2015 Warmest Year on Record

[Deleted member 2897]

Climate change denying...or climate change skeptics...whatever term you want to use. There ARE in fact people who deny humans have any effect. Trump ran on that. "We don't know if it's getting warmer but if it is then humans aren't the cause of it." (rough quotation). That's a dumb statement no matter how you slice it. He's tweeted out that climate change is a Chinese Hoax. If that's POTUS then you know there's plenty who DO in fact believe that humans don't have an effect. And sure, there can be discussion on reports/studies/academia culture/etc. But when facing the election it does seemingly have one side that is closer to the Green New Deal and one side that is refusing to acknowledge humans' effect on climate and is rolling back environmental regulations. With the 2 party system we are frequently left with 2 options to vote for that don't perfectly reflect what we believe so you tend to vote for which one's values are closer. For me, while I may not agree with every line of the Green New Deal, or agree with every academic pushing a certain narrative, I am closer to the left than the right (obviously) and vote accordingly.

Has Trump or the GOP rolled out any environmental legislation or plan that you feel will address humans' effect on the planet?

There is a lot of fake crap on the left. But again, lets say I totally agree that humans are causing some part of what's going on in the climate. Why would that force me to have to vote for the same people as you and demand the exact same policy proposals?

 

[Lotta Booze]

Then how about Dr. Judith Curry of Tech who, though actually a climate-change supporter, didn't agree with everything that the freaks claim, and thus was more-or-less pressured into resigning.

What about her? In general I'd point you to my previous post:

I'm certainly skeptical of how much of an effect the far left can have on universities and the quieting of dissenting voices if that's the response you're looking for.

 

[Lotta Booze]

It was indeed a genuine ask. I was in DisneyWorld, tired after a long day of frivolity, and paid no never mind to time stamps on how long the story had bene out and whether anyone had had time to respond yet. Perhaps my question was ill-phrased, but I feel like i have often asked questions that have not been answered by my respected colleagues on the left, and really wanted to hear an opinion on this one.

Fair enough. hakunamatata

If I understand your opinion, it sounds like you are saying you are not convinced that she was denied tenure because of her academic views. Even though the university in fact did not deny this was the case. To be honest there is just as much evidence of corruption by the university as there is about Trump.....that is to say a bunch of circumstantial information and opinion. The difference is you seem to intuitively believe the university is clean, and that bothers me. While I do not agree with the extremists in the #MeToo movement who believe any woman should be believed simply because she makes a claim, I can respect the idea that claims should be investigated and authority confronted for the truth.

Truth lovers of all ilks and political persuasions should agree.

Certainly you cannot mean you are OK with discriminating based on a person's academic opinions?

I pointed out that she was not renewed for her position mostly because the link posted said "fired" and those terms have different implications though you could chalk it up to semantics. But I think the Washington Times chose "fired" (or "dumped") for exactly the reason it would seem. And I pointed out her payment from a conservative/climate skeptical think tank because that could be a legit conflict of interest. I don't know. I've done about 10 minutes of research and am left with more questions than answers. Does she have an obligation to disclose those payments? What was her relationship with her superiors? What is her role as an adjunct professor? Is it to represent the university on panels hosted by the same think tank? Does/should the university have a say in who she speaks for/to? I don't know the answer to a lot of these questions. But I'm guessing a lot of the people posting/sharing the link as a grievance don't know all of those details either. Just see headline of "climate skeptic dumped by liberal university" and roll with the grievance narrative.

And, also do you feel she's entitled to employment there? Should her contract/application be renewed automatically? Do you support here unionizing to protect her job?

 

[Lotta Booze]

There is a lot of fake crap on the left. But again, lets say I totally agree that humans are causing some part of what's going on in the climate. Why would that force me to have to vote for the same people as you and demand the exact same policy proposals?

Who's forcing you?

 

[GT_EE78]

There ARE in fact people who deny humans have any effect.

