Trump does not belive in climate change

The first problem here is that climate change is a "belief" which means it is more akin to religion than science. And second is that it had to be changed from global warming to climate change because tenperature data recently didnt support global warming. Third issue is that carbon dioxide is not poisonous. It is what plants breathe, and increased co2 levels should theoretically be conducive to increased plant growth, meaning increased oxygen production.

There is a lot of evidence on both sides of the issue of how much co2 emmissions affect the climate. If one really bothers to study all,of it thoroughly, one will see that this is not a cut and dry issue either way.

And my last point, no matter what the conclusion is, the only reason climate change is being pushed is so there can be carbon taxes. Carbon taxes are the basis of,the new worpd government globalists are trying to construct.

originally posted by: queenofswords
You mean he's not a member of the Church of Climatology!

All the Big Globalist Government Priests won't be getting his support, I guess.

How are the "studies" supposed to continue? Who is going to fund the "scientists"? Who is going to pay to color the stats? This stuff takes money. Jobs will be lost! This is the fundamental doctrine of the Church of Climatology! How are Big Family Foundations going to survive?!

If we can't prove man, and man alone, is responsible for heating/cooling/heating again/cooling again/big storms/little storms/warm winters/cold winters/hottest days since 1920's/etc., how can we ask our "flock of sheep" for their contributions? How can we maintain our Big Slush Funds?

Somebody convert that man NOW!

But what about all the real hardworking scientists, researchers, college departments, professors, scientific organizations that aren't lying to us. You have to know that not all scientists and doctors are bad and evil. Right?

a reply to: CosmicSmack

Man made climate change is the biggest threat to all the nations.

Just ask the folks in Brussels.

originally posted by: pirhanna
The first problem here is that climate change is a "belief" which means it is more akin to religion than science. And second is that it had to be changed from global warming to climate change because tenperature data recently didnt support global warming. Third issue is that carbon dioxide is not poisonous. It is what plants breathe, and increased co2 levels should theoretically be conducive to increased plant growth, meaning increased oxygen production.

There is a lot of evidence on both sides of the issue of how much co2 emmissions affect the climate. If one really bothers to study all,of it thoroughly, one will see that this is not a cut and dry issue either way.

And my last point, no matter what the conclusion is, the only reason climate change is being pushed is so there can be carbon taxes. Carbon taxes are the basis of,the new worpd government globalists are trying to construct.

I didn't change anything. I still call it Global warming because earth= globe is getting hotter=warming. Global temperature records don't lie.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I think a better bird for your picture would be a parrot.

a reply to: CosmicSmack

So, then ----- you don't care about the health of the planet.

Right?

www.forbes.com...

www.wsj.com...

www.populartechnology.net...

wattsupwiththat.com...

www.thenewamerican.com...

www.truthandaction.org...

www.globalclimatescam.com...


www.forbes.com...

www.breitbart.com...

Read that if you still think MOST scientists are on board with this mass hysteria.

Also this is not a claim like evolution or such since they have good data to go on for those.

This is not even a good theory.

The whole 97% consensus is BS. It was made by a global warming ACTIVIST with questionable ties who looked over published papers on the subject. He applied his spin on what they say. The survey used by him was complete crap as far as surveys go.

Allot of the scientist came forward to say their work did not say what he said they did.

There have been other studies but the notion of general consensus is patently BS. Its more like a 40-60 to 50-50 split. The 60% being against it.

Depends on the SURVEY!

These videos are getting shorter and shorter, what happened to all the subliminal messages?



Of course he has said it before, in as about a rational manner as an amoeba...sorry worse. Not exactly a viable champion for anti-AGW, the cheapskate.

a reply to: pirhanna

Third issue is that carbon dioxide is not poisonous. It is what plants breathe, and increased co2 levels should theoretically be conducive to increased plant growth, meaning increased oxygen production.

So then how do you rationalize deforestation? Obvi we need trees and plants to keep things balanced.

We need bodies of water and oceans that are able to do their part without being drowned in oil or choked with plastics or toxins.

Is it okay with you that the Amazon Forest in South America is being annihilated? The forested areas of the US? That your 'beige subdivision' ripped out all the mature trees so you can have a 3-days-to-build "McMansion" filled with dangerous chemicals like VOC and 'furniture toxins'?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I know your leftist game, i don't agree with you so i am a racist fascist who wants the plant to rot.

a reply to: CosmicSmack

Where do you get that understanding from?

It is true that the earth goes thru cycles of warming and cooling, that isn't the issue. It is the rate at which it is happening right now.

nasa disagrees with him. so believe the guy who builds casinos or the people who went to the moon.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The main thing our leaders are pushing is that our CO2 is killing the planet and we must be taxed so don't breath. Deforestation is not their issue. We affect the plant but CO2 barely does, i have heard some experts say the % CO2 affects climate is statistically 0

a reply to: CosmicSmack
You won't answer the question, then....
it was: Do you not care about the health of this planet?

I guess not..........

*************

Disclaimer: what follows is sarcasm.

Okay, you win.
There was no moon landing.
The weather is not being erratic.
It doesn't matter if we cause earthquakes, level jungles and forests, burn coal, and continue to emit toxins into the air.
No worries if the oceans are being choked by plastics, and honey-bees are dying.....

Because - money.

end sarcasm
But now really - right? Money is more important?

Just answer the questions..... (I notice you're not answering the questions)
or not, but meanwhile, here is how I picture you:

a reply to: pirhanna

The first problem here is that climate change is a "belief" which means it is more akin to religion than science.

No, it isn't...

That is the problem, people don't even understand it enough. That 97% number that gets tossed around may not be accurate. But it is a majority, and world wide.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Lol did i say all of that?

Same old same old already in here.

All about a scam to get money, the theoretical billions that will go to all the scientist who are all in on this!

While ignoring the actual trillions being made by the current system of fossil fuels. But hey, lets ignore that money and why they would have a horse in denying it and just focus on the made up billions that will be made if we take the blinders off our eyes.
climate.nasa.gov...

a reply to: CosmicSmack

You said that you don't believe the moon landing really happened, or that evolution is real, or that "climate change" is real.

You said that you don't think human activity is a problem.

RIGHT????

originally posted by: tadaman
www.forbes.com...

www.wsj.com...

www.populartechnology.net...


www.thenewamerican.com...

Read that if you still think MOST scientists are on board with this mass hysteria.

Also this is not a claim like evolution or such since they have good data to go on for those.

This is not even a good theory.

The whole 97% concensus is BS. It was made by a global warming ACTIVIST with questionable ties who looked over published papers on the subject. He applied his spin on what they say.

Allot of the scientist came forward to say their work did not say what he said it did.

There are a lot and it's not just one little study.

Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, in 2004 found that 75 percent of published studies supported anthropogenic global warming. Since then, six other studies have been published with widespread media attention. Those seven studies looked at 4,014 research papers. That's a lot of people. I've also listed and linked before almost every large University science program states that Man made Climate change is real. Start googling major universities and drill down to their positions on Climate change. That's hundreds of Scientists and researchers. Then there is a list on NASA website listing over 200 organizations that agree with the man made global warming theory. NOt just climate scientists but almost every other scientific discipline including geologists, physicists, doctors...everything. It's actually really hard to find a real scientists that disputes this. I know there's a group called the Oregon petition started by a Fossil fuel paid hack names Seitz? but there's not many out there...that dispute this. Man made climate change is real. Dont' believe me but research it for yourself.

a reply to: vjr1113

check out the van Allen radiation belt