science denial climate truther crowd. At least you guys recycle your rubbish. You'll believe any old claims on the internet if it suits your ideology, but reject science outright.

False authority fallacy. Science is not <insert large random number here> scientists or any group of scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

It is YOU that is denying science. It is YOU that is denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. it is the Church of Global Warming that denies these laws and also statistical and probability mathematics.
 
I suppose you have no clue about how many fields of science are relevant to climate change?
None. Zero. Nada. There NO branch of science that has any theories about a meaningless buzzword.
That's why the evidence is so robust.
None. Zero. Nada. There is no evidence supporting a meaningless buzzword.
There is a very strong consilence of evidence from many lines of investigations across many fields of science (not just climate science).
Science is not evidence. It is not an 'investigation'. There is no such thing as 'climate science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It has no theories about meaningless buzzwords.
 
He knows enough that your <insert large random number here> scientists believe in global warming is just making up random numbers.
He knows enough that science isn't <insert large random number here> scientists.
He knows enough that <insert large random number here> associations, academy, or societies is not science.

You forgot your Ommms...
 
Back
Top Bottom