Climate Change

Not mine. I live in a Red state. It's those lucky folks in the swing states that get to make a difference. But yes, theirs counts. If they really want to make a difference tho, they'd get involved in their precincts long before the elections. People can also exert influence through the interest groups that lobby Congress.

 

The operative word is "simple". Have there been any serious proposals to do any of these things in the name of climate change?

Do you regard the common law of public nuisance as a violation of your rights and liberties? Zoning? Your inability to keep livestock in your back yard in a suburban neighborhood? etc. What about speed limits? I'll admit those 55 mph "energy saving" limits were way excessive, but should we have any at all? Why should we let government control us for the sake of alleged "safety"? And those emission standards for cars and power plants, They say SO2 takes lives, but how do we know those scientists aren't just making it up cuz the nameless elites tell them to so they can control us? Back in the day, you could dump pollutants into rivers and streams and the air and the public would just have to sit there and take it? Now that was freedom! And now you need permits. Obviously, the first step toward a permit to breathe! And germs and viruses. How do we know those exist? invisible entities that can cause bad breath, diarrhea, respiratory failure. What will they think of next? I , for one, am delighted the government sets those limits.

 

“Since World War II many people have suspected that Washington knew the attack was coming. When Thomas Dewey was running for president against Roosevelt in 1944 he found out about America’s ability to intercept Japan’s radio messages, and thought this knowledge would enable him to defeat the popular FDR. In the fall of that year, Dewey planned a series of speeches charging FDR with foreknowledge of the attack. Ultimately, General George Marshall, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, persuaded Dewey not to make the speeches. Japan’s naval leaders did not realize America had cracked their codes, and Dewey’s speeches could have sacrificed America’s code-breaking advantage. So, Dewey said nothing, and in November FDR was elected president for the fourth time.”

Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor? | Robert B. Stinnett

“Wacko” theory

 

You didn’t answer the question

 

Seems to be. Several reputable scholars think so. Some have accused him of making it up as he went along--downright fabrication!. These include Historian
Donald Steury, who says Stinnett "concocted this theory pretty much from whole cloth, made up most of his sources, and for those he didn't make up, lied about what they said https://www.salon.com/2001/06/14/fdr/ ; David Kahn, who noted "basic errors of fact" and "tendentious interpretations" and said it was "an extraordinarily sloppy book" How I Discovered World War II's Greatest Spy, pp.23-5; Gordon Prange, who calls Stinnett's claims "an absurdity"; At Dawn We Slept, p.861; John Keegan, who says they "defy logic"; Ronal Lewin, who calls them "moonshine" Codebraeakers Victory, p. 156; etc.
Day of Deceit - Wikipedia

I think I did, although it's possible I posted the part you quoted before I finished the rest. My dog needed to go out.

 

For your perusal should you ever entertain the idea that Agenda 21 is not in your best interest:

 

No you didn’t. Would you let the Government control how much gas you can use per week in a hypothetical scenario?

 

Possibly not, depending on the circumstances. But so far, I don't know of anyone proposing such a thing. During
World War II, most patriotic Americans accepted the need for such gasoline rationing. Hypothetical scenarios are to iffy for me. As Harry Truman used to say: "I don't answer iffy questions.

 

John Anthony, a small businessman, voices the paranoia of Tea Party activists. For another side, see
Tea Party Sees Wild Plot, But Others Sick Of Their 'Scare Tactics'
Agenda 21: The UN, Sustainability and Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory
Agenda 21: a conspiracy theory puts sustainability in the crosshairs

 

We are going to just keep talking past each other. That’s just the facts. Your legacy media “fact-checking” sources mean absolutely nothing to me, and are a dime a dozen. And I imagine my sources you won’t bother with. So that’s that ultimately.

 

Does this mean you plan to quit denying climate change?

 

Notice how everyone disappeared from wanting to converse about the CLIMATE SCIENTIST’s Free Press piece that validated many of my initial points?

