You link nothing then complain that anything anyone else links is BS so whats the point? You'd link stuff by the guys paid to show the problem exists. When other scientists who aren't being paid peer review the data and say call them out you ignore it. That's how the science community works, peer review. Maybe you need to tell them they're doing it all wrong.
Sounds like you agree with All Gore's profit motive.
You want a link with facts and evidence.... Here you go.
Do you want to listen to journalists and book writers? Or people paid to study the topic for a living?
I agree with you on this Honda about climate change. I think that there is a human element that is speeding up the natural occurrence of it. However, I think you've also acknowledged that America has come a long way in reducing their impact, and in many ways is leading the world in this effect. But if other countries like China and India don't come on board, we're really not helping the overall problem. This needs to be a global effort, and when a few countries get involved, it creates economic imbalance, and enables those advantaged countries (who are creating most of the problem), to continue their over production of green house gases.
I think further restrictions within our own border will cause a greater proportion of economic difficulties than the desired effect on climate change, when others don't participate. If these other countries voluntarily or by force (sanctions) come on board, then I'd be for further steps to help the issue.
I'm kinda with you on what America does. In that yes, India, China and other countries need to be on board. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue down the path we are on for reduced emissions. We have plans and regulations for vehicles and such to me implemented years down the road.
You link nothing then complain that anything anyone else links is BS so whats the point? You'd link stuff by the guys paid to show the problem exists. When other scientists who aren't being paid peer review the data and say call them out you ignore it. That's how the science community works, peer review. Maybe you need to tell them they're doing it all wrong.
Sounds like you agree with All Gore's profit motive.
You want a link with facts and evidence.... Here you go.
Do you want to listen to journalists and book writers? Or people paid to study the topic for a living?
I agree with you on this Honda about climate change. I think that there is a human element that is speeding up the natural occurrence of it. However, I think you've also acknowledged that America has come a long way in reducing their impact, and in many ways is leading the world in this effect. But if other countries like China and India don't come on board, we're really not helping the overall problem. This needs to be a global effort, and when a few countries get involved, it creates economic imbalance, and enables those advantaged countries (who are creating most of the problem), to continue their over production of green house gases.
I think further restrictions within our own border will cause a greater proportion of economic difficulties than the desired effect on climate change, when others don't participate. If these other countries voluntarily or by force (sanctions) come on board, then I'd be for further steps to help the issue.
I'm kinda with you on what America does. In that yes, India, China and other countries need to be on board. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue down the path we are on for reduced emissions. We have plans and regulations for vehicles and such to me implemented years down the road.
Vehicles, I get it. But this whole thing on carbon emissions bothers me. I understand that we need some regulation on industrial greenhouse production. But not to an extent that leaves us in a huge economic disadvantage compared to other countries that don't play by the same rules.
It's much easier to sit back and deny, deny, deny, than to prove a scientific theory. Yet the deniers pretend they're equivalent. So some climate scientists got ahead of themselves and over-stated their cases. It's not right, but that shit happens, and it got corrected. But, because some scientists fudged does not, ipso facto, invalidate the entire field or theory, especially with mounds of supportive data and research. Yet, confirmation bias enters the picture and people then extract from one example to conclude it's a complete fraud. Not exactly empirical or scientific, yet politically extremely effective. Obviously.
You are going to need to tell me what ipso facto means before I know if I should upvote or downvote your post.
You link nothing then complain that anything anyone else links is BS so whats the point? You'd link stuff by the guys paid to show the problem exists. When other scientists who aren't being paid peer review the data and say call them out you ignore it. That's how the science community works, peer review. Maybe you need to tell them they're doing it all wrong.
Sounds like you agree with All Gore's profit motive.
You want a link with facts and evidence.... Here you go.
You link nothing then complain that anything anyone else links is BS so whats the point? You'd link stuff by the guys paid to show the problem exists. When other scientists who aren't being paid peer review the data and say call them out you ignore it. That's how the science community works, peer review. Maybe you need to tell them they're doing it all wrong.
Sounds like you agree with All Gore's profit motive.
You want a link with facts and evidence.... Here you go.
Do you want to listen to journalists and book writers? Or people paid to study the topic for a living?
Yeah Al owned a big chunk of the company that would trade all the carbon credits. Imagine that....
Wiki don't count.
Wiki don't count? Cause you prefer to listen to people profiting off of denying global climate change, rather than read facts. Then blast Al Gore for profiting and linking to people who are profiting.
Comments
Wiki don't count.
Got it.