DAMN, there's so much snow in Calgary...

[Scraptor]

Further to this, and along the same lines of the post Joey deleted by mistake, I ask this:

Isn't it strange that in a time with global terrorism on the rise (nevermind the questions of where ISIS got their original funding and resources - they were moderates of a year ago!), inequality at record levels and growing, instability around the world with civil unrest, and a killer virus set to take the world (Ebola), does anyone find it strange at the UN Obama states that none of these issues are as important as climate change?

Lets assume for just one moment that everything the alarmists are throwing out there is true and lets say everything they are saying needs to be done gets done, is it going to make a change in the next 2 years? No, it most certainly will not. I firmly believe climate change - especially considering it was a non-issue until 2 weeks ago - is political theater and intended to be a distraction just as gay marriage was used as a distraction a few years ago. I consider placing the previously mentioned issues on the back burner to draw focus to climate change the equivalent of setting up an appointment for a night time mouth guard to prevent teeth grinding while the person is choking right in front of you. There is not much sense worrying about teeth falling out in a couple of decades if you're going to be dead in 3 minutes.


As I said in deleted/erased post: I do not doubt mankind is having an impact on the environment. What I question is the extent of the impacts and the consequences.



Sorry for a load of posts here but most of the ideas were deleted.

This is exactly the problem, though!

Capitalism is very, very short-term-oriented, due to the time value of money and the nature of modern capital markets, which reward short-term thinking over long-term value-creating decisions.

The sheer inertia of climate change is what makes it the biggest issue in the world. It's been a massive problem that's been overlooked for far too long, and you can't stop it on a dime. It could take decades to even reach the point where we reach an equilibrium, and putting it off is only going to make the problem worse.

I think you have it backward. ISIS and Ebola are relatively minor blips relative to the entirety of climate change. Focusing on those issues is like panicking about the sniffles when we've got a massive malignant tumor that needs therapy right away.

[mcHAPPY]

This is exactly the problem, though!

Capitalism is very, very short-term-oriented, due to the time value of money and the nature of modern capital markets, which reward short-term thinking over long-term value-creating decisions.

The sheer inertia of climate change is what makes it the biggest issue in the world. It's been a massive problem that's been overlooked for far too long, and you can't stop it on a dime. It could take decades to even reach the point where we reach an equilibrium, and putting it off is only going to make the problem worse.

I think you have it backward. ISIS and Ebola are relatively minor blips relative to the entirety of climate change. Focusing on those issues is like panicking about the sniffles when we've got a massive malignant tumor that needs therapy right away.

Science doesn't back those conclusions.

ISIS and Ebola are minor blips? OK. They are clear and present dangers.

[mcHAPPY]

Well, well, well!

What have we here:

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) was recently forced to admit it alters the temperatures recorded at almost all the official weather stations in Australia. The ABM came clean on its temperature fiddling largely because of the fierce scrutiny of Graham Lloyd, environment editor for The Australian and The Weekend Australian, who published a series of articles on the ABM’s number-fudging.

Using a process it calls homogenization, ABM has replaced actual temperature measurements with massaged numbers. ABM claims anomalies have arisen in both the historical data and current measurements due to a wide variety of factors unrelated to climate, such as differing types of instruments used, choices of calibration or enclosure and where it was located, and the closure of some stations and opening of others. The ABM argues such factors justify homogenization of the numbers.

Critics point out a much worse anomaly in the homegenization process: Almost all the alterations resulted in higher temperatures being reported for the present and lower numbers for the past--with the higher numbers being used to demonstrate a historical warming trend--than the numbers that were actually recorded. Downward homogenizations in recent years were rare. In some areas, downward temperature trends measured over time showed a significantly increased temperature trend after homogenization. The difference between actually measured temperatures and homogenized temperatures topped 4 degrees Celsius over certain periods at some measuring stations.

This is perhaps not surprising, since on ABC radio, January 3, 2014, David Jones, head of Climate Monitoring and Predictions at ABM, stated, “We know every place across Australia is getting hotter, and very similarly almost every place on this planet. So, you know, we know it is getting hotter and we know it will continue to get hotter. It’s a reality, and something we will be living with for the rest of the century.”

Scientist Jennifer Marohasy wrote on her blog the temperature alterations were seemingly done at “whim,” resulting in what “amounts to corruption of the scientific process on a grand scale, with significant economic implications.”

