'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Another article about the book:
3A4CC14D-0D37-4E1C-A2AF-F406AF5894C4.jpeg
 
Last edited:
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
awesome. when you find these reports from federal agencies, please link it here. I'm not seeing them.

We have 1 of 2 things...
Click to expand...
Boy, aren’t you naive. There is a 3rd option: no one gives a **** if it is real. It’s porn theatre to extract money from your pockets.

The 43 year satellite data shows the earth is warming at 1 degree per century. Nothing suggests 4-7 C warming trend that the alarmists are pushing. If the actual warming is 1-2 C per century, the response is do NOTHING!!! Why would any grifter support that?? You answered your own question. As you said, trillions have been spent. Again, why would anyone push a conclusion that would turn off that spigot?
 
Last edited:
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
awesome. when you find these reports from federal agencies, please link it here. I'm not seeing them.

We have 1 of 2 things...

1. CC is real (even if exaggerated a great deal by progressives) in which case prudence would dictate substantial investigation and likely action to follow
2. CC is a hoax and we have trillions of dollars being eventually wasted and impacting everything from our comfort to our national security.

Both scenarios strongly suggest we need to have solid investigation and science to back up the discussion. If the CC science is so obviously flawed, and worse yet, fake...then it should be easy to refute. Not in some mom and pop online backroom but with actual research that established agencies stand behind.
Click to expand...
Please tell me which economic model that you would trust your savings and/or livelihood?
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
awesome. when you find these reports from federal agencies, please link it here. I'm not seeing them.

We have 1 of 2 things...

1. CC is real (even if exaggerated a great deal by progressives) in which case prudence would dictate substantial investigation and likely action to follow
2. CC is a hoax and we have trillions of dollars being eventually wasted and impacting everything from our comfort to our national security.

Both scenarios strongly suggest we need to have solid investigation and science to back up the discussion. If the CC science is so obviously flawed, and worse yet, fake...then it should be easy to refute. Not in some mom and pop online backroom but with actual research that established agencies stand behind.
Click to expand...
You trust these folks to make an honest assessment of the climate risk?

 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
you're missing my larger point. the GOP had the Senate from 2015-2021 and the House from 2011-2019 and the POTUS from 2016-2020. There are 13 federal agencies that routinely weigh in on Climate Science. Why the heck didn't the GOP use time in power to ensure that both sides of the climate debate were represented?
Click to expand...
This is how they were treated:

I talked to Pielke after the hearing. He was clearly frustrated about the status of the science he loves. “If these are the leading voices of climate science, they can have it,” he told me. “The field is so politicized that it’s almost impossible to break through. Now we are being compared to murderers and Stalinists. If their favored policies are so fragile in light of legitimate critique, they might want to rethink their policies.”
 
mchammer said:
This is how they were treated:

I talked to Pielke after the hearing. He was clearly frustrated about the status of the science he loves. “If these are the leading voices of climate science, they can have it,” he told me. “The field is so politicized that it’s almost impossible to break through. Now we are being compared to murderers and Stalinists. If their favored policies are so fragile in light of legitimate critique, they might want to rethink their policies.”
Click to expand...

mchammer, there are many many climate scientists who are not alarmists. Less today of course because of the persecution. But that is the point. They have been marginalized, insulted, attacked, muted, etc. I have listened to a good number of interviews of guys who were top level climate scientists, but when they didn't go along with the climate alarmist narrative they were quickly kicked to the curb.
 
Agree BO but someone had to do the loony calculations or get the source to quote the statistic. Maybe not a science claim in every case but I’ll bet some have a ‘scientific’ source. Nah, I didn’t research it.
 
Monahorns said:
They have been marginalized, insulted, attacked, muted, etc.
Click to expand...

Within their own communities, this is what happens. The political class and media dismiss them as corrupt shills for the oil and gas industry and refuse to give them a platform. But of course the alarmists are regularly given a platform and never have their integrity or interests called into question - as if there's no money or self-interest involved in pitching green energy.
 
mchammer said:
Boy, aren’t you naive. There is a 3rd option: no one gives a **** if it is real. It’s porn theatre to extract money from your pockets…
You answered your own question. As you said, trillions have been spent. Again, why would anyone push a conclusion that would turn off that spigot?
Click to expand...
To my point:
35FA7D11-4474-43EF-B933-911E54AD9306.jpeg
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
you're missing my larger point. the GOP had the Senate from 2015-2021 and the House from 2011-2019 and the POTUS from 2016-2020. There are 13 federal agencies that routinely weigh in on Climate Science. Why the heck didn't the GOP use time in power to ensure that both sides of the climate debate were represented? Why didn't they ensure that scientific papers presenting counter points saw the front row? If the CC science is such utter junk, it should have been easy to present the counter points from an authoritative source while the GOP held all three political pulpits.
Click to expand...
BO, here is your chance to get a great look into the debate. One is the Aggie meteorological alarmist, and the other is Koonin, which is the author the book previously mentioned.

 
mchammer said:
To my point:
35FA7D11-4474-43EF-B933-911E54AD9306.jpeg
Click to expand...
Note the warming envelope mentioned in the article is now reduced to 2-4 C since preindustrial times. Well, it has already increased 1 degree last century. Thus, the debate is 1-3 more degrees. Not an emergency.
 
mchammer, your tweet doesn't mention it, but the debate is a part of the Soho Forum Debate series put on by Gene Epstein. ThAnother great Austrian school economist and libertarian. It is an Oxford style debate where there is a winner and loser as determined by the audience.

It's funny that the other guy is an Aggie. He is going to be toast.
 
Monahorns said:
mchammer, your tweet doesn't mention it, but the debate is a part of the Soho Forum Debate series put on by Gene Epstein. ThAnother great Austrian school economist and libertarian. It is an Oxford style debate where there is a winner and loser as determined by the audience.

It's funny that the other guy is an Aggie. He is going to be toast.
Click to expand...

I'll give the guy credit for having the balls to debate. Most climate "scientists" just tell the media not to let the other side even have a seat at the table.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'll give the guy credit for having the balls to debate. Most climate "scientists" just tell the media not to let the other side even have a seat at the table.
Click to expand...
He’s been ripped in Texas by skeptics for past statements regarding climate alarmism. If he turned this down, his name would be more mud than it is now. I suspect he enjoys working at aggyland and felt he had to debate to maintain his job with at least of some modicum of respect from the citizens of the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top