This Is What Happens When You Elect Climate Change Deniers

a reply to: poncho1982

If we stopped burning fossil fuels today, I bet the Earth would STILL warm up.

'

Well we would have to actually try and see, which some people with deep pockets keep telling people we don't.

And 100% agree with the reforest the planet statement.

originally posted by: elfrog
Research scientists need jobs... so if I were a research scientist, I would gladly decry 'global warming' if it meant the difference between a paycheck or not. a reply to: jrod

Actually you bring right point, but from wrong perspective.

You are under delusion that scientist would lie to you in order to get founding, while not all scientist are founded by government. From corporations, schools to governments.

But what this all science debunking in USA has to do with your post - politician have to defend their chair, and guess who is gonna pay them, same people who don't care what is happening to this planet.

Today they sell you gasoline while destroying planet, tomorrow they will sell you clean water because most of it will get destroyed by them... and from looks of it, you will still believe them and most likely blame it on scientist...

a reply to: SuperFrog
But what this all science debunking in USA has to do with your post - politician have to defend their chair, and guess who is gonna pay them, same people who don't care what is happening to this planet.

Today they sell you gasoline while destroying planet, tomorrow they will sell you clean water because most of it will get destroyed by them... and from looks of it, you will still believe them and most likely blame it on scientist...

The first statement is spot on, the second one you are misrepresenting what I wrote and NOT sure what your point is. I consider myself a scientist.

We have a major problem of an ill informed voting population here in the US. At least the Democrat side recognizes the problem. If we have big money including big oil and the energy companies lobbying for laws and buying the candidates they want in office, then there is not much the lay person can do. The better funded candidate wins over 90% of the time and often the big lobby interest will bankroll both sides.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Shouldn't you be posting this on the DailyKos or maybe Huff?

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Raxusillian
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Only in the east? I guess I just imagined the last two bone chilling winters where my kids school was closed multiple times due to the cold.....in iowa

Our oops. We forgot that the whole world is located in Iowa.

Maybe. But you definitely forgot that Iowa was part of the whole world. Same with Pennsylvania and New Jersey...places I can verify have had a couple tough winters lately.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: beezzer
healthy skepticism

LOL - healthy skepticism != ignorant denial

Never mind.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SuperFrog

doesn't this make you to wonder will we survive?

No. I don't think this particular problem will eradicate humans.
I do think that it will make life less pleasant (understatement) for our children and theirs.

Exactly. Humans can adapt to much, especially as our technology improves. The problem lies with everything else we cohabit this planet with.

I think that illusion that this might make someone life less pleasant in my opinion is very wrong, as even today we have people who have 'less pleasant life' with food shortages, sickness that seems to follow famine.

In my opinion, little change might mean struggle to survive for many.

Sure, we will adopt, but most likely not everyone will survive that adoption.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Crackpot theories? Really?!? Crackpot theories is Congressmen Smith attending more meetings on aliens than on climate change real or imagined. How are you going to be informed on a matter if you don't even read up on the background reading? Then Smith has the GALL to say that climate change is unproven. Typical science denialism...

Dude, I've learned on here that most of the denialists have NOT read the actual studies. They frequently bring up such things as natural climate change, sun cycles, etc, when ALL of those are already addressed and accounted for.

Generally speaking, they don't have relevant scientific training either (if they have any at all).

Sorry denialists, your biochemistry degree or engineering degree doesn't make you magically a climate scientist.

Scientific training, lol, that often means, being made wholly to believe in a flawed system.

Religion and science, no difference much of the time.

Nah, I used to be a science teacher. And I've done a lot of real research.

What you just said is only what someone who doesn't have training in or understanding of science says. Science is NOT the same as logic, faith, opinion. The scientific method developed out of philosophy, precisely due to the limitations and failures of ONLY faith, reasoning, and even brilliant logic.

Random opinion < a rigorously evaluated scientific idea.

Sorry brah, evidence-based theories and policies trump random faith-based and personal hypotheses.

Thanks for proving my point.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Raxusillian
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Only in the east? I guess I just imagined the last two bone chilling winters where my kids school was closed multiple times due to the cold.....in iowa

Our oops. We forgot that the whole world is located in Iowa.

Maybe. But you definitely forgot that Iowa was part of the whole world. Same with Pennsylvania and New Jersey...places I can verify have had a couple tough winters lately.

How were the winters in Switzerland? Scandinavia? China? You DO know there are about 180 other countries in the world, right?

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good! As a taxpayer I am happy to see at least some judicious use of my money rather than wasting it on crackpot theories which have gained "consensus" purely due to funding threats and shouting down of dissent.

And by crackpot theories, you mean really good scientific work by some of the smartest, brightest people in the world?

And then even worse...the funding cuts proposed aren't really for any of "them dang crackpot theories" They're to collect data so that we'll have real and good information to make informed decisions.