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...udging-numbers

So when the data doesn't reflect the hypothesis, change the results!

THIS is exactly what I'm talking about.


This must be the SCIENCE enlightenment attempted to enlighten upon me.

[mcHAPPY]

It really might be time for people to consider there are natural cycles within nature impacting weather more than man himself.

Think about it: how did the Ice Age end without cars warming up the atmosphere?

How has the earth land temperature stayed the exact same for 17 years despite an increase of 25% in carbon dioxide?


Just because it sounds like a believable story doesn't make it true.... or even accurate.

[white men can't jump]

Science doesn't back those conclusions.

ISIS and Ebola are minor blips? OK. They are clear and present dangers.

I agree with Ebola...it is potentially a huge danger....but also far from a certainty. Unless it becomes airborn it stays a minor blip.

ISIS though...this is pretty run of the mill. Weakening of a state (or states) in a region gives rise to a new group of Islamist militants.

[mcHAPPY]

I agree with Ebola...it is potentially a huge danger....but also far from a certainty. Unless it becomes airborn it stays a minor blip.

ISIS though...this is pretty run of the mill. Weakening of a state (or states) in a region gives rise to a new group of Islamist militants.

But ISIS is not a new group nor is their rise anything run of the mill. These were the moderates being funded in Syria one year ago to take down Assad. They have sophisticated weapons that were given by the US. They are also making upwards of $3M per day on the black market in oil. You also have dangerous incidents emerging such as the beheading of an Oklahoma woman by an ISIS supporter in the US. It is more than one organization. You have the US bombing their 7th predominantly Muslim/Islamic nation in 6 years. ISIS itself may not be a huge concern but the underlying issues most definitely are - mainly . US foreign policy which is tearing the world a part at the seams.

Bottom line: climate change is a distraction from the issues that truly matter today.

[white men can't jump]

But ISIS is not a new group nor is their rise anything run of the mill. These were the moderates being funded in Syria one year ago to take down Assad. They have sophisticated weapons that were given by the US. They are also making upwards of $3M per day on the black market in oil. You also have dangerous incidents emerging such as the beheading of an Oklahoma woman by an ISIS supporter in the US. It is more than one organization. You have the US bombing their 7th predominantly Muslim/Islamic nation in 6 years. ISIS itself may not be a huge concern but the underlying issues most definitely are - mainly . US foreign policy which is tearing the world a part at the seams.

Bottom line: climate change is a distraction from the issues that truly matter today.

Man, that's most often how these groups arise. They are often "moderate" segments opposing a current regime, but usually backed by non-moderates, or not truly moderate and that becomes evident with time as things deteriorate in the region.This usually also includes weapons given to them by either the US or Russia. It really is the same old cycle. The underlying issues have barely changed (if at all), and the real problem is that state formation was handled so piss poorly in many of these areas, whether we're talking ISIS in the Middle East, or Boko Haram in Africa....

As for incidents in the US, seeing isolated incidents of people who are most likely pretty fucking crazy is not a sign of escalation. Usually these are socially disenfranchised people, and if they didn't identify with something like ISIS, it would just be another thing. This is a mostly social problem related to things like inclusion, equity, quality of life, etc...

[mcHAPPY]

Man, that's most often how these groups arise. They are often "moderate" segments opposing a current regime, but usually backed by non-moderates, or not truly moderate and that becomes evident with time as things deteriorate in the region.This usually also includes weapons given to them by either the US or Russia. It really is the same old cycle. The underlying issues have barely changed (if at all), and the real problem is that state formation was handled so piss poorly in many of these areas, whether we're talking ISIS in the Middle East, or Boko Haram in Africa....

As for incidents in the US, seeing isolated incidents of people who are most likely pretty fucking crazy is not a sign of escalation. Usually these are socially disenfranchised people, and if they didn't identify with something like ISIS, it would just be another thing. This is a mostly social problem related to things like inclusion, equity, quality of life, etc...

Paragraph one: A good way to ensure things don't change is to ensure the topic never gets brought to the forefront. Climate change and gay marriage are just two of the topics thrown out to distract and create noise. Just because things aren't changing doesn't make them right. All these actions are brought about under the guise of liberty or humanitarianism but any critical examination would show that to be the furthest from the truth. I'm not sure if people in western countries, particularly the USA, knew the truth they would be willing to allow such things to occur. And who benefits from this action? Banks who finance, arms companies who produce and sell.