I thought this was about the Science? But as soon as a Climate Scientist literally gets published in Nature Magazine and then exposes them while using many of my points and valid Science that paints a different picture, people just want to ignore that, copy and paste the legacy media rebuttals, and move on. Lol smh…

 

Why do you believe him instead of a majority of climate scientists who think the opposite?

 

Why are you willing to turn a blind eye to that he just exposed Nature Magazine?

Why do I believe him? Well…why would he jeopardize his career just to lie? For fun? He just put a huge target on his back in his career. You don’t just do that for the lulz…

 

Who knows? Professor Schipper of the University of Bonn describes his actions as “very, very weird behavior indeed”. Dr. Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says his conduct was "monumentally unethical" in treating publication as a game. Factcheck: Scientists pour cold water on claims of ‘journal bias’ by author of wildfires study - Carbon Brief Brown is the co-director of the climate and energy team at the Breakthrough Institute which downplays the impact of climate change--for whatever motive. A mere six days after publication, he contacted a right wing tabloid, the Murdoch-owned New York Post, with the story you mention. Maybe his move was intentionally subversive from the git go.

Brown doesn't deny climate change. He just claims that climate change received undue emphasis over other contributing factors. There were seven co-authors on that article who stand by the research but were blindsided by Brown's actions. Most were graduate students, whose academic futures were jeopardized by Brown's actions. One senior co-author, Prof. Steven David of the U. of California Irvine, said “I don’t think he has much evidence to support his strong claims that editors and reviewers are biased”. Other co-authors claim that the reason the other factors weren't analyzed was that they were too difficult to asses, even though the referees recommended they be included. Some scientists pointed out that the study’s reviewers had indeed recommended that these other factors be considered. Richard Black, another climate expert, challenges Brown's conclusion that an article can't get into Nature without emphasizing climate change. He notes that there were three articles in just the past month emphasizing other factors: shoddy law enforcement as the principle cause of Amazon deforestation, ocean water mixing as the cause of severe rainfall in Japan, and social factors as more important than climate change in extreme weather incidents. Nature's editor, of course, denies such a bias, and expressed her resentment at Brown's efforts to manipulate her by his own self-censorship. For more articles criticizing Brown's action, see
No, Climate Scientists Aren’t Being Forced to Exaggerate
Editor of Nature journal slams climate scientist Patrick Brown's 'highly irresponsible' research after he said publications reject studies that don't 'support certain narratives' | Daily Mail Online
Maybe he thinks his bread is better buttered on the side of the fossil fuel industry and the right wing media.

 

I don't think that the article was too radical. It pointed out the all too human instance of allowing some personal beliefs to intrude on to otherwise neutural decisionmaking. it can happen in mortgage lending and insurance underwriting.
Removing personal predjuice was the reason for FNMA / FHLMC introducing automated mortgage underwriting softwware.

The news is full of stories of the patriarchy allowing personal beliefs and experiences to creep into decisions affecting the many, and society's efforts to minimize the damage. Why does it supprise in this instance.

As to the NY Post; who else would have the balls to publish such an article.

The real question for us is not if personal viewpoint seeps into decisions but to what extent it does. Does it produce incremental distortion? or something more.

Do they protest too much?

There has to be some space in between Climate Denial and Climate Alarmism.

 

I would like to know how many on this forum actually think “we are all gonna die by 2030 if we don’t do something like now”

 

Also, I maintain that Cold Fusion deserves more attention. Stop suppressing useful research just because it’s not going to make Big Science any money! Do you want a solution or not??

 

Well, there's too much money on the table...and it all comes down to the money to still be made with fossil fuels and selling electricity made with it. Cheap, available energy only benefits the common man and we need to keep the common man, well, common.

 

Get real. Nobody thinks that, but we know a major climate crisis is coming and radical action is needed to minimize it. As crops dry up due to excessive heat and inadequate water supplies, many will starve. The first step in fighting climate change is to reduce and stabilize our population. If we can't do that then nature will do it for us.

Why don't you give it up? Climate change denial is just that: denial.