How to Adjust to Climate Change

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

The sheeple need to wake up and realize the global warming/climate change movement is about nothing more than money and power.[/quote]

So is the anti-climate change movement. So all we’re left with is the science, and while the science is often times inaccurate or proves later to be wrong, the majority of the scientific community still comes down on the side of climate change occurring.

If all this really boils down to is money and power, why would climate change scientists line up primarily on one side and not the other? Why wouldn’t they line up primarily with the oil industry? Why would they line up against a company like ExxonMobil if they’re concerned only about money and power?

[quote]doogie wrote:

U.S. has been cooling since the 30s[/quote]

According to a JOURNALIST whose claim to fame is denying any link between smoking and health risks and asbestos and cancer.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

U.S. has been cooling since the 30s[/quote]

According to a JOURNALIST whose claim to fame is denying any link between smoking and health risks and asbestos and cancer.[/quote]

Stop making stuff up. He claimed the link between SECONDHAND smoking and cancer was not as strong as was claimed.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

The sheeple need to wake up and realize the global warming/climate change movement is about nothing more than money and power.[/quote]

So is the anti-climate change movement. So all we’re left with is the science, and while the science is often times inaccurate or proves later to be wrong, the majority of the scientific community still comes down on the side of climate change occurring.

If all this really boils down to is money and power, why would climate change scientists line up primarily on one side and not the other? Why wouldn’t they line up primarily with the oil industry? Why would they line up against a company like ExxonMobil if they’re concerned only about money and power?[/quote]

Governments have infinitely more power and money than any oil company. You forgot to mention the scientific data is quite often falsified.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

U.S. has been cooling since the 30s[/quote]

According to a JOURNALIST whose claim to fame is denying any link between smoking and health risks and asbestos and cancer.[/quote]

Stop making stuff up. He claimed the link between SECONDHAND smoking and cancer was not as strong as was claimed.[/quote]

The same claim the WHO made. Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

The sheeple need to wake up and realize the global warming/climate change movement is about nothing more than money and power.[/quote]

So is the anti-climate change movement. So all we’re left with is the science, and while the science is often times inaccurate or proves later to be wrong, the majority of the scientific community still comes down on the side of climate change occurring.

If all this really boils down to is money and power, why would climate change scientists line up primarily on one side and not the other? Why wouldn’t they line up primarily with the oil industry? Why would they line up against a company like ExxonMobil if they’re concerned only about money and power?[/quote]

Governments have infinitely more power and money than any oil company. You forgot to mention the scientific data is quite often falsified.
[/quote]

Okay, then why would ANY scientist line up on the side of the oil industry if it means lining up against a juggernaut that can offer WAY more power and money? And that ignores the obvious fact that the relationship between pro-climate change scientists and the gov’t is tenuous since it is entirely dependent upon which party is in the White House. If you’re on the side of the oil industry, you’ll ALWAYS have power and money in your corner.

Are you trying to tell me that the scientists on the side of the oil industry are not concerned at all with power and money? That only one side falsifies or purposely misinterprets data? Don’t sell me the hooker with the heart of gold, pal. Your argument holds absolutely zero water.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

The sheeple need to wake up and realize the global warming/climate change movement is about nothing more than money and power.[/quote]

So is the anti-climate change movement. So all we’re left with is the science, and while the science is often times inaccurate or proves later to be wrong, the majority of the scientific community still comes down on the side of climate change occurring.

If all this really boils down to is money and power, why would climate change scientists line up primarily on one side and not the other? Why wouldn’t they line up primarily with the oil industry? Why would they line up against a company like ExxonMobil if they’re concerned only about money and power?[/quote]

Governments have infinitely more power and money than any oil company. You forgot to mention the scientific data is quite often falsified.
[/quote]

Okay, then why would ANY scientist line up on the side of the oil industry if it means lining up against a juggernaut that can offer WAY more power and money? And that ignores the obvious fact that the relationship between pro-climate change scientists and the gov’t is tenuous since it is entirely dependent upon which party is in the White House. If you’re on the side of the oil industry, you’ll ALWAYS have power and money in your corner.