Paragraph two: Yes it likely is isolated until you get an incident such as what occurred in Australia. As for the social problems you list, some of those are exactly what I said climate change is being used to distract from.

[white men can't jump]

Paragraph one: A good way to ensure things don't change is to ensure the topic never gets brought to the forefront. Climate change and gay marriage are just two of the topics thrown out to distract and create noise. Just because things aren't changing doesn't make them right. All these actions are brought about under the guise of liberty or humanitarianism but any critical examination would show that to be the furthest from the truth. I'm not sure if people in western countries, particularly the USA, knew the truth they would be willing to allow such things to occur. And who benefits from this action? Banks who finance, arms companies who produce and sell.

Paragraph two: Yes it likely is isolated until you get an incident such as what occurred in Australia. As for the social problems you list, some of those are exactly what I said climate change is being used to distract from.

I never said it was right, just said it was business as usual. It is also not exactly an issue getting swept aside by climate change and gay marriage. And they have nothing to do with liberty or humanitarianism. Maybe people are conned into believing that, but that's because we live in an age where a large chunk of people are essentially politically illiterate. The Western countries, like USA, have a vested interest in trying to influence the states in unstable regions, especially when economically valuable resources are involved...Notice how much more they've tried to establish ties through puppet regimes and intervene in conflicts in the Middle East as opposed to, say, Africa. The simple reason is oil. Obviously things are a bit more complex than that, but it is all about economics, and trying to maintain hegemonic rule.

And on climate change, this recent exposure is a rare occurence. For the most part, it is a potentially major issue being mostly ignored. Perhaps this is because of the difficulty in establishing firm, reliable findings and evidence that can lead to a real policy shift, but just because it's a clouded issue, does not mean it's not an issue, or it is a more frivolous one than terrorism. It is a real problem. And too often the problem is more that in the mainstream social consciousness, the things being focused on are ridiculous...."The ice is all melting, how are the polar bears going to survive?"....instead of more important things like food security, economic impact, influence on morbidity/mortality rates, etc....I mean you bring up Ebola, but if climate change happens and causes an extension of the warmest zone that basically circles the world, we're talking a potentially major shift in disease patterns. There's basically a "disease belt" around the world where most of the most dangerous infectious diseases are concentrated. If that widened it could be a health disaster unlike anything we've seen since the ages of plagues.

The thing that kind of bugs me about your tone is that it feels like you downplay the potential seriousness of climate change. Yes, there is a lack of consensus and reliable findings, but that usually makes the potential for catastrophe worse. It is an issue that could dwarf any other problems the world currently faces. It can make every current problem worse, and can bring new ones that the world is very obviously not at all prepared to face.

And on the beheading incidents....The ISIS angle is being used as a scapegoat. While not exactly the same, it's roughly like writing off school shootings as influenced by dark music, tv, etc...And doing so gives license to the state to intervene in such disputes across the world..."Terrorism is infiltrating our society and we have to stop it at the source"....rather than..."holy shit, people are being so fucked by their situation in our society that they desperately lash out while identifying with such extremist ideology. This shouldn't be an issue here, what the fuck are we doing wrong?" And I say that in the sense that if this beheader didn't end up identifying with ISIS, they would find some other specific factor that falls outside of what is perceived as "normal culture" and blame that. Basically, just like you suggest climate change distracts from such an issue, the actual framing of the issue as related to militant terrorism halfway across the world also distracts from the real root causes of the issue.

**I don't think anything you're saying is really wrong, but I take issue mostly with the attitude of "prove to me that this is happening and what the consequences will be". Generally speaking that's a good thing, except we also know enough about the impact of climate on our activities to know the potentially catastrophic consequences of not having some sort of plans put into place in the case things start to deteriorate. As the saying goes, "hope for the best, prepare for the worst", and in regards to the potential impacts of climate change, we are not even coming close to doing that. Food security alone, given how much Western countries depend on foreign food production, is a seriously scary situation. If the world food crops dipped badly for even a year or two because of drought/icing in agricultural zones, we could be talking epidemic levels of starvation.

[mcHAPPY]

I never said it was right, just said it was business as usual. It is also not exactly an issue getting swept aside by climate change and gay marriage. And they have nothing to do with liberty or humanitarianism. Maybe people are conned into believing that, but that's because we live in an age where a large chunk of people are essentially politically illiterate. The Western countries, like USA, have a vested interest in trying to influence the states in unstable regions, especially when economically valuable resources are involved...Notice how much more they've tried to establish ties through puppet regimes and intervene in conflicts in the Middle East as opposed to, say, Africa. The simple reason is oil. Obviously things are a bit more complex than that, but it is all about economics, and trying to maintain hegemonic rule.