There ARE in fact people who have a brain and realize that the radical global warming cult will say anything to get taxpayer dollars into carbon infrastructure to promote a more socialist world.......The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. Nothing wrong with studying it but there is no evidence that humans are changing it. Protecting our air,water and environment is a good thing but there are those who will conflate the issues.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Who's forcing you?

Everyone on the left. If you don't agree with their policy positions and making all the changes they advocate, then you're a Climate Change Denier and need to be bullied off the planet.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Everyone on the left. If you don't agree with their policy positions and making all the changes they advocate, then you're a Climate Change Denier and need to be bullied off the planet.

That seems a bit hyperbolic to me. That's like me saying "Everyone on the right. If you don't agree with their policy positions then you're a Communist who hates America". Which is true for some, like your statement on the left.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

That seems a bit hyperbolic to me. That's like me saying "Everyone on the right. If you don't agree with their policy positions then you're a Communist who hates America". Which is true for some, like your statement on the left.

Ask yourself a question - have you ever heard of a person that disagrees on the right NOT being treated like that with regards to Climate Change? The scientific consensus is there, the debate is over, leave if you don't want to get in line.

So I guess what I'm hearing is that you disagree with those sorts of statements, regardless of which side they come from. Well if that's true, then progress. Just please remember that in real life if you're ever in those conversations. People who vote differently than you and want different policy proposals with regards to climate change are not evil, they're not climate deniers, they're not idiots.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Ask yourself a question - have you ever heard of a person that disagrees on the right NOT being treated like that with regards to Climate Change? The scientific consensus is there, the debate is over, leave if you don't want to get in line.

So I guess what I'm hearing is that you disagree with those sorts of statements, regardless of which side they come from. Well if that's true, then progress. Just please remember that in real life if you're ever in those conversations. People who vote differently than you and want different policy proposals with regards to climate change are not evil, they're not climate deniers, they're not idiots.

I've seen people on the right be given a fair shake and I've seen people on the right be shouted down. I've seen people on the right make cogent arguments and I've seen people on the right just shout whatever catch phrase they got from Trump/Fox News. Not everyone on the left is AOC and not everyone on the right is Limbaugh

 

[Animal02]

Climate change denying...or climate change skeptics...whatever term you want to use. There ARE in fact people who deny humans have any effect. Trump ran on that. "We don't know if it's getting warmer but if it is then humans aren't the cause of it." (rough quotation). That's a dumb statement no matter how you slice it. He's tweeted out that climate change is a Chinese Hoax. If that's POTUS then you know there's plenty who DO in fact believe that humans don't have an effect. And sure, there can be discussion on reports/studies/academia culture/etc. But when facing the election it does seemingly have one side that is closer to the Green New Deal and one side that is refusing to acknowledge humans' effect on climate and is rolling back environmental regulations. With the 2 party system we are frequently left with 2 options to vote for that don't perfectly reflect what we believe so you tend to vote for which one's values are closer. For me, while I may not agree with every line of the Green New Deal, or agree with every academic pushing a certain narrative, I am closer to the left than the right (obviously) and vote accordingly.

Has Trump or the GOP rolled out any environmental legislation or plan that you feel will address humans' effect on the planet?

Sorry, but there is no proof that humans are altering the climate to any meaningful extent. The climate change cabal displays all the traits of a pseudo science.
Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
Lack of openness to testing by other experts
Absence of progress
Personalization of issues
Use of misleading language

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Climate change denying...or climate change skeptics...whatever term you want to use. There ARE in fact people who deny humans have any effect. Trump ran on that. "We don't know if it's getting warmer but if it is then humans aren't the cause of it." (rough quotation). That's a dumb statement no matter how you slice it. He's tweeted out that climate change is a Chinese Hoax. If that's POTUS then you know there's plenty who DO in fact believe that humans don't have an effect. And sure, there can be discussion on reports/studies/academia culture/etc. But when facing the election it does seemingly have one side that is closer to the Green New Deal and one side that is refusing to acknowledge humans' effect on climate and is rolling back environmental regulations. With the 2 party system we are frequently left with 2 options to vote for that don't perfectly reflect what we believe so you tend to vote for which one's values are closer. For me, while I may not agree with every line of the Green New Deal, or agree with every academic pushing a certain narrative, I am closer to the left than the right (obviously) and vote accordingly.

