Rockdoc said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Man how many times and how many subjects can you be wrong on? You've got to stop listening to dem talking points.

---

I think you've got to stop listening to Republican talking points.

---

I don't listen to ANY talking points. I use my brain and my education. Try it.

---

Oh, well why didn't you say so earlier?

sleepybeagle said:

---

I did laugh when you said "two Nobel laureates" opinions are biased because they are in a "climate change denialist think tank". You know...call them what you will, but they did win a Nobel prize...

---

one won a Nobel prize in quantum mechanics. the other won one for semiconductors 50 years ago. neither are climate scientists. not unreasonable to assume their positions on climate change are influenced by, or worse serve the interests of the political organizations that employ them.

Quote:

---

And you're wrong - in this case 99% of the political ideology $#!% is on the left.

---

i envy your naivete. oil and gas industry funded think tanks and lobbyists are never more than a couple degrees removed from declarations like this one.

FTA 2001 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

fixer said:

---

1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.

---

My original post was asking why I should believe the 1,609 scientists over the many many more scientist who came to opposite conclusions.

---

How many "conspiracy theories" about COVID and "The Science is settled" bull**** turned out to be 100% true and was called by most critical thinking people from the jump?

You arent following "Science" you are following a narrative. Again.

---

Seriously, no one can provide a strong argument for why these signatories should be trusted over the organizations I listed?

I see now that a lot of the signatories aren't even scientists. This makes me even more skeptical.

---

Look at what the organizations supporting climate change wish to enact as policy and you will find your answer.

wxmanX said:

---

i'm not even a liberal.
Voted republican since I was born.

Just know the science is correct. Later.

---

I think all those vaxxes fried your brain.

I get the knee jerk push back against anything liberals support but I do think conservatives have let themselves be painted into a corner as not caring about the planet. See some responses here.

It is okay to admit that as the human population has grown exponentially in the last hundred years, that:

-there has been massive deforestation
-many species have been driven to extinction (either through hunting or deforestation)
-there does seem to be an increase in natural disasters (major hurricanes, forest fires, etc) over the last 20 years
-smog is awful in many cities around the globe (Mexico City and Beijing come to mind)
-more rivers are going dry and creating water issues in different areas

Now some of these are clearly manmade and some may not be.

Republicans shouldn't have a platform of ignoring it. That doesn't win over voters. They should present a common sense plan to address it:

-Push for nuclear energy and natural gas
-push to preserve national parks and efforts to plant new trees
-support for some renewable technologies as it clearly will have a place in the economy in the next 50 years without sacrificing the oil and gas industry
-work with energy companies on new technologies like carbon capture

It doesn't have to be the Green New Deal or nothing. We do live on this planet. There are 8 billion of us and left unchecked we clearly could do some damage.

FTA 2001 said:

---

Beat40 said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

fixer said:

---

1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.

---

My original post was asking why I should believe the 1,609 scientists over the many many more scientist who came to opposite conclusions.

---

It was settled at one point the Earth was the center of the solar system. Glad actual scientists continued to understand science is never settled.

Also - are the actions of those screaming climate emergency matching up with their words? If not, why not?

---

You are right, science never stops sciencing.

If you are asking why those screaming climate emergency are still using fossil fuels, it's because our economy and society are largely built around those fossil fuels. It's impossible not to continue using them. I believe the goal is net zero carbon emissions, not necessarily zero carbon emissions.

---

It's not that they're using fossil fuels. The US refines fossil fuels the cleanest out of any country in the world while still keeping it cheap. It's the most efficient energy we have.

The point isn't that they stop using fossil fuels. The point is their actions do not line up with their words at all. They still take private planes to Davos and other places. They use yachts. Their houses are massive. They still live by the ocean. I'd bet their portfolios still have fossil fuel corps in them too. Then they claim it's an emergency and the earth has 10-12 years before the damage is irreversible.

Take economy. Downsize to a home that uses less energy. Sell your ocean house and yacht.

They aren't doing that though, so why not?

HINT - anything that involves both science and politics is not real. It's about manipulation and money.

FTA 2001 said:

---

oh no said:

---

Someone who is that concerned about it and all-in on the one and only alarm science might want to consider doing their part by reducing their carbon footprint and becoming carbon themselves sooner rather than later.

---

Elaborate on what you mean by this.

