The naive have been misled by Global Hoaxers. Recently, one hoaxer made an embarrassing attempt to explain why the photo she produced wasn’t meant to portray the results of Global Warming to date…. although she had opportunities to do so immediately after the pic was published with an accompanying narrative, er, propaganda piece about GW.
Unelected judges making law. Can’t wait for the “damages” part of the trial.
Say, little Johnny, how have you been hurt by Climate Change? “Well, my mommy talks about it all the time and I have no idea what she is talking about but I am just sick of it.”
All 21 plaintiffs, their families and attorneys got on planes and flew home after the decision killing thousands of trees and people across the world. They should be sued as well. :)
Speaking of “waking up”. You might want to check the source of that “97%” nonsense, and what they were actually referring to at the time.
What I mean is you might want to look into it if you don’t want to sound foolishly gullible. Otherwise, keep saying 97% and making people who actually read about Climate Change laugh.
I said nothing of the animals ‘human beings’ being strictly the cause. Or that 97% of scientists believe we are STRICTLY the cause. Only that IT IS HAPPENING. Obviously you are the gullible one if you believe it isn’t.
I was merely pointing out that let’s say we aren’t (farfetched considering it started entering levels way above any level we have been able to see from ice cores before the dawn of electricity and modern transportation) WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO RISK IT?!
We don’t NEED to use coal. We don’t NEED to use gasoline. Our power companies are choosing to because it is ‘safer’ (*Fukushima Daiichi*) and PROFITABLE. But is it really safer when power lines are burning thousands of acres of lands and destroying homes in the west?! Rounds you back to GREED. And sheep like you believing it.
Our power companies are using fossil fuels because they are CHEAPER than renewables. The same reason China, India, Germany etc.etc.etc. use fossil fuels. Because they are cheaper for the consumer. That’s you and me and the working class and the poor. ALL of us. (Did you see Germany is giving up on it’s grand EnergieWende experiment? No? Check it out, Mr. Believer.)
You want to pay more for solar? Please have at it. But don’t ask me to subsidize you. Walk the Walk yourself for a change, if you really believe in Climate Change. Try this: live without air conditioning. The NY Times cites air conditioning as the number creator of CO2. So have at it. Walk the Walk.
Tesla invented a way to pull electricity from the air and wirelessly send it to homes. If you would’ve read into the article I posted, you would’ve seen this. That is FREE. FREE is as cheap as it gets. He lost funding from his backers when they found out they wouldn’t be able to monitor and charge for this service. Which is based on PURE GREED. Coal is the #1 way we make electricity. Which is why AC has such a big carbon footprint.
BTW…..I do live without AC. I live on a lake in WI, where AC is not needed. I don’t even use AC in my car.
July 26, 2018 at 1:45 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Solar is not that expensive any more. $20,000 ($25,000 would take me off the grid and spin the meter backwards) to take me 95% off the grid. Take the tax break for energy start and its paid for itself in 10 years (assuming my electric bill goes down 95%)..
Geothermal, in my neck of the woods would be $5000 per well. I would need 4 wells. Does the trick in the summer – will take interior temp to 55 degrees, but will only heat the house to 55 during the winter.
Exterior wood burner would be about $10,000 to install. Needs to be stuffed 2 times a day, so…. Lot of work + the cost of the wood.
July 28, 2018 at 3:25 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA -long time, no talk to. How’s your wife doing? Sounds like you may have moved to Wisconsin and I hope all is well with you.
I didn’t know the earth was only 138 years old. Wow you have a point.
However, the same people that are afraid of global warming are the ones that think the earth is a billion years old. So if that’s the case, I want to see numbers more than 138 years. Oh wait, you can’t provide that? Then I’d say the graph you showed looks like the line was coming down in 1880. So my guess before that date it probably was a few degrees warmer and thus the reason the world was afraid of global cooling.
Your guess? Well that clinches it! I “guess” I should believe you before all those “Scientists.” Thank you for your wisdom.
July 23, 2018 at 6:52 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
9
8
You didn’t answer the question. The “97%” agree that humans have some contribution to warming. Do the 97% agree HOW MUCH humans are contributing? No. 100%? Absolutely not. 60%? Maybe, maybe not. 30%? Getting closer, but who the hell knows for sure.
Get the point?
The origination of the “97%” number was from an Australian climate change zealot who polled a small number of climate scientists who had attended a meeting on stopping climate change; by definition, those attendees would be devote believers. When that number was shown to be statistically faulty and biased, the rest of Climate Religion circled the wagons. And rather than doing the scientific thing and correct the number to a statistically defensible percentage, Climate Zealots keep hanging on to the 97% number like a life preserver.
