Global Warming Poll

[jjtroutbum]

Are these the same "experts" that claimed global cooling back in the seventies and the approach of the coming ice age?

IMHO follow the money, wanna raid the coffers of the evil capitalist create a new bogus tax. Lets call it a "Carbon Credit."

[jjtroutbum]

The only real solution to this global warming thing is to nuke the whole darn planet and let it start over all by itself.

If there is a god, it was his biggest mistake putting us here.

Self hate is a trait almost universal in the progressive movement.

[gotmuddy]

Are these the same "experts" that claimed global cooling back in the seventies and the approach of the coming ice age?

IMHO follow the money, wanna raid the coffers of the evil capitalist create a new bogus tax. Lets call it a "Carbon Credit."

Do not doubt scientists, they cannot be wrong. They werent wrong in the 70s, werent still wrong in the 90s and no way could they be wrong now.

I am glad you brought up carbon credits. That is how the "scientific consensus" ties into greedy capitalists. CFL lights were supposed to save the world by saving energy, but NO ONE talks about the fact that there is mercury in them. The same company that is the largest maker of CFL's also is one of the companies in the best position to make ridiculous amounts of money off Carbon Credits. GE.

My issue is if you look where the scientists get their money from it seems to always be from a left leaning foundation or from teh government. Sure, oil and gas companies have alot of money, but who has limitless funds? :tinfoil hat:

[Tim Smith]

Do not doubt scientists, they cannot be wrong. They werent wrong in the 70s, werent still wrong in the 90s and no way could they be wrong now.

I am glad you brought up carbon credits. That is how the "scientific consensus" ties into greedy capitalists. CFL lights were supposed to save the world by saving energy, but NO ONE talks about the fact that there is mercury in them. The same company that is the largest maker of CFL's also is one of the companies in the best position to make ridiculous amounts of money off Carbon Credits. GE.

My issue is if you look where the scientists get their money from it seems to always be from a left leaning foundation or from teh government. Sure, oil and gas companies have alot of money, but who has limitless funds? :tinfoil hat:

Guys, you're going to hang in here you're going to have to actually do some research or this is going to get ugly for you.

If you're trying to suggest scientists think they never make mistakes that's just absurd. I got an email yesterday with a list of retractions over the past year, all in new cutting edge topics where mistakes are likely. Climate change is not cutting edge science. That trend has been discussed for decades and we're down to sorting out details and contingent events.

If you're suggesting papers about ice ages in the 70s contradict the current climate trends that's even more abusurd. The next ice age is supposedly 10,000 years in the future. Global warming is an emerging problem over the next 1000 years.

Since you hate science I guess its no surprise you hate government funded science. That over looks the fact that most basic research is funded by the government (because business won't take those risks and they can't make a buck off it). Government funded basic research is the foundation for most sustantial new technologies and scientific breakthroughs.

Given that you're using Limbaugh talking points here, I guess that's your alternative for reliable information? Yikes.

Limbaugh is the guy who said global warming wouldn't cause sea level rise because the water levels stay the same when ice melts in water...as if scientists didn't know that. Sea level rise comes from the melting of ice on land and the exansion of water due to heat. The man doesn't even know what he is saying. He just knows that "LIBerALSSSsss" are evil and anything an environmental scientist says is designed to enslave you and force you to eat tofu. What an awesome mentor.

I don't even know what to do with your comments about light bulbs and carbon credits. Is your point that technology isn't perfect? EVERYONE knows there is mercury in those lights and personally, I'm hoping we find a better way to have low energy lights soon. How is any of that relevant?

I'm also no big fan of carbon credits but its hard to know what you're even criticizing here. "Carbon credits" are a policy invention and don't have anything to do with science. I guess since you're lumping huge groups of people into one giant mass of "LIBerallLLLssss" you don't see that distinction.

I also get that you're angry about GE having lots of money but I'm not sure why you expect from them. Should they be trying to lose money and make MORE pollution??

You gotta do better than this. Fire up Google and brew some coffee and raise your game. I'm getting bored.

[eric1978]

Tim and Al,

The Man once said, "If the arrow is straight and the point is slick, it can pierce through dust no matter how thick."

The one exception to that rule is gotmuddy...you're just not gonna get through. Keep up the good fight, but don't waste your time on him.

[Al Agnew]

I know I'm beating my head against the wall, but just a few more points...

If you knew the history behind the carbon credits scheme, you'd know that environmentalists were never all that hot about carbon credits as the main policy response to climate change. Fact is that the industries that are responsible for a lot of the CO2 were grudgingly saying that carbon credits were acceptable when that scheme was being discussed along with others, because the carbon credit deal was the least objectionable to them. So the politicians on BOTH sides decided that carbon credits were the way to go, the Democrats because it looked like the only thing they could get passed, the Republicans, at least those who realized something probably needed to be done, because it was marginally acceptable to industry. Actually it looked like a pretty decent deal for industry, since they could either spend the money to clean up their act or spend it buying credits so they didn't have to clean up their act, but it would put everybody on a reasonably level playing field. But the conservative talk show heads didn't give up, and neither did industry. By the time a concrete carbon credit proposal came out, there were sweetheart deals for some people, non-mandatory deals for others, and the most vocal opponents of ANY action whatsoever had pretty well convinced a large number of people that it would totally wreck the economy. Politics at its finest.

I've heard the whole "well, the 70s the scientists were saying we were in danger of going into another ice age" thing so many times it makes me sick. Go back and look at what really went on back then. A HANDFUL of scientists came up with that theory...probably fewer climate scientists than the three to five percent that now deny warming bought into it. But the media jumped all over it for a short period of time, and all of a sudden people thought it was the prevailing scientific theory. It was not, never was. But that doesn't matter to those who continue to parrot it as "proof" that climate scientists don't know what they are talking about. I am heartily sick of that.

[Flysmallie]

Okay, so what's the score here?

[David Unnerstall]

I wonder...what EXACTLY changed peoples' minds in thinking the earth is not flat?

[lee G.]

For me, it was all the pictures from space orbit!

[Gary Lange]

People believe what they want to believe.