---

More than 99 per cent of carbon is found in the Earth's crust. Most of this has a biological origin, deposited from the remains of the many creatures that use calcium carbonate in their skeletons and shells.

It's science.

As with everything, follow the money. The same people who made a mint lieing about covid are the same people lieing about a climate crisis.

FTA 2001 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

fixer said:

---

1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.

---

My original post was asking why I should believe the 1,609 scientists over the many many more scientist who came to opposite conclusions.

---

How many "conspiracy theories" about COVID and "The Science is settled" bull**** turned out to be 100% true and was called by most critical thinking people from the jump?

You arent following "Science" you are following a narrative. Again.

---

Seriously, no one can provide a strong argument for why these signatories should be trusted over the organizations I listed?

I see now that a lot of the signatories aren't even scientists. This makes me even more skeptical.

---

Why didn't you address my first response to you?

wxmanX said:

---

yea, whatever.

World is 1.6C above the mean, NATL highest temps ever, Gulf highest temps ever. Record warm TX, highest lows ever in Baton Rouge, Tampa, Miami, PHX this year.
Morrocco 122F, highest ever.
Greece, 119F highest ever.
Spain 118F tied highest ever.

---

Love this! There is a thing called data quality. How are those temperatures measured. When are they taken? What are the testing intervals? You toss out vapor temp and liquid temps like these are just existing, accurate data points of measurements……..you ought to take a deep breath and think about how all of this is done.

they do favor and push for nuclear more and more.

they push back against regulation after regulation after regulation that grows government, increases tax burden on the remaining earners, and makes business difficult so growth and investment (and jobs) go elsewhere. they especially push back against multitrillion dollar green new deals that are vote bait for emotional young people they scared and detrimental to currency, debt, and economic growth, and only really benefit growing government and the grifting climate grifters who grift.

American Hardwood said:

---

Quote:

---

Thomas Lindsay Blanton PhD in Tectonophysics, Texas A&M University, Over 40 years experience as an advisor and consultant in geomechanics specializing in compaction, subsidence, and lithospheric stress determination

---

From the signatory list. Representing Aggieland.

---

This guy isn't even a professor. He got his PhD in 1976. He worked for Halliburton and Mobil, then ran a ranch with cows for 10 years and then got into consulting.

It's not really any wonder why he would be pro-fossil fuels.

Beat40 said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

fixer said:

---

1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.

---

My original post was asking why I should believe the 1,609 scientists over the many many more scientist who came to opposite conclusions.

---

How many "conspiracy theories" about COVID and "The Science is settled" bull**** turned out to be 100% true and was called by most critical thinking people from the jump?

You arent following "Science" you are following a narrative. Again.

---

Seriously, no one can provide a strong argument for why these signatories should be trusted over the organizations I listed?

I see now that a lot of the signatories aren't even scientists. This makes me even more skeptical.

---

Why didn't you address my first response to you?

---

Because this thread isn't about COVID.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

Follow the money. The problem is that the majority of the populace is as gullible as you are. Pandering to that is not the correct solution.

---

So your argument is that I'm just gullible? That's not very persuasive.

---

That wasn't his argument. You should read it again.

---

They confirmed that it was...

---

His argument was that you can see why if you follow the money. He said the issue with that is that you won't because you are gullible.

That part is just self evident.

---

Thanks for slowly spelling it out for him, I just don't have the patience.

Cromagnum said:

---

As with everything, follow the money. The same people who made a mint lieing about covid are the same people lieing about a climate crisis.

---

and a majority of the time, following the money on the climate change denial side of the debate brings you to the oil and gas industry. what are we to do? it's agendas and ulterior motives and shadow money all the way down!

FTA 2001 said:

---

Explain to me how I can control what China does. I only get to vote in the United States.

---

If you believe in climate change and that it is mostly due to human activity, as a nation, we are like a guy on the titanic using a bucket to try to keep the Titanic from sinking. The point is it is a waste of time and energy. We might as well live life without change until China and India change their course

No one is talking about the natural variables of climate change, just like no one talked about the natural variables that fought COVID. You must believe only man causes climate change, and only vaccines cure COVID.

Solar irradiance, earth's orbit, hydrothermal ocean vents etc......none of those natural variables have ever been static, never will be.