Are you trying to tell me that the scientists on the side of the oil industry are not concerned at all with power and money? That only one side falsifies or purposely misinterprets data? Don’t sell me the hooker with the heart of gold, pal. Your argument holds absolutely zero water.[/quote]

So all scientists who don’t believe in the religion of man-made global warming are on the side and payroll of oil companies? Perhaps, more than likely, they see the claims of the GW adherents as bullshit. The catastrophic predictions that have been made in the past 20 years that have not come to fruition would make me embarrassed to admit I believed in any of it.

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

The sheeple need to wake up and realize the global warming/climate change movement is about nothing more than money and power.[/quote]

So is the anti-climate change movement. So all we’re left with is the science, and while the science is often times inaccurate or proves later to be wrong, the majority of the scientific community still comes down on the side of climate change occurring.

If all this really boils down to is money and power, why would climate change scientists line up primarily on one side and not the other? Why wouldn’t they line up primarily with the oil industry? Why would they line up against a company like ExxonMobil if they’re concerned only about money and power?[/quote]

Governments have infinitely more power and money than any oil company. You forgot to mention the scientific data is quite often falsified.
[/quote]

Okay, then why would ANY scientist line up on the side of the oil industry if it means lining up against a juggernaut that can offer WAY more power and money? And that ignores the obvious fact that the relationship between pro-climate change scientists and the gov’t is tenuous since it is entirely dependent upon which party is in the White House. If you’re on the side of the oil industry, you’ll ALWAYS have power and money in your corner.

Are you trying to tell me that the scientists on the side of the oil industry are not concerned at all with power and money? That only one side falsifies or purposely misinterprets data? Don’t sell me the hooker with the heart of gold, pal. Your argument holds absolutely zero water.[/quote]

So all scientists who don’t believe in the religion of man-made global warming are on the side and payroll of oil companies? Perhaps, more than likely, they see the claims of the GW adherents as bullshit. The catastrophic predictions that have been made in the past 20 years that have not come to fruition would make me embarrassed to admit I believed in any of it.
[/quote]

I know there are a couple but can you list those scientists and their accomplishments ? Thanks in advance

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

The sheeple need to wake up and realize the global warming/climate change movement is about nothing more than money and power.[/quote]

So is the anti-climate change movement. So all we’re left with is the science, and while the science is often times inaccurate or proves later to be wrong, the majority of the scientific community still comes down on the side of climate change occurring.

If all this really boils down to is money and power, why would climate change scientists line up primarily on one side and not the other? Why wouldn’t they line up primarily with the oil industry? Why would they line up against a company like ExxonMobil if they’re concerned only about money and power?[/quote]

Governments have infinitely more power and money than any oil company. You forgot to mention the scientific data is quite often falsified.
[/quote]

Okay, then why would ANY scientist line up on the side of the oil industry if it means lining up against a juggernaut that can offer WAY more power and money? And that ignores the obvious fact that the relationship between pro-climate change scientists and the gov’t is tenuous since it is entirely dependent upon which party is in the White House. If you’re on the side of the oil industry, you’ll ALWAYS have power and money in your corner.

Are you trying to tell me that the scientists on the side of the oil industry are not concerned at all with power and money? That only one side falsifies or purposely misinterprets data? Don’t sell me the hooker with the heart of gold, pal. Your argument holds absolutely zero water.[/quote]

So all scientists who don’t believe in the religion of man-made global warming are on the side and payroll of oil companies? Perhaps, more than likely, they see the claims of the GW adherents as bullshit. The catastrophic predictions that have been made in the past 20 years that have not come to fruition would make me embarrassed to admit I believed in any of it.
[/quote]

I know there are a couple but can you list those scientists and their accomplishments ? Thanks in advance
[/quote]

Is Al Gore the only scientist you know of? Here’s a list for you, although I am sure it will be claimed they are on the payroll of the greedy oil companies so they don’t count.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…[/quote]

I’m personally afraid that DC (where I’m from and live) will be unlivable and underwater in a few decades. That DC would be ruined might seem funny to a lot of people, remember it’s your capital and there’s a lot of history here.