And on climate change, this recent exposure is a rare occurence. For the most part, it is a potentially major issue being mostly ignored. Perhaps this is because of the difficulty in establishing firm, reliable findings and evidence that can lead to a real policy shift, but just because it's a clouded issue, does not mean it's not an issue, or it is a more frivolous one than terrorism. It is a real problem. And too often the problem is more that in the mainstream social consciousness, the things being focused on are ridiculous...."The ice is all melting, how are the polar bears going to survive?"....instead of more important things like food security, economic impact, influence on morbidity/mortality rates, etc....I mean you bring up Ebola, but if climate change happens and causes an extension of the warmest zone that basically circles the world, we're talking a potentially major shift in disease patterns. There's basically a "disease belt" around the world where most of the most dangerous infectious diseases are concentrated. If that widened it could be a health disaster unlike anything we've seen since the ages of plagues.

The thing that kind of bugs me about your tone is that it feels like you downplay the potential seriousness of climate change. Yes, there is a lack of consensus and reliable findings, but that usually makes the potential for catastrophe worse. It is an issue that could dwarf any other problems the world currently faces. It can make every current problem worse, and can bring new ones that the world is very obviously not at all prepared to face.

And on the beheading incidents....The ISIS angle is being used as a scapegoat. While not exactly the same, it's roughly like writing off school shootings as influenced by dark music, tv, etc...And doing so gives license to the state to intervene in such disputes across the world..."Terrorism is infiltrating our society and we have to stop it at the source"....rather than..."holy shit, people are being so fucked by their situation in our society that they desperately lash out while identifying with such extremist ideology. This shouldn't be an issue here, what the fuck are we doing wrong?" And I say that in the sense that if this beheader didn't end up identifying with ISIS, they would find some other specific factor that falls outside of what is perceived as "normal culture" and blame that. Basically, just like you suggest climate change distracts from such an issue, the actual framing of the issue as related to militant terrorism halfway across the world also distracts from the real root causes of the issue.

**I don't think anything you're saying is really wrong, but I take issue mostly with the attitude of "prove to me that this is happening and what the consequences will be". Generally speaking that's a good thing, except we also know enough about the impact of climate on our activities to know the potentially catastrophic consequences of not having some sort of plans put into place in the case things start to deteriorate. As the saying goes, "hope for the best, prepare for the worst", and in regards to the potential impacts of climate change, we are not even coming close to doing that. Food security alone, given how much Western countries depend on foreign food production, is a seriously scary situation. If the world food crops dipped badly for even a year or two because of drought/icing in agricultural zones, we could be talking epidemic levels of starvation.

Bold 1: Is it?

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...eneration.html

There are many more examples but I think there are convinced minds around these parts.


Bold 2: I've downplayed nothing. The evidence is not there to back up the claims - bottom line. There has been a 25% in carbon dioxide in the last 17 years and the earth temperature has not risen. Oh, and I've said all along that individuals, corporations, and government should be striving to reduce pollution.


Bold 3: I don't like someone holding a gun to my head - sorry. The alarmists are essentially doing that with zero academic proof. There is all sorts of incidents of fudged or doctored "scientific" evidence. This is no different than Hank Paulson coming out and saying, "We need to bailout all the banks or else!" Look in to the outcome of Iceland and compare that to everyone other country who has gone the bailout route.

[white men can't jump]

Bold 1: Is it?



There are many more examples but I think there are convinced minds around these parts.


Bold 2: I've downplayed nothing. The evidence is not there to back up the claims - bottom line. There has been a 25% in carbon dioxide in the last 17 years and the earth temperature has not risen. Oh, and I've said all along that individuals, corporations, and government should be striving to reduce pollution.


Bold 3: I don't like someone holding a gun to my head - sorry. The alarmists are essentially doing that with zero academic proof. There is all sorts of incidents of fudged or doctored "scientific" evidence. This is no different than Hank Paulson coming out and saying, "We need to bailout all the banks or else!" Look in to the outcome of Iceland and compare that to everyone other country who has gone the bailout route.