FTA 2001 said:

---

Beat40 said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

fixer said:

---

1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.

---

My original post was asking why I should believe the 1,609 scientists over the many many more scientist who came to opposite conclusions.

---

How many "conspiracy theories" about COVID and "The Science is settled" bull**** turned out to be 100% true and was called by most critical thinking people from the jump?

You arent following "Science" you are following a narrative. Again.

---

Seriously, no one can provide a strong argument for why these signatories should be trusted over the organizations I listed?

I see now that a lot of the signatories aren't even scientists. This makes me even more skeptical.

---

Why didn't you address my first response to you?

---

Because this thread isn't about COVID.

---

My first response wasn't about COVID. I only responded to this specific post because you asked for someone to make arguments. I just wanted your response on my arguements.

My first response was this:

If you subscribe to young earth being 6,000 years old, assuming reliable human records of temps is 250 years, that's only 4% of the earth's history. Further, significantly less than 1% if the earth is billions of years old. No serious business is making business altering decisions based on 4%, at most, of data.

Ice cores, which seem to be the basis for long term comparisons, can't even reliably tell rate of temp change in small increments. Now way scientists today can reliably compare the rate of the change today for the last 50, 100, 150, or 200 years to ice core data to confidently say it's the fastest rate of change in history.

The people screaming the loudest about climate emergency and demanding action now, still take private jets to Davos (and everywhere else), have houses by the ocean, and aren't urgently reducing their carbon footprint.

The scientists can't even tell us what the optimal temperature of the earth should be.

Anyone claiming science is settled is not a scientist. Science is never settled because that's not it's purpose.

The claims made, now are the same claims made the last 70 years - it's really hard to be a sky is falling person and be taken seriously after you've been wrong so many times.

How so?

FTA 2001 said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

Quote:

---

Thomas Lindsay Blanton PhD in Tectonophysics, Texas A&M University, Over 40 years experience as an advisor and consultant in geomechanics specializing in compaction, subsidence, and lithospheric stress determination

---

From the signatory list. Representing Aggieland.

---

This guy isn't even a professor. He got his PhD in 1976. He worked for Halliburton and Mobil, then ran a ranch with cows for 10 years and then got into consulting.

It's not really any wonder why he would be pro-fossil fuels.

---

And now the climate scientists coming into the field believe the science is settled, so they show some bias too, no?

Old McDonald said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

As with everything, follow the money. The same people who made a mint lieing about covid are the same people lieing about a climate crisis.

---

and a majority of the time, following the money on the climate change denial side of the debate brings you to the oil and gas industry. what are we to do? it's agendas and ulterior motives and shadow money all the way down!

---

O&G overwhelmingly voted for the guy who believes in climate change, heavy regulations, and promised to end their industry.

FTA 2001 said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

You think because 54% of Americans have been indoctrinated to believe something is a problem means that that something is indeed a real problem and we need more government to "solve" it??

---

I don't think it's indoctrination. That is a weak argument.

---

Here's the real argument.

We're not talking about Republicans vs. Democrats here, IF we're truly talking about climate change being harmful. We're talking about the planet.

So logically, if those that are pushing climate change being destructive are serious, they should also recognize this is a planetary problem that is not going to be solved by the US moving to 100% electric vehicles, stoves, water heaters, etc., and shutting down all American petroleum production. It is ludicrous to think that our actions alone would have any impact on climate change.

You say the Dems are offering solutions such as these. Wonderful. What happens when they do not show any impact? 15 minute cities for everyone? No more air travel? I hope you get my point. Where will it end?

IF those who cry "Climate Change" were serious, they would be screaming to go after the biggest polluters - India and China. Immediate sanctions on those countries. No more travel. Complete isolation from the world stage; and, if necessary, war. NOW. Because there's not much time, correct? I mean, the planet is at stake, correct?

But instead, this is a US/Europe conversation attempting to change the minds of the populace, while a few lucky ones get insanely wealthy while gathering more power in the process.

And we haven't even started talking about the science, or lack thereof....

D-Fens said:

---

No one is talking about the natural variables of climate change, just like no one talked about the natural variables that fought COVID. You must believe only man causes climate change, and only vaccines cure COVID.

Solar irradiance, earth's orbit, hydrothermal ocean vents etc......none of those natural variables have ever been static, never will be.

