Guest viewing is limited

Donald Trump running for president

Dma378 said:
For every link you post, I can match it. Your studies are bought. Any study from a politically backed site, news outlet, etc. is bought. On both sides. I am an independent science advocate. And your one-sided right leaning science denial means nothing to me. Zero.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Im not right leaning, lol but I am right to be skeptical when trillions of dollars in corporate profits, tax laws, and regulations are part of the agenda.

Your the one sided one arent you? I mean you conclusively think that mans fart is the primary bullet for climate change and deny the sun has anything to do with it, if going by what the "science" says you choose to side with.

You do know trillions of dollars are at stake here, and none of the solutions will solve the issue, but rather than further tax, profit and gain control over society.

The funny part is, we can easily innovate out of this and help pollution as a whole which I strongly support, but the very people with the solutions have no interest in helping people if it hurts their pockets. Thats why Tesla was attacked and had all his good science stolen from him and kept secret.
 
ax1 said:
Im not right leaning, lol

Your the one sided one arent you? I mean you conclusively think that mans fart is the primary bullet for climate change and deny the sun has anything to do with it, if going by what the "science" says you choose to side with.

You do know trillions of dollars are at stake here, and none of the solutions will solve the issue, but rather than further tax, profit and gain control over society.

The funny part is, we can easily innovate out of this and help pollution as a whole which I strongly support, but the very people with the solutions have no interest in helping people if it hurts their pockets. Thats why Tesla was attacked and had all his good science stolen from him and kept secret.
Click to expand...

The right leaning comment wasn't directed at you. But ok on the rest of your comment.
 
I don't mix my science and politics. I'll reiterate, real science has no political agenda. Politics has an agenda and will manipulate science to either side. And that's fine. My science support and beliefs do not come from my politics.
 
Dma378 said:
I don't mix my science and politics. I'll reiterate, real science has no political agenda. Politics has an agenda and will manipulate science to either side. And that's fine. My science support and beliefs do not come from my politics.
Click to expand...

If global warming isn't a political agenda, why did AL Gore and his buddies want to set up a Carbon exchange in order to monetize carbon credits?

You may not mix science and politics, but the administration sure as hell does.
 
youngandfree said:
If global warming isn't a political agenda, why did AL Gore and his buddies want to set up a Carbon exchange in order to monetize carbon credits?
Click to expand...

Dude you're not very good at interpreting what you read. I'm pretty sure the very post you quoted and question says,

"Politics has an agenda and will manipulate science to either side"
 
Dma378 said:
I don't mix my science and politics. I'll reiterate, real science has no political agenda. Politics has an agenda and will manipulate science to either side. And that's fine. My science support and beliefs do not come from my politics.
Click to expand...

Ok I respect that, will still debate the hell out of this but don't take it personal against you :)
 
Dma378 said:
And no, I don't watch cable news channels. They're all a joke. I get my news from Facebook, the Daily Show, and Bill Maher.

Not srs.

But srs about the news channels
Click to expand...

I knew you must've been kidding because you left Reddit off the list. That's really the only place online for proper / current news. That's where I get all of my political info from too. If it's not on Reddit, it's not the truth
 
Trillions of dollars versus the future of humanity. Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

If we can try to avert the coming calamities that would come from global warming, then why shouldn't we? If we even have a small chance, then why wouldn't we even try?

Otherwise, there won't be any future in which to spend said money.
 
Misfit28 said:
Trillions of dollars versus the future of humanity. Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

If we can try to avert the coming calamities that would come from global warming, then why shouldn't we? If we even have a small chance, then why wouldn't we even try?

Otherwise, there won't be any future in which to spend said money.
Click to expand...

Its called PRS. Problem, reaction, solution. We create an illusion of crisis such as Al Gore going on Oprah showing how San Fransisco will be submerged under water, the people in the audience get a reaction and then you follow with the solution which is to install global governance and hand over Al Gore and his corporate minions power and control.

PRS = Profit.

The trillions of dollars, un-elected global governance and power grab IS the future of humanity. Not some climate change ponzi scheme.
 