The reality: 97% agree on very little. Humans are contributing to Climate Change? Well, I could tell you that. How much? What can we do about it? Why have the predictions of the Climate Change believers been wrong on the high side? Well, now we have far less than 97% in agreement.
Yeah, that 97% number is fishy. Nobody can ever tell you how many scientists that number represents. Going based on the signed petition against the case for man-made global warming (30,000 scientists) and doing the math, that would lead one to believe there are approximately 970,000 climate/environmental scientists claiming that man is the sole or primary factor in climate change; I find this absurd. Clearly, the 97% is from a sampling of research and a biased one at that; no way is 97% the actual number.
However, we SHOULD be taking care of this planet. There is no excuse to abuse nature and treat it like your own personal wastebasket; I would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with that. The problem is that politicians have found that using the environment is a very good way to get more votes and more funding. The media, being their fear-mongering selves, have also found this to be a great way to get more views, clicks, and subscriptions.
The environment, and the human effect on it, has been a hot topic for many years. In that time, recycling, green energy, hybrid and electric cars, corporate social responsibility, and each individual “doing their part” should have had SOME effect, yet article after article keeps proclaiming doomsday and how things are getting worse (shouldn’t there have been some slowing of our demise?). Throw in all of the countless government regulations and one can only believe that humans really aren’t having that much of an effect on the changing climate, but that doesn’t make money, so we press on with the same old self-loathing narrative. Government and media greed is at an all-time high and they continue to prey on people’s fears.
Is the climate changing? Yes, absolutely. You’d have to be silly to not see how things have changed. But to blame man for being the root cause is lazy.
July 28, 2018 at 3:32 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Does it really matter who or what is to blame? The fact is it’s happening. So now what we do about it? Besides arguing about who/what is responsible.
The issue here is in the left not listening to the right, not vice versa, on this issue.
The left wants to take solutions that will harm the economy, inflate energy costs, give the government more control, and have what amount of benefit? Unknown.
Those on the right against the climate change 97% study are against it for obvious reasons: The left are using it to try and push extreme climate change agendas.
It’s not us that has the problem here for stating the number is being used and the deniers so to speak are being degraded and labeled. It’s the left for refusing to back down. In this case, I’m talking the people. I have never heard a liberal actually debate this and hear what someone on the right is saying, it’s just a lot of “I care about the planet and you don’t!” “You ignore facts!” “You don’t trust things and say fake news!” but never is it “I understand you don’t see it as a large threat, here are numbers showing it is”. I have never seen this last part.
How much climate change is caused by humans, and how much CO2 do we have to control, and what will the immediate cost be to save the planet and do measurable good?
The issue here is you guys keep just saying things and whining and attacking and harassing non believers to your ideology. It’s really old.
*The left wants to take solutions that will harm the economy, inflate energy costs, give the government more control, and have what amount of benefit?
source required, please
July 24, 2018 at 6:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
“*The left wants to take solutions that will harm the economy, inflate energy costs, give the government more control, and have what amount of benefit?
source required, please”
You think your reply is smart, it’s not. Canada, Carbon Credits, every country the left took hold they did some version of this. Electricity in spots in Canada went up considerably.
Common sense. The left already said they want to prosecute climate change deniers and bring them to justice (Bernie Sander’s own website and I’ve sourced it before)
Green energy credits in the U.S. paid for by what precisely? Oil companies shouldn’t have a world wide tax rate of 40% or higher while green energy gets 15%.
Seattle did a soda tax, let’s see what a climate tax does.
The fact that you’re asking me for a source about the left’s goals with climate change, is ignorant. So why are they pushing the 97% number? It’s a religion now? “Do you believe in climate change?” is asked because it’s not acceptable if you don’t? It’s hammered all over because they intend on passing climate laws. EPA laws were passed under Obama with climate change and emissions in mind. There is the cost of those to consider as well.
This isn’t a secret, and you’re acting like a fool about it.
July 24, 2018 at 6:21 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
This is the left’s version of when Huckabee was asked what he thought about the bible to appease the far right. He was like “It’s the word of God!”
Everyone cheers.
On the left: What do you think about cultural appropriation? Do you believe in the climate change? Do you believe in gender neutral pronouns? Do you believe in more than two genders? Oh my God! You have unacceptable beliefs!
Only they have applied it to science, questionable science, in many regards.
I want to hear you say where the left is dangerous. I’ve heard you say it of the right. Blindness causes severe problems. Where will you accept there are risks with leftists?