---

I mean, that's the other thing. It's actually pretty damn arrogant to say we have it figured out with the sheer number of variables that go into the climate as well as that our recordable data is less than 1% of the scientific age of the earth.

The best example of the idiocy of people like FTA2001 is the nuclear argument earlier. "We can't use nuclear because it takes too long to build nuclear. I will not respond to anyone pointing out that the reason it takes so long is because of the hoops people like me require them to jump through before I will allow them to build."

Old McDonald said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

As with everything, follow the money. The same people who made a mint lieing about covid are the same people lieing about a climate crisis.

---

and a majority of the time, following the money on the climate change denial side of the debate brings you to the oil and gas industry. what are we to do? it's agendas and ulterior motives and shadow money all the way down!

---

Oxy sure got some climate BS money. What you say does not jibe with the advertisements from big oil advertising how environmentally resposible they are and kneeling to kiss the evil ring.

FTA 2001 said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

Quote:

---

Thomas Lindsay Blanton PhD in Tectonophysics, Texas A&M University, Over 40 years experience as an advisor and consultant in geomechanics specializing in compaction, subsidence, and lithospheric stress determination

---

From the signatory list. Representing Aggieland.

---

This guy isn't even a professor. He got his PhD in 1976. He worked for Halliburton and Mobil, then ran a ranch with cows for 10 years and then got into consulting.

It's not really any wonder why he would be pro-fossil fuels.

---

So, this is really about fossil fuels for you. Not really about understanding actual real, methodical science.

Being in the building industry that has little to do with fossil fuels. I can see the direct result of feel-good environmental policy and the economic impact on actual people and businesses. The cost to everyone is insane while the supposed beneficial impact on 'global climate change' is incredibly nebulous. Most of the time the ROI on environmentally driven building initiatives never balances out. Real dollars being spent on unicorn farts and rainbows. The rising cost of construction in my lifetime just blows me away, and it is largely due to energy policy driven by the green agenda.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

The best example of the idiocy of people like FTA2001 is the nuclear argument earlier. "We can't use nuclear because it takes too long to build nuclear. I will not respond to anyone pointing out that the reason it takes so long is because of the hoops people like me require them to jump through before I will allow them to build."

---

You're never going to persuade anyone on my side by calling them idiots.

Smart people and the grifters know there isn't a climate crisis.

FTA 2001 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Also, those 53% are barking up the wrong tree.

---

Explain to me how I can control what China does. I only get to vote in the United States.

---

Exactly. It looks to me like we're already taking care of our part of the problem.

FTA 2001 said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

The best example of the idiocy of people like FTA2001 is the nuclear argument earlier. "We can't use nuclear because it takes too long to build nuclear. I will not respond to anyone pointing out that the reason it takes so long is because of the hoops people like me require them to jump through before I will allow them to build."

---

You're never going to persuade anyone on my side by calling them idiots.

---

You are right. Abandoning your religious beliefs is tough even without being called an idiot.

geoag58 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

As with everything, follow the money. The same people who made a mint lieing about covid are the same people lieing about a climate crisis.

---

and a majority of the time, following the money on the climate change denial side of the debate brings you to the oil and gas industry. what are we to do? it's agendas and ulterior motives and shadow money all the way down!

---

Oxy sure got some climate BS money. What you say does not jibe with the advertisements from big oil advertising how environmentally resposible they are and kneeling to kiss the evil ring.

---

that's all corporate greenwashing advertising to appease the public and activist investors. overwhelming majority of O&G capital investment still goes to hydrocarbons.

There are climate challenges.

There absolutely is not a crisis, by the mutually exclusive definitions of crisis and of climate.

Crisis: immediate dire situation

Climate: decades, centuries, and millennia long fluctuations in weather and other environmental patterns.

I'm sensing a time related discrepancy here, and a magnitude related discrepancy as well.

wxmanX said:

---

yea, whatever.

World is 1.6C above the mean

---

Explain how this is calculated and why it matters.

FTA 2001 said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

The best example of the idiocy of people like FTA2001 is the nuclear argument earlier. "We can't use nuclear because it takes too long to build nuclear. I will not respond to anyone pointing out that the reason it takes so long is because of the hoops people like me require them to jump through before I will allow them to build."

---

You're never going to persuade anyone on my side by calling them idiots.

---

Where did I do that?