Ofcourse there are people like this on both ends of the spectrum, usually because their main goal is more self-serving rather than scientific discovery.
But the problem is that it was the ones who wanted to prove global warming which lied. That makes it all suspect. It's fruit of a poisoned tree. Even if all of the research were re-done from scratch and over-seen by scientists who disputed the first results, it will still be tainted.
As I'm sure you'll agree, being wrong is one thing. You can admit to it and move on from there. Lying is a different matter. "Were you lying then?" "Yes." "How do we know you aren't lying now?" (Of course I'm not directing that at you personally.)
Why do you think countries like the US keep invading -sorry, spreading democracy- countries that have oil ? Who is gaining by destabilizing the Middle East ?
Sorry. I can't let this one slip by. The US was attacked. The world continues to be attacked. There were WMD's, as witnessed by the use of them by the Kurds. Even political opponents agreed there were WMD's. And, the Middle East was relatively stable when Bush left office - remember the 'purple thumbs' on the women? 0bama and HILLARY's policies destabilized the Middle East. Again, she's got experience - none of it any good.
Tax payers money isn't nearly spent on green as much as it should,
That is completely wrong, as witnessed by Solyndra. The government gives away money without any responsibility to where it came from - the people. It isn't the government's money, and those in charge of giving it away face no repercussions for squandering it, short of actual fraud. And, even then, they often face no repercussions for that.
Think of it this way. I'm sure you are a good person and if you saw a homeless family on the street asking for money, you'd give them a couple of dollars (or whatever is your equivalent) But, would you give them $100? Assuming you aren't exceedingly wealthy, probably not. If, however, you had just picked up $100 off the street, it wouldn't be any kind of problem for you to hand that over to the homeless family. Why? Because it isn't your money. You didn't have to work for it. If your family is taken care of then there are no repercussions for giving away a large sum of money.
Again, the government doesn't care if it wastes a billion on something they know won't work. It isn't their money.
That's why I'm in favor of wealthy, private individuals doing it themselves. Gates, Buffet, Gore, etc all have enough money they can combine to get things done. And, since it is THEIR money, they can hold their executives responsible for any failure. I'm not talking unexpected ones. I'm talking about when they KNOW they are throwing good money after bad.
There is no way oil/energy companies could stop them. Those celebrities have voices which ordinary people don't. They also have fans/supporters who would be outraged that their favorite actor/director/whatever was trying to ACTUALLY change the world but was being stopped by X company.
This way even low income families are able to afford solar panels or personal wind turbines to power their house, even sell some excess energy back to the network.
And that would be another thing the wealthy could do. Start their own subsidy programs to help people afford such things. I'd love to have solar at my house, but I can't afford it and it isn't cost-effective. But, if they band together to start a company to make solar panels way more efficient with a much longer life span, and then sell them at a discount to low-income families, it would make a huge difference.
Instead, they fly around in private jets, ride around in limos, live in huge mansions which waste energy, blow up stuff and release pollutants into the air when they make their movies which make them even wealthier....
I'm a Capitalist. I fully believe in the power of the purse. I don't care for greed. But, until such time as we live in a "Star Trek" world in which replicators provide everything for us, we need people with the motivation to do things - including inventing replicators. And, those people are motivated by money. Maybe only enough to get by in the world, but they still need money. So, since I'm sure you don't flush your money down the toilet, you appreciate it being spent wisely. With that in mind, the government does NOT spend the money wisely because of special interests (including their own) and the lack of accountability.
In the US' case, maybe they should stop pumping this large a percentage of tax payers money into the defense force
Every time that happens, we get attacked and/or another country which is not as nice as the US (Germany, Russia, N. Korea) starts to push to take ACTUALLY take over the world.
Also, the US Constitution requires spending on defense, and it is less than half of the budget. Entitlement programs (giving away stuff) is more than half. We'd be much better off eliminating waste and fraud than anything else. That was actually one of 0bama's promises, which, of course, he didn't bother to keep.
Point is, man is not the only one that had an effect on the planet,
No. The point is that, while we shouldn't be careless with our planet, man hasn't had a fraction of the effect on the planet that other sources have. And, those sources are still effecting our planet, including the cycle of the sun. There is a reason why almanacs are able to predict a great deal of things with pretty good accuracy (even before advanced, scientific instruments) and that is because they were/are able to track the cycles of the sun.
People have been burned at the stake for saying the Earth revolves around the sun instead of the other way around, doesn't mean they were wrong. So thank the maker for independent research.
Again, like you said, 'scientists are forced to recant their disbelief of man's impact upon climate change.'
No, but they didn't have carbon dating, soil samples, core fragments, GPS, advanced science, satelite photography, ground penetrating radar, or a long list of other scientific tools at their disposal either.
And yet we are constantly told that something which was good for us is actually bad. Or something we thought was bad for us really isn't. What we think we know is constantly changing. When we have a break-through we find out a short while later that it was wrong.
Thanks again for independent research.
I'd change that to say "independent, UNBIASED, research." But, I don't know that such a thing actually exists because almost everyone has an agenda which isn't altruistic.
go look at the actual facts. Because no matter what anyone says, facts are still facts.
Which brings us full circle. Who determines what "facts" are? It was a "fact" that we were going to freeze over. It was a "fact" we were going to burn up. It IS a fact that we didn't have the constant warm up like we were warned about. It IS a fact that the climate IS changing - as it always has.
Is it a fact that man is the leading cause of it? Is it a fact that man is not the leading cause of it?
Neither one of us can answer those last two questions conclusively. For me and the rest of us, before we lose more jobs to countries with horrible environmental records (and pay more taxes for it) we'd like to weed out the cr*p which flows through the environmental community, including the ones screaming for change and yet are doing the most damage.
Good discussion. I appreciate the civility, even if you are wrong. 😎
Just teasing with you - I think you'd expect no less from me.
reply
share