You get that they're cutting science and data collection, so that we'll know what's really going on.

Because it costs billions to take measurements of air and gases.

WTF a high school class could do a better job than all of these so-called scientists have done in the last 200 years.

So nothing NASA has or any so-called scientists have done in the past 200 years has any value to us? Um...LOL

Here's a couple...Tons of sources to back these up too if you just google. This is just one link and only 7 examples of how science has benefited our lives tremendously. I could have listed hundreds of examples of how science has helped us in every day life. Thousands of ways actually. And Science continues to do that. You may not like Science but that doesn't mean it's not beneficial to the human race in meaningful ways.

www.factmonster.com...


Gravity

Isaac Newton, an English mathematician and physicist, is considered the greatest scientist of all time. Among his many discoveries, the most important is probably his law of universal gravitation. In 1664, Newton figured out that gravity is the force that draws objects toward each other. It explained why things fall down and why the planets orbit around the Sun.

Electricity

If electricity makes life easier for us, you can thank Michael Faraday. He made two big discoveries that changed our lives. In 1821, he discovered that when a wire carrying an electric current is placed next to a single magnetic pole, the wire will rotate. This led to the development of the electric motor. Ten years later, he became the first person to produce an electric current by moving a wire through a magnetic field. Faraday's experiment created the first generator, the forerunner of the huge generators that produce our electricity.

Louis Pasteur

Before French chemist Louis Pasteur began experimenting with bacteria in the 1860s, people did not know what caused disease. He not only discovered that disease came from microorganisms, but he also realized that bacteria could be killed by heat and disinfectant. This idea caused doctors to wash their hands and sterilize their instruments, which has saved millions of lives.

Penicillin

Antibiotics are powerful drugs that kill dangerous bacteria in our bodies that make us sick. In 1928, Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic, penicillin, which he grew in his lab using mold and fungi. Without antibiotics, infections like strep throat could be deadly.

DNA

On February 28, 1953, James Watson of the United States and Francis Crick of England made one of the greatest scientific discoveries in history. The two scientists found the double-helix structure of DNA. It’s made up of two strands that twist around each other and have an almost endless variety of chemical patterns that create instructions for the human body to follow. Our genes are made of DNA and determine how things like what color hair and eyes we’ll have. In 1962, they were awarded the Nobel Prize for this work. The discovery has helped doctors understand diseases and may someday prevent some illnesses like heart disease and cancer.

Periodic Table

The Periodic Table is based on the 1869 Periodic Law proposed by Russian chemist Dmitry Mendeleev. He had noticed that, when arranged by atomic weight, the chemical elements lined up to form groups with similar properties. He was able to use this to predict the existence of undiscovered elements and note errors in atomic weights. In 1913, Henry Moseley of England confirmed that the table could be made more accurate by arranging the elements by atomic number, which is the number of protons in an atom of the element.

X-Rays

Wilhelm Roentgen, a German physicist, discovered X-rays in 1895. X-rays go right through some substances, like flesh and wood, but are stopped by others, such as bones and lead. This allows them to be used to see broken bones or explosives inside suitcases, which makes them useful for doctors and security officers. For this discovery, Roentgen was awarded the first-ever Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

NASA needs to spend trillions on climate research in my opinion. That way nothing will change and we can just continue arguing about whether it exists or not.

Climate change is the PERFECT topic for politicians. It gets people worked up and arguing over things they have no control over. Why focus on things we can change when we can spend all of our energy on researching what we can't.

You know...because a CME that could happen at ANY time and wipe out our energy grid causing hundreds of millions of deaths doesn't matter. Researching more of what is going on in space like our sun that can produce CME's, or impending asteroid impacts that would wipe out ALL species is not important.

What ISN'T important is researching whether or not climate is changing, BECAUSE it has always been changing. Or to what extent man is changing it, when you know, we could just treat the environment better. That doesn't take research.

Recycling, reducing your carbon footprint has nothing to do with Climate change research.

NASA needs to stick to OUTERSPACE research, because man's greatest threats come from things in OUTERSPACE.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

NASA needs to spend trillions on climate research in my opinion. That way nothing will change and we can just continue arguing about whether it exists or not.

Climate change is the PERFECT topic for politicians. It gets people worked up and arguing over things they have no control over. Why focus on things we can change when we can spend all of our energy on researching what we can't.

You know...because a CME that could happen at ANY time and wipe out our energy grid causing hundreds of millions of deaths doesn't matter. Researching more of what is going on in space like our sun that can produce CME's, or impending asteroid impacts that would wipe out ALL species is not important.

What ISN'T important is researching whether or not climate is changing, BECAUSE it has always been changing. Or to what extent man is changing it, when you know, we could just treat the environment better. That doesn't take research.

Recycling, reducing your carbon footprint has nothing to do with Climate change research.