Scientists should be taken seriously. They’re much smarter than politicians are, and their motivations are more noble. They don’t have the same superficial biases and don’t have to appeal to a voter base. There aren’t any scientists looking to cash in on this, unlike Al Gore who has looked to influence government policy in order to cash-in on investments he made in the REC and carbon markets.

It’s a shame what certain liberals have done to this movement. They’ve alienated too many people and do so in a condescending manner, while helping this become a partisan issue, which is counterproductive. This isn’t a partisan issue and it’s a damn shame it’s been sold as one. This is an issue for the survival of human civilization and it should be treated with respect.

My opinion is that most people are more concerned with the partisan aspect of this debate, as opposed to the consequences of climate change. I’m angry at liberals for alienating others and never speaking of actual, realizable solutions. Too focused on scoffing at the other side, while generally being absolutely clueless on topics of energy, power, and climate. Never coming up with a real solution other than tax carbon and mentioning more renewable generation and less fossil fuels without thinking of how that’s going to be achieved.

I’m angry at conservatives for treating this issue as a joke and focusing more on attacking a liberal agenda, while denying the scientific merits.

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

The sheeple need to wake up and realize the global warming/climate change movement is about nothing more than money and power.[/quote]

So is the anti-climate change movement. So all we’re left with is the science, and while the science is often times inaccurate or proves later to be wrong, the majority of the scientific community still comes down on the side of climate change occurring.

If all this really boils down to is money and power, why would climate change scientists line up primarily on one side and not the other? Why wouldn’t they line up primarily with the oil industry? Why would they line up against a company like ExxonMobil if they’re concerned only about money and power?[/quote]

Governments have infinitely more power and money than any oil company. You forgot to mention the scientific data is quite often falsified.
[/quote]

Okay, then why would ANY scientist line up on the side of the oil industry if it means lining up against a juggernaut that can offer WAY more power and money? And that ignores the obvious fact that the relationship between pro-climate change scientists and the gov’t is tenuous since it is entirely dependent upon which party is in the White House. If you’re on the side of the oil industry, you’ll ALWAYS have power and money in your corner.

Are you trying to tell me that the scientists on the side of the oil industry are not concerned at all with power and money? That only one side falsifies or purposely misinterprets data? Don’t sell me the hooker with the heart of gold, pal. Your argument holds absolutely zero water.[/quote]

So all scientists who don’t believe in the religion of man-made global warming are on the side and payroll of oil companies? Perhaps, more than likely, they see the claims of the GW adherents as bullshit. The catastrophic predictions that have been made in the past 20 years that have not come to fruition would make me embarrassed to admit I believed in any of it.
[/quote]

Not all of them are, but most of the links provided in these sorts of discussions from the anti-climate change crowd are from people who, upon further investigation, are not scientists or are scientists who work for “think tanks” and lobbyists who operate with oil industry money. The Heartland Institute and pretty much everything posted on Forbes’ website fits that bill perfectly.

I almost pissed myself laughing at James Taylor’s bio in one of the articles Doogie provided. He says he “studied” science in college and has a degree in “government”. All that means is that he took a couple of required science classes as part of his general education requirements. And he’s writing on behalf of the Heartland Institute, a lobbyist organization receiving millions and millions from the oil industry. Another article was written by a guy who was the editor-in-chief of a major oil industry trade magazine.

You mention the catastrophic predictions. Yes, those are and were ridiculous. That isn’t the entirety of the scientific community, but when it suits your argument it all of a sudden becomes indicative of the whole thing. It’s disingenuous and you know it. There’s a middle ground, but you refuse to acknowledge its existence and prefer to deal with one extreme or the other. I think the extreme views on either end are ridiculous, but quite frankly, given the potential consequences, I’d rather lend a little more credibility to the alarmists than the deniers. Over-prepared beats under-prepared any day of the week.