July 24, 2018 at 6:23 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Side note:
My source? THIS ARTICLE. Jesus Confused. I cannot believe the level of kahunas you had to make that statement. You absolutely know the liberal position on this, and the college graduate position on this. If this isn’t addressed, the college grads will become even more extreme. There needs to be conversation, honest conversation, about the goals of the left in regards to climate change.
All across Europe there have been laws passed to control climate by leftists.
July 24, 2018 at 6:27 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Here’s a list of climate change bills introduced or adopted in CA alone over the years.
I won’t hear this nonsense. You are completely full of it. The only reason you said: “source” is you thought it was the best way to show I didn’t know my facts, and to disregard common sense. You know this. You are not stupid enough to have missed this with the left. Your tactics as usual for a leftist, are unethical, and will be met with considerable blow back as it should.
I’m betting you’ll now say “Man, you’re crazy and angry and ranting!” and fall back on that. It’s the same cycle every time someone calls you out for your nonsense, and it’s why the left is out of control. They have none. They don’t believe anyone should ever tell them: You’re full of it and wrong. It’s called narcissism. I’m tired of it.
If you now fall back on me saying there is no evidence that the left will harm the economy for climate change:
If there is an ability for mankind to change climate, it will not take a small slice of the economy to do so. It will undeniably take a huge slice. It will indeed harm the economy. I’m thinking this is where you will fall back to and back pedal to.
Energy costs of say $1,200 more per year is not small, and that’s from simple cap and trade, which scientists are saying will have a minimal affect and politicians are saying will likely be the cost in Canada though it’s hard to estimate.
July 25, 2018 at 4:04 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
Bob, Good try, but as you have seen in the past, the leftist’s agenda believes the science is settled. By the way, they are out of power now so they are just scromiting.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, the heart of the fool to the left. Ecc 10-2. I rest my case.
July 29, 2018 at 11:29 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Agent, who was running America back in Jesus’ time? I rest my case.
July 24, 2018 at 12:53 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
5
4
James, it is all about the Progressive agenda, pure and simple.
SF Appeals Court allows another liberal idea-based nuisance lawsuit? Not surprising in the least. Also, not meritorious in the least.
Have all these young activists been brainwashed by the hoaxers at school or by their leftist parents?
Ooh, ooh, I can answer this one…NO!
…I don’t even know what to say. I’m so convinced now. You changed my mind.
Should I say, Ooh, ooh I can answer this one: YES!
The naive have been misled by Global Hoaxers. Recently, one hoaxer made an embarrassing attempt to explain why the photo she produced wasn’t meant to portray the results of Global Warming to date…. although she had opportunities to do so immediately after the pic was published with an accompanying narrative, er, propaganda piece about GW.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/07/27/photographer-behind-viral-image-starving-polar-bear-raises-questions-about-climate-change-narrative.html
Another waste of the Court’s time.
Unelected judges making law. Can’t wait for the “damages” part of the trial.
Say, little Johnny, how have you been hurt by Climate Change? “Well, my mommy talks about it all the time and I have no idea what she is talking about but I am just sick of it.”
All 21 plaintiffs, their families and attorneys got on planes and flew home after the decision killing thousands of trees and people across the world. They should be sued as well. :)
Let’s just say 97% of scientists are wrong (which in any voting forum is more than enough for them to say it is correct)……………WHY RISK IT!?!?!?
We don’t OWN the earth. We are BORROWING it from our grandchildren.
Wake up people!
Speaking of “waking up”. You might want to check the source of that “97%” nonsense, and what they were actually referring to at the time.
What I mean is you might want to look into it if you don’t want to sound foolishly gullible. Otherwise, keep saying 97% and making people who actually read about Climate Change laugh.
Directly from NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I said nothing of the animals ‘human beings’ being strictly the cause. Or that 97% of scientists believe we are STRICTLY the cause. Only that IT IS HAPPENING. Obviously you are the gullible one if you believe it isn’t.
I was merely pointing out that let’s say we aren’t (farfetched considering it started entering levels way above any level we have been able to see from ice cores before the dawn of electricity and modern transportation) WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO RISK IT?!
If you want to live in a cave and say it’s dark 24/7 on earth….that’s your choice Craig. It is PURE GREED that has put us in this situation. Why don’t you read into the Wardenclyffe Tower and Tesla. http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/02/22/teslas-folly-why-wardenclyff-didnt-work/
We don’t NEED to use coal. We don’t NEED to use gasoline. Our power companies are choosing to because it is ‘safer’ (*Fukushima Daiichi*) and PROFITABLE. But is it really safer when power lines are burning thousands of acres of lands and destroying homes in the west?! Rounds you back to GREED. And sheep like you believing it.
