Trump does not belive in climate change

a reply to: CosmicSmack

So you have no intention of answering the questions inspired by your OP, right?

a reply to: CosmicSmack

So you also think the moon landing was faked...

originally posted by: CosmicSmack
a reply to: vjr1113

check out the van Allen radiation belt

They actually determined that with the speed the astronauts were traveling and the skin of the craft would probably be enough to shield the astronauts. It was. They only needed moderate protection. They determined this through project "starfish" or something like that before the missions.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I meant in terms of it being a scam to tax CO2. Man does affect things. Why did we go the moon in the 69sand never went back? Do you know what the van Allen radiation belt is? Are there not many missing links in human evolution? What about all those elongated skulls found everywhere? I dont know all the answers i do not believe or disbelieve i simply doubt and question.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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 bit off topic but this post resonates.

its very clear we dont need fossil fuels as much, or in some cases at all, the only reason oil is still relevant is because of the car, military, and oil industry making billions and billions. oil is about as dated as betamax and its costing us our environment and funding Arabia and to some extent the biggest enemies of civilization.

I'm a Trump guy but gotta break rank on this. I don't know how much we're contributing to climate change and how much of it we can't control but it is happening. Like the liberals burying their head in the sand on Islam, the conservatives refuse to even have a conversation about the science.

a reply to: Sremmos80

majorly means nothing in when it comes to science. One person can come along and change everything. People think becuse a theory is made and a lot of people like it does not make it so.

a reply to: amazing

how come in recent nasa videos the talk about it being a problem they are working on? Many of the astronauts know nothing of the belt.

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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 bit off topic but this post resonates.

its very clear we dont need fossil fuels as much, or in some cases at all, the only reason oil is still relevant is because of the car, military, and oil industry making billions and billions. oil is about as dated as betamax and its costing us our environment and funding Arabia and to some extent the biggest enemies of civilization.

Good point. And what is the biggest reason any one on this thread makes about Global warming? Carbon Tax. Although none of them understand what it is or how it will effect them. It would be better if Donald Trump would say. We'll never have a Carbon Tax. But...we'll build a few sea walls in new york, miami and New orleans, we'll make solar power easy to get, we'll make it easier for Tesla and others to sell Electric cars, We'll build more wind farms, We'll create plans for future drought and famine, We'll let the military plan for localized wars over drought and famine, we'll get a team together to model where future immigrants will come from and how best to deal with them, we'll cut all ties with Saudi Arabia and we'll stop starting wars for Oil, we'll tax oil companies and we'll end monopolies from local power companies. That might be a start.

a reply to: vjr1113

I agree hemp oil can run cars just as good

a reply to: CosmicSmack

It's fine to doubt and question. You ought absolutely to continue doing that.
Some years ago, I had a bumper sticker: "Stay in school. Learn the system. Then change the system."
That's how I raised my two kids......


The facts are:
Industry is contributing to global weather issues.
The moon landing happened. (Were you even alive when that happened? I was.)

The elongated skull thing is something I'm very interested in. I'm not closed-minded on there being prior civilizations who came from elsewhere.

I just want you to answer the questions:
Do you not care about the planet's well-being?
Do you not believe that human activity needs to consciously be made more compatible with the planetary environment, whatever it brings?

CO2 taxes or not - do you really not care about the health of this planet?
It's the only one we have.

And....

a reply to: amazing

I had not finished with my post so I apologize if it was not complete when you responded.

The fact is there has been institutionalized intellectual DISHONESTY.

Really the split is closer to 50-50. The entire argument of consensus STILL would not PROVE man made global warming.

It would show general agreement in direction at most, which it does not.

I will not listen to people who have been LYING for years in hopes of grants and subsidies. They showed the trend and made governments waste money on things that DID NOT advance the study of climate change...something I think SHOULD keep happening.

Intellectual dishonesty seeded the distrust I have now, and I am NOT going to settle for anything less than 100% verifiable proof before I entertain anyone asking for more converted efforts ever again. They cried wolf and that is BS.

Do the work and get back to us I say. We were sold doom porn for too long and even now there is no effort to dismiss the 97% claim. That means there is still institutionalized dishonesty on the part of governments and universities trying to secure funding for personal projects not linked to the global study.

originally posted by: CosmicSmack
a reply to: Sremmos80

majorly means nothing in when it comes to science. One person can come along and change everything. People think becuse a theory is made and a lot of people like it does not make it so.

the majority means a lot when it comes to proper science when that majority are scientists.

a reply to: CosmicSmack

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 need PLANTS and TREES and FORESTS to mitigate the CO2 and turn it into oxygen.

You are just now knowing this?

a reply to: vjr1113

There is not a MAJORITY. That is the point. There is a group of, which have LIED about being a majority for years in the hopes of greater funding and grants-


They cried wolf and sold doom porn. That is not very respectful of the scientific process of discovery and revelation.

They still cry wolf about this. SO you know what?

Prove it with 100% verifiable proof that 100% of scientists cant deny. Then get back to us.

a reply to: CosmicSmack

That is true, there has been paradigm shifts in science, but it wasn't until that person or persons came up with the supporting evidence to back it up. There is a plethora of evidence that shows what is causing the rise, I notice you have failed to produce anything that shows that it isn't true. By all means, post where you are getting your info from.

And to say that a majority means nothing is very disingenuous. Not sure where you get that idea.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I have some question for you:
Did you go to the moon or did you just see crappy pic and believed it?
Do you care about humanity?
Do you care when leaders lie to you?

Of courses i care about the plant, but I am not going to pay a carbon tax based on a theory. theory means not proven. CO2 is plant food the more of it the better the plants suck it up and create oxygen. CO2 is vital to the atmosphere and the plant is starved for it. Carbon taxes would stop un-indrustlzed from industrializing trapping them at the bottom. My point is i am not going to summit to something that is not fully proven and will affect millions of people. Yes humans can have negative affects on the plant i agree deforestation is bad.

a reply to: tadaman

bingo

a reply to: tadaman

Prove it with 100% verifiable proof that 100% of scientists cant deny. Then get back to us.

That is a ridiculous claim, why don't you apply your own thought process to it. Show me something that is 100% verifiable that 100% of scientist can't deny that shows man has nothing to do with it and it is all natural.

There IS a majority, stop grasping at straws about the 97% and using that old strawman.
skepticalscience.com...
This was what it was about, the claim was never that 97% of the entire scientific community thought so, that has just been the spin on it to discredit it. It was about 12k papers on climate.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I do but kind Obama wont mention it. If we stop the deforestation then CO2 wont affect the plant (if it does) we would have more air yay. I'm a busy guy give me chance to reply before you jump down my throat