You can talk all you want about evidence, and it's true it's hard to put together conclusively, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It doesn't all have to do with the science being talked about in the mainstream involving climate change.

For an anecdotal example...I have an uncle who's basically been a peasant farmer for most of his life, right now has his own vineyard and also olive grove. And in recent years, the unpredictability of the weather, including rainfall, has been far worse, and in an area where it has worked like clockwork for most of his life (and literally for generations going far back), until now, because it's essentially a microclimate whose cycles were always fairly steady. Think the "bad" years used to be very few and far between (like maybe once in a generation at most), but now there seems to be one every handful of years. So in recent years, farmers have struggled badly to produce the products they depend on to make a living. Now perhaps that has to do with natural climate shifting, but that doesn't make it any less alarming for them, or diminish the need to start finding a way to deal with such problems. This year, he was the only one in his small region who was actually able to get a grape harvest and make wine (which is great for him because it makes him the only real supplier)....but he has a small vineyard that probably accounts for less than 1% (like single-digit acreage) of the acreage dedicated to wine. That is a pretty alarming issue to me, and I don't need to see conclusive evidence on CO2's impact or changing ice levels to know that something is fucked up. If that kind of issue becomes more common across the world that is a major problem.

I mean, going from basically, at worst, a 5% chance your crop will fail, to roughly a 20%+ chance your crop will fail is pretty drastic. And the only explanation he and his friends in the area have is that the climate they used to be able to count on as stable and predictable no longer is.

[mcHAPPY]

You can talk all you want about evidence, and it's true it's hard to put together conclusively, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It doesn't all have to do with the science being talked about in the mainstream involving climate change.

For an anecdotal example...I have an uncle who's basically been a peasant farmer for most of his life, right now has his own vineyard and also olive grove. And in recent years, the unpredictability of the weather, including rainfall, has been far worse, and in an area where it has worked like clockwork for most of his life (and literally for generations going far back), until now, because it's essentially a microclimate whose cycles were always fairly steady. Think the "bad" years used to be very few and far between (like maybe once in a generation at most), but now there seems to be one every handful of years. So in recent years, farmers have struggled badly to produce the products they depend on to make a living. Now perhaps that has to do with natural climate shifting, but that doesn't make it any less alarming for them, or diminish the need to start finding a way to deal with such problems. This year, he was the only one in his small region who was actually able to get a grape harvest and make wine (which is great for him because it makes him the only real supplier)....but he has a small vineyard that probably accounts for less than 1% (like single-digit acreage) of the acreage dedicated to wine. That is a pretty alarming issue to me, and I don't need to see conclusive evidence on CO2's impact or changing ice levels to know that something is fucked up. If that kind of issue becomes more common across the world that is a major problem.

I mean, going from basically, at worst, a 5% chance your crop will fail, to roughly a 20%+ chance your crop will fail is pretty drastic. And the only explanation he and his friends in the area have is that the climate they used to be able to count on as stable and predictable no longer is.

Paragraph 1: You know what else has unconfirmed beliefs with extremists pushing an agenda: religion. Think about what you typed: because there is no evidence it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You, like so many others, believe climate change (hey, why isn't it called global warming anymore?) to be true, therefore it is. It really is a great narrative unfortunately the science doesn't back it.

Paragraph 2: You really should read up on weather cycles. I am sorry for your uncle but weather cycles are a well-known fact. Based on works in weather cycles we are due to enter a 'warm-dry' period. When was the last one of those? The 1930's which suffered the wrath of the dust bowl. Your uncle and his friends are spot on that the climate is no longer stable and predictable but it is not because of man, it is because climates change and go through cycles - always has, always will.

[white men can't jump]

Paragraph 1: You know what else has unconfirmed beliefs with extremists pushing an agenda: religion. Think about what you typed: because there is no evidence it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You, like so many others, believe climate change (hey, why isn't it called global warming anymore?) to be true, therefore it is. It really is a great narrative unfortunately the science doesn't back it.

Paragraph 2: You really should read up on weather cycles. I am sorry for your uncle but weather cycles are a well-known fact. Based on works in weather cycles we are due to enter a 'warm-dry' period. When was the last one of those? The 1930's which suffered the wrath of the dust bowl. Your uncle and his friends are spot on that the climate is no longer stable and predictable but it is not because of man, it is because climates change and go through cycles - always has, always will.