And I’ll remind you that I have NEVER called for massive governmental intrusion into the marketplace and that sort of thing. I’ve almost never called for anything along those lines. What I am talking about when I say “how to adjust to climate change” is more along the lines of infrastructure changes, personal changes, and that sort of thing. Chances are, if it’s anthropomorphic it’s too late to reverse anything in a meaningful way. But we can still prepare for the end result. You know, sort of like what the Armed Forces has been doing and calling for over the last couple years.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I gotta give it to you, Bert, you DO try hard.[/quote]

That’s what she said…HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

But seriously, try hard at what?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…[/quote]

I’m personally afraid that DC (where I’m from and live) will be unlivable and underwater in a few decades. That DC would be ruined might seem funny to a lot of people, remember it’s your capital and there’s a lot of history here. [/quote]

So you’re telling us that for some reason Americans wouldn’t be capable of doing what the Dutch were doing decades and even hundreds of years ago?[/quote]

No, we aren’t. You know why? Because creating an infrastructure like the Dutch have would cost money. And guess who is going to throw a shitfit about that? The GOP. And then they’ll justify this by pointing to “studies” from oil industry lobbyists/shills that deny any sort of climate change at all. And then nothing happens until it’s too late. By then, the GOP will have come up with some warped way to blame liberals for all of it.

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
Scientists should be taken seriously. They’re much smarter than politicians are, and their motivations are more noble. They don’t have the same superficial biases and don’t have to appeal to a voter base. There aren’t any scientists looking to cash in on this, unlike Al Gore who has looked to influence government policy in order to cash-in on investments he made in the REC and carbon markets.
[/quote]

You’re putting scientists a pedestal that not all of them deserve to be on. Scientists may not have to appeal to a voter base but they do have to sell out at times to get grant money. Often times the people funding studies DO have an agenda and they don’t give money to scientists who don’t produce the results they want. Scientists at research universities who don’t bring in the dough don’t hang around. They certainly aren’t all like this, but there’s enough out there to make it a problem.

As for the rest of your post, I agree for the most part.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Not all of them are, but most of the links provided in these sorts of discussions from the anti-climate change crowd are from people who, upon further investigation, are not scientists or are scientists who work for “think tanks” and lobbyists who operate with oil industry money. The Heartland Institute and pretty much everything posted on Forbes’ website fits that bill perfectly.

I almost pissed myself laughing at James Taylor’s bio in one of the articles Doogie provided. He says he “studied” science in college and has a degree in “government”. All that means is that he took a couple of required science classes as part of his general education requirements. And he’s writing on behalf of the Heartland Institute, a lobbyist organization receiving millions and millions from the oil industry. Another article was written by a guy who was the editor-in-chief of a major oil industry trade magazine.

You mention the catastrophic predictions. Yes, those are and were ridiculous. That isn’t the entirety of the scientific community, but when it suits your argument it all of a sudden becomes indicative of the whole thing. It’s disingenuous and you know it. There’s a middle ground, but you refuse to acknowledge its existence and prefer to deal with one extreme or the other. I think the extreme views on either end are ridiculous, but quite frankly, given the potential consequences, I’d rather lend a little more credibility to the alarmists than the deniers. Over-prepared beats under-prepared any day of the week.

And I’ll remind you that I have NEVER called for massive governmental intrusion into the marketplace and that sort of thing. I’ve almost never called for anything along those lines. What I am talking about when I say “how to adjust to climate change” is more along the lines of infrastructure changes, personal changes, and that sort of thing. Chances are, if it’s anthropomorphic it’s too late to reverse anything in a meaningful way. But we can still prepare for the end result. You know, sort of like what the Armed Forces has been doing and calling for over the last couple years.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/05/debate-goes-military-prepares-climate-change/83968/[/quote]

Your stance is all well and good. The problem as I see it is the main people and entities pushing the GW agenda are doing so for the sole benefit of profiting off it as much as possible as evidenced by their willingness to falsify data. I do not believe our actions will lead to human extinction, and if so then so be it, therefore the tried and true adage “Give an inch and they will take a mile” holds true and allowing them to set policy will have disastrous effects on our economy not to mention an increase in the size and scope of government.

If this doesn make sense I blame the high alcohol content of my Belgian pale ale.

Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded