Trump Updates Climate Stance: It's Not a Chinese Hoax!

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

During the 2016 election not one GOP candidate stated they think climate change is real. Basically the entire GOP, outisde maybe 1-2 people believe there is any truth behind this.

Mind you these are the same people who don’t believe in evolution. There is no winning with these heretics in power.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

T My girlfriend works at the NIH in Bethesda, and believe me scientists are not faking research for political reasons. The closer you are to the situation, the more ridiculous you realize that type of argument is.

this is very true. most of the people pushing scientist conspiracies do not know any scientists, or have never been involved in research.

there are rare instances where a researcher will get caught fudging data or something.....but guess who catches them? other scientists who benefit from outing them during the peer review process. ambition is set against ambition.

and then there's the notion that grants for research on climate change are only paid out by george soros and liberal universities lol. but that's F'ing stupid because:

1. even if al gore funds your study, you still cannot simply find what he wants you to find. the scientific method and peer review system make that extremely difficult.
2. if people are paying scientists in one way or another to sway this particular debate, are we just assuming that fossil fuel companies are sitting this out? they just have too much integrity to try to buy scientists? they dont have enough spare funding to buy scientists? lol

 

[Andy Capp]

this is very true. most of the people pushing scientist conspiracies do not know any scientists, or have never been involved in research.

there are rare instances where a researcher will get caught fudging data or something.....but guess who catches them? other scientists who benefit from outing them during the peer review process. ambition is set against ambition.

and then there's the notion that grants for research on climate change are only paid out by george soros and liberal universities lol. but that's F'ing stupid because:

1. even if al gore funds your study, you still cannot simply find what he wants you to find. the scientific method and peer review system make that extremely difficult.
2. if people are paying scientists in one way or another to sway this particular debate, are we just assuming that fossil fuel companies are sitting this out? they just have too much integrity to try to buy scientists? they dont have enough spare funding to buy scientists? lol

Indeed. When Exxon's own scientists found evidence of anthro climate change, doesn't that give an ass-fucking to the whole concept of scientists faking results?

 

[JonnyRingo84]

What is your evidence that eating meat and me driving a V8 pickup is changing the weather?

see this is the problem.

liberal politicians seeking to benefit from climate change does not mean that they created it. "never let a good crisis go to waste" so they say.

why dont we hear republican solutions to climate change? why dont we give more tax breaks to companies who get cleaner? citizens who get cleaner? tax breaks for new green entrepreneurs? many of us think we know the answer to this question. republicans get the most campaign money from fossil fuel companies. so it benefits them to pretend that scientists are all liars and fakes.

 

[HIMBOB]

Climate change theory makes some people (Al Gore) a lot of money. It would also be a good way for globalists to tax Americans and American companies.

When talking in the hundreds of trillions dollars dependant on fossil fuel consumption to mention the coins Al Gore earnt is stupid, biased or both.

 

[NoDak]

@gatchaman @Ripskater please address this, along with any of our other denier brahs.

You're a stronger man than I - or perhaps just have a little more time on your hands - to actually engage in "debate" with people over this shit. We are far beyond that point, they will either take it or leave it. I almost don't even care anymore either, which is kind of sad and defeatist in a way.

 

[Gandhi]

You're a stronger man than I - or perhaps just have a little more time on your hands - to actually engage in "debate" with people over this shit. We are far beyond that point, they will either take it or leave it. I almost don't even care anymore either, which is kind of sad and defeatist in a way.

@Ripskater is fun to take some pot shots at in a friendly manner. But why would anyone waste time in a substantive discussion on this with him?

 

[NoDak]

@Ripskater is fun to take some pot shots at in a friendly manner. But why would anyone waste time in a substantive discussion on this with him?

Climatology discussion (or any kind of science, for that matter) with ripstaker is an automatic dead end although there's plenty of, err, fruitful dialogue to be had on the topic of homosexuality.

But yea, it's a god damn hoax. Over "funding", or something. That funding already exists, has existed and will exist because there is inherent value in the sub-sub-field of little old climatology. It's not going anywhere regardless, so if alarm bells are ringing, there's something fucking wrong and it has nothing to do with politics.

 

[HIMBOB]

Well that's the rub. How to fight this problem without inconveniencing humanity? Because nobody is going to vote to inconvenience themselves. There are people on high horses that act like they would, but I don't buy it. You're still gonna fly a few times a year to do stuff and visit people. You're still gonna use the air conditioning on hot days. You're still gonna buy a bunch of unnecessary shit that has been manufactured and shipped using, you know, energy.

This all seems moot until someone finds a way to make global warming fixes work economically.

Wind and solar are already cheaper than new coal generation.

 

[FinalFight]

Right wingers claim to be "conservatives" but not when it comes to conserving the planet.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Consensus is not proof.

Decades of work by countless scientists with buttressing evidence in many fields is the proof.

 

[gatchaman]

@gatchaman @Ripskater please address this, along with any of our other denier brahs.

Has @NoDak cited any peer reviewed literature? If yes, then would you please provide the most compelling reference (I've provided an example of how to do this below)? If no, then would you explain what we are accepting as evidence? Are blog posts or youtube videos acceptable?

Example of a referencing the peer reviewed literature:
Schiffman M and Solomon D. Findings to date from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003 Aug;127(8):946-9.
Link to full text article: http://www.archivesofpathology.org/...sref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed&code=coap-site

 

[Damien Karras]

Consensus is not proof.

Scientists having consensus on things is how we know things to be true, and how we can manipulate our environment in order to benefit us.

For example, scientific consensus is what lead to you eventually being able to write your nonsense just now from wherever you are for the world to see.

 

[Ripskater]

Scientists having consensus on things is how we know things to be true

No, that's not true. Consensus does not equal truth.

 

[WTF2008]

During the 2016 election not one GOP candidate stated they think climate change is real. Basically the entire GOP, outisde maybe 1-2 people believe there is any truth behind this.

Mind you these are the same people who don’t believe in evolution. There is no winning with these heretics in power.

"Climate change" is very much a blue smartie money making scheme.

Are we any where close to the doom and gloom they've been spouting for decades?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

"Climate change" is very much a blue smartie money making scheme.

Are we any where close to the doom and gloom they've been spouting for decades?

I go with the scientists on this. Not some dope on sherdog who doesn’t know his ass from his elbow.

 

[WTF2008]

I go with the scientists on this. Not some dope on sherdog who doesn’t know his ass from his elbow.

You got it blue smartie.
Who has more to gain from their view?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

You got it blue smartie.
Who has more to gain from their view?

Obviously the worlds scientists who are all in on it together.


Who has more to gain? How about every living creature on earth. Now go take your nap you’ve been up too long

 

[hillelslovak87]

"Climate change" is very much a blue smartie money making scheme.

Are we any where close to the doom and gloom they've been spouting for decades?

Yep, it's all a conspiracy by the left. That's why Richard Nixon created the EPA, and initiated emissions standards, created the NEPA, created the NOAA, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and Clean Water Act.

Yep, it's those scientists, getting high off the hog, making 60,000 a year. It's those guys, not the politicians who know nothing of which they speak while taking millions of dollars from petro companies directly to their coffers. Fucking scientists, getting that grant money for "research", while they eat lobster on the beach in their white coats.

 

[hillelslovak87]

No, that's not true. Consensus does not equal truth.

And yet you trust the bible.....