Except that's not what's happening to them. It's actually more wetness, and more unpredictable wetness. And we're talking a region where some of the farmers are from generational farms, so there knowledge of the local environment stretches back longer than any formal record we have, and they are still befuddled by what's happening because it's unprecedented. And you can't prove the last part either. You can't say it's not because of man, just like you can't say it is. All we can say is things have clearly changed, and since we can't precisely pinpoint the causal relationships, the safe approach is probably best is my opinion. We are not prepared for what such issues as what's happening with my uncle's region would mean if they become widespread. And all the badgering about who's right about man's impact won't change that.

And be careful what you type as well, because even in scientific discoveries, they are not always provable at first, but that doesn't mean that initial observations are wrong. Galileo "believed" the Sun was the centre of our solar system based on his observations, and was persecuted for it, despite providing scientific reasoning that was discounted at the time as unscientific. Likening my comment to belief in religious truths, when it's really just a belief in the possibility that we don't yet have a suitable enough grasp of the science to adequately explain the situation is frankly just an attack on my intelligence. It makes you sound really ignorant if you believe it's impossible that just because we don't yet have an explanation based on our current scientific knowledge, it can't be true. Despite what many people like to think these days, we are still fairly stupid creatures with what is probably fairly limited knowledge of the way the world/universe works.

*Just to add, scientific discovery can be very slow. It took nearly a century from the first identification of what would become known as DNA to be even basically understood (it's structure, functionality and relationship to other molecules like RNA and proteins).

[mcHAPPY]

Except that's not what's happening to them. It's actually more wetness, and more unpredictable wetness. And you can't prove the last part either. You can't say it's not because of man, just like you can't say it is. All we can say is things have clearly changed, and since we can't precisely pinpoint the causal relationships, the safe approach is probably best is my opinion. We are not prepared for what such issues as what's happening with my uncle's region if they become widespread. And all the badgering about who's right about man's impact won't change that.

And be careful what you type as well, because even in scientific discoveries, they are not always provable at first, but that doesn't mean that initial observations are wrong. Galileo "believed" the Sun was the centre of our solar system based on his observations, and was persecuted for it, despite providing scientific reasoning that was discounted at the time as unscientific. Likening my comment to belief in religious truths, when it's really just a belief in the possibility that we don't yet have a suitable enough grasp of the science to adequately explain the situation is frankly just an attack on my intelligence. It makes you sound really ignorant if you believe it's impossible that just because we don't yet have an explanation based on our current scientific knowledge, it can't be true. Despite what many people like to think these days, we are still fairly stupid creatures with what is probably fairly limited knowledge of the way the world/universe works.

*Just to add, scientific discovery can be very slow. It took nearly a century from the first identification of what would become known as DNA to be even basically understood (it's structure, functionality and relationship to other molecules like RNA and proteins).

Attacking your intelligence was the furthest thing from my intention. I apologize.

The issue I have is that we don't have an explanation for climate change because there is no evidence it exists. You've provided your anecdotal evidence with your uncle but even the UN Panel on Climate Change agree there has been no increase in extreme weather combined with all the other points I've listed.

Obama recently passed off the notion of an increase in terrorism because of an increase in social and traditional media awareness:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...htly-news.html
So if terrorism isn't on the rise just the coverage wouldn't it be fair to use the increase of climate change 'awareness' for the same result? Look at that funny clip Joey posted about the 97%. Well, turns out, that 97% is false as I posted earlier in thread. But everyone, including many here, are pushing that as truth when it is extremely flawed and inaccurate.

The reality, for me, is there is no scientific proof validating the claims of climate change alarmists and we know weather has acted in cycles for thousands of years. I firmly agree the theory of an increase in carbon dioxide should result in an increase in temperatures but it just isn't a true statement and when you combine the research in weather cycles I'm going to need a lot more than beliefs to enact change that is going to drastically economically impact the lives of just about everyone. But again, I'm also not willing to risk being wrong either which is why you provide tax incentives to produce and use greener technology, not taxes.


If you are interested, here is some information on weather cycles: http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.o...-wheeler.shtml
It is actually interesting reading. There is a lot more information out there. To be honest I've only started reading more about them this weekend after the pile on from a number of posters here.

[mcHAPPY]

What I would really like to see is collaboration between skeptic and believer scientists.

That will likely never happen because of the vested interests of both parties.

However that is unfortunate because the goal of science is to learn, I believe, not prestige and funding based on political or corporate agendas.