Our power companies are using fossil fuels because they are CHEAPER than renewables. The same reason China, India, Germany etc.etc.etc. use fossil fuels. Because they are cheaper for the consumer. That’s you and me and the working class and the poor. ALL of us. (Did you see Germany is giving up on it’s grand EnergieWende experiment? No? Check it out, Mr. Believer.)
You want to pay more for solar? Please have at it. But don’t ask me to subsidize you. Walk the Walk yourself for a change, if you really believe in Climate Change. Try this: live without air conditioning. The NY Times cites air conditioning as the number creator of CO2. So have at it. Walk the Walk.
Tesla invented a way to pull electricity from the air and wirelessly send it to homes. If you would’ve read into the article I posted, you would’ve seen this. That is FREE. FREE is as cheap as it gets. He lost funding from his backers when they found out they wouldn’t be able to monitor and charge for this service. Which is based on PURE GREED. Coal is the #1 way we make electricity. Which is why AC has such a big carbon footprint.
BTW…..I do live without AC. I live on a lake in WI, where AC is not needed. I don’t even use AC in my car.
Solar is not that expensive any more. $20,000 ($25,000 would take me off the grid and spin the meter backwards) to take me 95% off the grid. Take the tax break for energy start and its paid for itself in 10 years (assuming my electric bill goes down 95%)..
Geothermal, in my neck of the woods would be $5000 per well. I would need 4 wells. Does the trick in the summer – will take interior temp to 55 degrees, but will only heat the house to 55 during the winter.
Exterior wood burner would be about $10,000 to install. Needs to be stuffed 2 times a day, so…. Lot of work + the cost of the wood.
FFA -long time, no talk to. How’s your wife doing? Sounds like you may have moved to Wisconsin and I hope all is well with you.
In case you want to take off your rose colored glasses:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I didn’t know the earth was only 138 years old. Wow you have a point.
However, the same people that are afraid of global warming are the ones that think the earth is a billion years old. So if that’s the case, I want to see numbers more than 138 years. Oh wait, you can’t provide that? Then I’d say the graph you showed looks like the line was coming down in 1880. So my guess before that date it probably was a few degrees warmer and thus the reason the world was afraid of global cooling.
Your guess? Well that clinches it! I “guess” I should believe you before all those “Scientists.” Thank you for your wisdom.
You didn’t answer the question. The “97%” agree that humans have some contribution to warming. Do the 97% agree HOW MUCH humans are contributing? No. 100%? Absolutely not. 60%? Maybe, maybe not. 30%? Getting closer, but who the hell knows for sure.
Get the point?
The origination of the “97%” number was from an Australian climate change zealot who polled a small number of climate scientists who had attended a meeting on stopping climate change; by definition, those attendees would be devote believers. When that number was shown to be statistically faulty and biased, the rest of Climate Religion circled the wagons. And rather than doing the scientific thing and correct the number to a statistically defensible percentage, Climate Zealots keep hanging on to the 97% number like a life preserver.
The reality: 97% agree on very little. Humans are contributing to Climate Change? Well, I could tell you that. How much? What can we do about it? Why have the predictions of the Climate Change believers been wrong on the high side? Well, now we have far less than 97% in agreement.
Yeah, that 97% number is fishy. Nobody can ever tell you how many scientists that number represents. Going based on the signed petition against the case for man-made global warming (30,000 scientists) and doing the math, that would lead one to believe there are approximately 970,000 climate/environmental scientists claiming that man is the sole or primary factor in climate change; I find this absurd. Clearly, the 97% is from a sampling of research and a biased one at that; no way is 97% the actual number.
However, we SHOULD be taking care of this planet. There is no excuse to abuse nature and treat it like your own personal wastebasket; I would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with that. The problem is that politicians have found that using the environment is a very good way to get more votes and more funding. The media, being their fear-mongering selves, have also found this to be a great way to get more views, clicks, and subscriptions.
The environment, and the human effect on it, has been a hot topic for many years. In that time, recycling, green energy, hybrid and electric cars, corporate social responsibility, and each individual “doing their part” should have had SOME effect, yet article after article keeps proclaiming doomsday and how things are getting worse (shouldn’t there have been some slowing of our demise?). Throw in all of the countless government regulations and one can only believe that humans really aren’t having that much of an effect on the changing climate, but that doesn’t make money, so we press on with the same old self-loathing narrative. Government and media greed is at an all-time high and they continue to prey on people’s fears.
Is the climate changing? Yes, absolutely. You’d have to be silly to not see how things have changed. But to blame man for being the root cause is lazy.
Does it really matter who or what is to blame? The fact is it’s happening. So now what we do about it? Besides arguing about who/what is responsible.