Misfit28 said:
If we can try to avert the coming calamities that would come from global warming, then why shouldn't we?
Click to expand...

Because its a lie, and they have been caught with the cover up to in order to promote their political agenda's.

Mark my words...its 30 years they will revert to global freezing again.

Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
Its called PRS. Problem, reaction, solution. We create an illusion of crisis such as Al Gore going on Oprah showing how San Fransisco will be submerged under water, the people in the audience get a reaction and then you follow with the solution which is to install global governance and hand over Al Gore and his corporate minions power and control.

PRS = Profit.

The trillions of dollars, un-elected global governance and power grab IS the future of humanity. Not some climate change ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...

The problem and rejection started when a politician began talking about it. Had a scientist came on and only scientists talked about it...different story. Different reaction.

Does Al Gore have an agenda? Yes

Do the companies behind him have an interest? Yes

Do other politicians follow suit? Yes

Did the opposing politicians create and fund opposition? Yes

Do they have interests funding them? Yes

Do the original studies, findings, and ideas care? No
 
ax1 said:
Because its a lie, and they have been caught with the cover up to in order to promote their political agenda's.

Mark my words...its 30 years they will revert to global freezing again.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

More of the problem. Not science. This is why there is even rejection in the first place. Now it's politics. Had no place.
 
Dma378 said:
The problem and rejection started when a politician began talking about it. Had a scientist came on and only scientists talked about it...different story. Different reaction.

Does Al Gore have an agenda? Yes

Do the companies behind him have an interest? Yes

Do other politicians follow suit? Yes

Did the opposing politicians create and fund opposition? Yes

Do they have interests funding them? Yes

Do the original studies, findings, and ideas care? No
Click to expand...

The rejection comes from many other scientists around the world including NASA that disagree with the extremities of the conclusiveness on the science on the causes of "climate change." Not some politician.
 
Dma378 said:
More of the problem. Not science. This is why there is even rejection in the first place. Now it's politics. Had no place.
Click to expand...

This is the problem, when counter science comes to play its not science any more. Slap on the conspiracy label and hand over the tax money before we all die. That for certain is not science.
 
ax1 said:
This is the problem, when counter science comes to play its not science any more. Slap on the conspiracy label and hand over the tax money before we all die. That for certain is not science.
Click to expand...

And this again is where my science comes from. Sure there are also scientists who claim evolution is false. But I will believe the majority of evidence that is repeated, repeatable, and echoed by the majority of the sciences and scientists. With science, I do not cling to a small community who clamor in rejection of the evidence.
 
ax1 said:
Because its a lie, and they have been caught with the cover up to in order to promote their political agenda's.

Mark my words...its 30 years they will revert to global freezing again.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...


This RSS chart cover's more than half of 400+ months of all satellite records and is recent from 96-2014 and shows NO global warming.
 
And ax1 if you think the "Al Gore" side of it is the only side with trillions of dollars on the line, we are not even debating.
 
Dma378 said:
And this again is where my science comes from. Sure there are also scientists who claim evolution is false. But I will believe the majority of evidence that is repeated, repeatable, and echoed by the majority of the sciences and scientists. With science, I do not cling to a small community who clamor in rejection of the evidence.
Click to expand...

Who is this majority? This is what they regurgitate over and over again to convince people there is no debate.
 
Dma378 said:
And ax1 if you think the "Al Gore" side of it is the only side with trillions of dollars on the line, we are not even debating.
Click to expand...

No, its a global conglomerate to install global governance. The richest man in China right now just overtook Jack Ma (Alibaba) and he made it through solar panel.

There are alot of people that have a stake, alot of scientists manipulated with improper data and best of all this is exposed as a cover up and they do not want you to know about it.
 
Dma378 said:
But I will believe the majority of evidence that is repeated, repeatable, and echoed by the majority of the sciences and scientists. With science, I do not cling to a small community who clamor in rejection of the evidence.
Click to expand...

Thank you for being on the same page as me, thank you :)

More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.)

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
Misfit28 said:
Trillions of dollars versus the future of humanity. Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

If we can try to avert the coming calamities that would come from global warming, then why shouldn't we? If we even have a small chance, then why wouldn't we even try?

Otherwise, there won't be any future in which to spend said money.
Click to expand...

If we can just save 1 life by restricting legal gun ownership, has the same emotional plea dosen't it.
 
Dma378 said:
The problem and rejection started when a politician began talking about it. Had a scientist came on and only scientists talked about it...different story. Different reaction.

Does Al Gore have an agenda? Yes

Do the companies behind him have an interest? Yes

Do other politicians follow suit? Yes

Did the opposing politicians create and fund opposition? Yes

Do they have interests funding them? Yes

Do the original studies, findings, and ideas care? No
Click to expand...

Do the scientists living off federal grants studying it, or anything else for that matter, have an interest in keeping the money coming in? Yes
 
youngandfree said:
Funny, politicians aren't using the theory of relativity to bankrupt energy companies, so it's not really relevant to the topic.
Click to expand...

It's the exact point he's trying to make. And your use of the word politician is his point. So in essence, you're making his point for him and missing it at the same time.
 
Dma378 said:
I think by NASA, you mean a couple people at NASA.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but when I posted a letter signed by 50 NASA scientists and astronauts man made climate change critics it meant nothing to you.

That 97% study you posted was not true, it was invalidated by a more up to date legitimate study I posted discrediting that involving 1800+ random scientists (not government selected or funded ones) to take a survey.

43% are 95% sure....lol
and 57% think its other factors.

So thanks for being on the same page with me, :)
 
ax1 said:
Yeah, but when I posted a letter signed by 50 NASA scientists and astronauts man made climate change critics it meant nothing to you.

That 97% study you posted was not true, it was invalidated by a more up to date legitimate study I posted discrediting that involving 1800+ random scientists (not government selected or funded ones) to take a survey.

43% are 95% sure....lol
and 57% think its other factors.

So thanks for being on the same page with me, :)
Click to expand...

Just as mine have no effect on you. Tit for Tat :beerchug:
 
I'm making the point that the statement has zero to do with the topic of discussion. There areany scientists that dispute the claim of man made global warming.

You still haven't explained what caused the global warming that melted each ice age.
 
youngandfree said:
I'm making the point that the statement has zero to do with the topic of discussion. There areany scientists that dispute the claim of man made global warming.

You still haven't explained what caused the global warming that melted each ice age.
Click to expand...

Carbon. It is the rate of emissions and amount of Carbon concentration on the PPM that is the concern. The Earth has had several high carbon concentration periods. It is the rate of increase that is alarming.
 
youngandfree said:
I'm making the point that the statement has zero to do with the topic of discussion. There areany scientists that dispute the claim of man made global warming.

You still haven't explained what caused the global warming that melted each ice age.
Click to expand...

Can imagine this is why vvv

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
 
Dma378 said:
Carbon. It is the rate of emissions and amount of Carbon concentration on the PPM that is the concern. The Earth has had several high carbon concentration periods. It is the rate of increase that is alarming.
Click to expand...

Or, solar activity changes out of control that climate extremists choose to slap the tin foil hat label on. Reasons why ice is melting on pluto and Aliens dont like flying there.
 
Dma378 said:
Carbon. It is the rate of emissions and amount of Carbon concentration on the PPM that is the concern. The Earth has had several high carbon concentration periods. It is the rate of increase that is alarming.
Click to expand...

Fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century which is before the industrial revolution.

Did people eat alot of hamburgers?
 
Dma378 said:
Carbon. It is the rate of emissions and amount of Carbon concentration on the PPM that is the concern. The Earth has had several high carbon concentration periods. It is the rate of increase that is alarming.
Click to expand...

Where did the carbon emissions come from thousands of years ago if humans weren't burning oil and coal. Obviously it wasn't bad enough that there were multiple ice ages. If the earth went from a period of large scale ice cover, then periods without, on a cyclical basis, without human influence, how can anyone think we are going to influence it? What happened to the next ice age the "scientists" were predicting in the 80's?
 