NASA needs to stick to OUTERSPACE research, because man's greatest threats come from things in OUTERSPACE.

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
NASA needs to stick to OUTERSPACE research, because man's greatest threats come from things in OUTERSPACE.

On contrary, man's greatest threat is man himself...

Proven through our bloody history and we are only species capable of destroying planet and/or responsible for on going mass extinction.

I think it would be best to leave up to NASA what they need, as IMHO it is very wrong if politician start to make decisions for lab or classroom.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

For one, we already know climate change is occurring and man is causing it. The ONLY reason there is still a debate is because the oil tycoons pay a bunch of politicians and media pundits a lot of money to say that it isn't or there are doubts. Then useful idiots believe that tripe and repeat that same nonsense in forums such as this one without actually LOOKING into the science for themselves and seeing if it is wrong (why do that when someone on television is telling you it's wrong? After all the television wouldn't lie to you right?).

For two, we may not be able to stop natural climate change, nor do we want to. What we DO want to stop is man made climate change. Which we CAN stop, because we are causing it. We just have to own up to it instead of shifting the blame and saying that we aren't responsible for large scale extinctions on par with the great extinctions of times past.

For three, There ARE solutions. And no, they don't have to be crappy carbon credits. Carbon credits are just a band aid to the problem of using oil. They won't fix anything and will just make a bunch of corrupt businessmen a lot of money at the expense of the taxpayer. I posted links earlier in the thread to hemp oil, which if legalized may ACTUALLY help stabilize the climate and even reverse some of our damage. At least it would be a start. Stop relying on oil from unscrupulous assholes in the middle east and instead grow our own oil in our own backyard. Why anyone would want to stop this from happening is beyond me.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

For one, we already know climate change is occurring and man is causing it. The ONLY reason there is still a debate is because the oil tycoons pay a bunch of politicians and media pundits a lot of money to say that it isn't or there are doubts. Then useful idiots believe that tripe and repeat that same nonsense in forums such as this one without actually LOOKING into the science for themselves and seeing if it is wrong (why do that when someone on television is telling you it's wrong? After all the television wouldn't lie to you right?).

For two, we may not be able to stop natural climate change, nor do we want to. What we DO want to stop is man made climate change. Which we CAN stop, because we are causing it. We just have to own up to it instead of shifting the blame and saying that we aren't responsible for large scale extinctions on par with the great extinctions of times past.

For three, There ARE solutions. And no, they don't have to be crappy carbon credits. Carbon credits are just a band aid to the problem of using oil. They won't fix anything and will just make a bunch of corrupt businessmen a lot of money at the expense of the taxpayer. I posted links earlier in the thread to hemp oil, which if legalized may ACTUALLY help stabilize the climate and even reverse some of our damage. At least it would be a start. Stop relying on oil from unscrupulous assholes in the middle east and instead grow our own oil in our own backyard. Why anyone would want to stop this from happening is beyond me.

We absolutely do NOT know that.

Wow.

a reply to: poncho1982

Well you may not know it, but the top scientists in the world all agree it is true. Great contribution to the thread by the way. You really disproved me! /sarc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

For one, we already know climate change is occurring and man is causing it. The ONLY reason there is still a debate is because the oil tycoons pay a bunch of politicians and media pundits a lot of money to say that it isn't or there are doubts. Then useful idiots believe that tripe and repeat that same nonsense in forums such as this one without actually LOOKING into the science for themselves and seeing if it is wrong (why do that when someone on television is telling you it's wrong? After all the television wouldn't lie to you right?).

For two, we may not be able to stop natural climate change, nor do we want to. What we DO want to stop is man made climate change. Which we CAN stop, because we are causing it. We just have to own up to it instead of shifting the blame and saying that we aren't responsible for large scale extinctions on par with the great extinctions of times past.

For three, There ARE solutions. And no, they don't have to be crappy carbon credits. Carbon credits are just a band aid to the problem of using oil. They won't fix anything and will just make a bunch of corrupt businessmen a lot of money at the expense of the taxpayer. I posted links earlier in the thread to hemp oil, which if legalized may ACTUALLY help stabilize the climate and even reverse some of our damage. At least it would be a start. Stop relying on oil from unscrupulous assholes in the middle east and instead grow our own oil in our own backyard. Why anyone would want to stop this from happening is beyond me.

This has become a religion,hasn`t it?

a reply to: Sunwolf

Another great contribution to the thread... Do you denialists not even try anymore? No rebuttals, just one line dismissals of a three paragraph post.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What did you expect?

Many of them have previously posted comments disparaging intelligence. Their heroes seem to be the likes of Homer Simpson.

I am sure you have noticed the trend with some groups that use the term science or scientist almost like a slur. Remember that roughly half the population is below average intelligence and it seems to me they want that to be fashionable.