“In case you want to take off your rose colored glasses:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/”
The issue here is in the left not listening to the right, not vice versa, on this issue.
The left wants to take solutions that will harm the economy, inflate energy costs, give the government more control, and have what amount of benefit? Unknown.
Those on the right against the climate change 97% study are against it for obvious reasons: The left are using it to try and push extreme climate change agendas.
It’s not us that has the problem here for stating the number is being used and the deniers so to speak are being degraded and labeled. It’s the left for refusing to back down. In this case, I’m talking the people. I have never heard a liberal actually debate this and hear what someone on the right is saying, it’s just a lot of “I care about the planet and you don’t!” “You ignore facts!” “You don’t trust things and say fake news!” but never is it “I understand you don’t see it as a large threat, here are numbers showing it is”. I have never seen this last part.
How much climate change is caused by humans, and how much CO2 do we have to control, and what will the immediate cost be to save the planet and do measurable good?
The issue here is you guys keep just saying things and whining and attacking and harassing non believers to your ideology. It’s really old.
*The left wants to take solutions that will harm the economy, inflate energy costs, give the government more control, and have what amount of benefit?
source required, please
“*The left wants to take solutions that will harm the economy, inflate energy costs, give the government more control, and have what amount of benefit?
source required, please”
You think your reply is smart, it’s not. Canada, Carbon Credits, every country the left took hold they did some version of this. Electricity in spots in Canada went up considerably.
Common sense. The left already said they want to prosecute climate change deniers and bring them to justice (Bernie Sander’s own website and I’ve sourced it before)
Green energy credits in the U.S. paid for by what precisely? Oil companies shouldn’t have a world wide tax rate of 40% or higher while green energy gets 15%.
Seattle did a soda tax, let’s see what a climate tax does.
The fact that you’re asking me for a source about the left’s goals with climate change, is ignorant. So why are they pushing the 97% number? It’s a religion now? “Do you believe in climate change?” is asked because it’s not acceptable if you don’t? It’s hammered all over because they intend on passing climate laws. EPA laws were passed under Obama with climate change and emissions in mind. There is the cost of those to consider as well.
This isn’t a secret, and you’re acting like a fool about it.
This is the left’s version of when Huckabee was asked what he thought about the bible to appease the far right. He was like “It’s the word of God!”
Everyone cheers.
On the left: What do you think about cultural appropriation? Do you believe in the climate change? Do you believe in gender neutral pronouns? Do you believe in more than two genders? Oh my God! You have unacceptable beliefs!
Only they have applied it to science, questionable science, in many regards.
I want to hear you say where the left is dangerous. I’ve heard you say it of the right. Blindness causes severe problems. Where will you accept there are risks with leftists?
Side note:
My source? THIS ARTICLE. Jesus Confused. I cannot believe the level of kahunas you had to make that statement. You absolutely know the liberal position on this, and the college graduate position on this. If this isn’t addressed, the college grads will become even more extreme. There needs to be conversation, honest conversation, about the goals of the left in regards to climate change.
All across Europe there have been laws passed to control climate by leftists.
Here’s a list of climate change bills introduced or adopted in CA alone over the years.
I won’t hear this nonsense. You are completely full of it. The only reason you said: “source” is you thought it was the best way to show I didn’t know my facts, and to disregard common sense. You know this. You are not stupid enough to have missed this with the left. Your tactics as usual for a leftist, are unethical, and will be met with considerable blow back as it should.
I’m betting you’ll now say “Man, you’re crazy and angry and ranting!” and fall back on that. It’s the same cycle every time someone calls you out for your nonsense, and it’s why the left is out of control. They have none. They don’t believe anyone should ever tell them: You’re full of it and wrong. It’s called narcissism. I’m tired of it.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/state/legislation.html
Also:
If you now fall back on me saying there is no evidence that the left will harm the economy for climate change:
If there is an ability for mankind to change climate, it will not take a small slice of the economy to do so. It will undeniably take a huge slice. It will indeed harm the economy. I’m thinking this is where you will fall back to and back pedal to.
Energy costs of say $1,200 more per year is not small, and that’s from simple cap and trade, which scientists are saying will have a minimal affect and politicians are saying will likely be the cost in Canada though it’s hard to estimate.
Bob, Good try, but as you have seen in the past, the leftist’s agenda believes the science is settled. By the way, they are out of power now so they are just scromiting.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, the heart of the fool to the left. Ecc 10-2. I rest my case.
Agent, who was running America back in Jesus’ time? I rest my case.
James, it is all about the Progressive agenda, pure and simple.
APRIL 4, 2018 AT 5:37 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
5
Are you high again?
Reply
Very well said, George. It’s unfortunate that some people will not accept it.