Has Trump or the GOP rolled out any environmental legislation or plan that you feel will address humans' effect on the planet?

I guess you don't remember the climate change movement in the 70s, when the world was about to enter a new ice age, but, other than that, all the predictions (the end of the world as we know it) and "solutions" were EXACTLY THE SAME. I guess some people never learn.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

What about her? In general I'd point you to my previous post:

What about her?, you ask. Well, she was pummeled by the left and the climate change freaks for not buying into (and actually rejecting) their claims and "solutions". Rather than put up with all that crap, she retired.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Sorry, but there is no proof that humans are altering the climate to any meaningful extent. The climate change cabal displays all the traits of a pseudo science.
Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
Lack of openness to testing by other experts
Absence of progress
Personalization of issues
Use of misleading language

Even if humans ARE altering the climate to any meaningful extent, if it's as bad as they claim it is, there is no way it can be "fixed" before the impending doomsday they are threatening us with, especially in light of the fact that China poses the biggest environmental threat to the world, and we're certainly not going to be able to force them to change.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I've seen people on the right be given a fair shake and I've seen people on the right be shouted down. I've seen people on the right make cogent arguments and I've seen people on the right just shout whatever catch phrase they got from Trump/Fox News. Not everyone on the left is AOC and not everyone on the right is Limbaugh

Well, I mean calling someone a Communist (since you brought that one up) is accurate if they support Communist ideas like guranteed jobs for everyone, a guaranteed minimum income, confiscatory tax rates, and many things the left want. There are definitely a lot of schreechers on the right like Hannity and what-not. But there are also a lot of people who disregard the definitions of the very things they support.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Even if humans ARE altering the climate to any meaningful extent, if it's as bad as they claim it is, there is no way it can be "fixed" before the impending doomsday they are threatening us with, especially in light of the fact that China poses the biggest environmental threat to the world, and we're certainly not going to be able to force them to change.

Well even the most virulent climate change supporters don’t even follow the rules they want to set for everyone else. So you have to wonder if they truly even believe what they’re selling.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Well even the most virulent climate change supporters don’t even follow the rules they want to set for everyone else. So you have to wonder if they truly even believe what they’re selling.

It was big news over the weekend that Jane Fonda has been getting willingly arrested for climate change demonstrations. I'd be willing to bet that she was privy to the burning of a helluva lot of fossil fuel just to get to those demonstrations. If she really believe what she claims, then she would have walked across the country to get there.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I've seen people on the right be given a fair shake and I've seen people on the right be shouted down. I've seen people on the right make cogent arguments and I've seen people on the right just shout whatever catch phrase they got from Trump/Fox News. Not everyone on the left is AOC and not everyone on the right is Limbaugh

I would agree with you on most issues, but not this one. Those that call into question the data and the research backing man-made Global Warming/Climate Change have been black-balled, publicly crucified, harassed, fired, stripped of their funding, etc. There has been an odd systematic attack on anyone who questions or refutes the ever-changing data and the non-conforming models.

Personally, I don't know enough to have an opinion one way or another. I believe we have a moral obligation to be good stewards of Earth, but I'm not convinced the data clearly backs the alarmism we've seen.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

WEAK response.

yeah but he’s in favor of silencing the opposition so.....

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Study finds that average Hollywood elitist environmentalist emits 100x more than the average human, LOLOLOL:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...ion-disgrace-climate-change-hypocrisy-1240212

If these people truly thought the earth was in dire straights, they wouldn’t live that way.

 

[Animal02]

Read an article today (that I can now not find) linking the Boeing 800 max crashes with trying to be green. Seems Boeing was losing the carbon emissions BS to Airbus....... slapped bigger engines on the 737 frame which changed balance etc leading to the software to "fix" the problem which led to crashes....hence the climate change hysteria is now killing people.

In the mean time, sell any Boeing stock you might have.
https://onemileatatime.com/boeing-737-max-text-messages/