Oh boy. Wow. Anyways...

It's about much more than ice melting. You know that's the big talking point. Or few degrees of increase and more or less rain and snow. These are elementary concerns to long term increased carbon emissions.
 
youngandfree said:
Where did the carbon emissions come from thousands of years ago if humans weren't burning oil and coal. Obviously it wasn't bad enough that there were multiple ice ages. If the earth went from a period of large scale ice cover, then periods without, on a cyclical basis, without human influence, how can anyone think we are going to influence it? What happened to the next ice age the "scientists" were predicting in the 80's?
Click to expand...

A true lack of understanding of science and chemistry. Hardly worth it. I'll keep it simple, because God wanted to. And because now he wants it to be the way it is now. And it's all part of his plan. Was and always will be. We are safe. Fuk it.
 
ax1 said:
Fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century which is before the industrial revolution.

Did people eat alot of hamburgers?
Click to expand...

In central England, cool. Hardly a global threat.
 
The global temp obviously fluctuated a few degrees back and forth, and humans didn't cause it thousands of years ago. Mr evolution and pure science is inarguable, you can't answer those questions. By by talking down to a "denier" and saying you wouldn't understand, isn't arguing your point either.

In my lifetime, "scientists" predicted an ice age. Then they said, oops, we meant it's getting hotter. Now the median temperature for over 10 years has been going slightly down. Sure you can measure the Temps and track it. But it doesn't prove humans are causing the ups and downs.
 
Dma378 said:
Oh boy. Wow. Anyways...

It's about much more than ice melting. You know that's the big talking point. Or few degrees of increase and more or less rain and snow. These are elementary concerns to long term increased carbon emissions.
Click to expand...

Carbon is one of the building blocks of life, it helps plants and trees grow which we could use more of.
 
youngandfree said:
Where did the carbon emissions come from thousands of years ago if humans weren't burning oil and coal. Obviously it wasn't bad enough that there were multiple ice ages. If the earth went from a period of large scale ice cover, then periods without, on a cyclical basis, without human influence, how can anyone think we are going to influence it? What happened to the next ice age the "scientists" were predicting in the 80's?
Click to expand...

We can get it from volcano's. Then again, a single volcano can emit more carbon than 100 years of human activity, so we can just stop with the man made carbon hoax non-sense. Its really silly. Why dont they pick on volcano's and leave my gas tax alone.
 
youngandfree said:
The global temp obviously fluctuated a few degrees back and forth, and humans didn't cause it thousands of years ago. Mr evolution and pure science is inarguable, you can't answer those questions. By by talking down to a "denier" and saying you wouldn't understand, isn't arguing your point either.

In my lifetime, "scientists" predicted an ice age. Then they said, oops, we meant it's getting hotter. Now the median temperature for over 10 years has been going slightly down. Sure you can measure the Temps and track it. But it doesn't prove humans are causing the ups and downs.
Click to expand...

Thats why they dont even use "global warming" anymore....they had to change it to "climate change" because you cant debate the climate changes (it changes day to day, morning to night) and whenever the climate changes its not natural and we have to give rich powerful people our money to save us from ourselves.
 
ax1 said:
We can get it from volcano's. Then again, a single volcano can emit more carbon than 100 years of human activity, so we can just stop with the man made carbon hoax non-sense. Its really silly. Why dont they pick on volcano's and leave my gas tax alone.
Click to expand...

And for volcanoes to be more dormant now than they were in the past is an argument for rising carbon coming from elsewhere.

Also the issue is that the changes happening now are basically happening over the course of a couple decades what took tens of thousands of years in the past.
 
ax1 said:
Carbon is one of the building blocks of life, it helps plants and trees grow which we could use more of.
Click to expand...

Carbon dioxide, the most dangerous green house gas killing our planet, comes from lungs of humans and animals. If all the global warming zombies were so concerned about lowering greenhouse gases, why don't they just remove themselves from the equation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top