Nobel Prize winning Scientist ridicules Obamas take on Climate Change.
- Thread starter Aegon_Targaryen
- Start date
Because the chart is 4 years old make it any less true? LOL. I hear they are also reconsidering gravity and E=MC2 as well because they were decided too long ago.
The simple fact is far more Nobel prize winners believe in global warming. There is only one cited in this thread that doesn't.
Yes, which is why you shouldn't worry about climate change. We'll evolve to work with it.
I don't care that much about it, I'll be dead before most of the harms hit. If you don't care about your grandkids, why should I?
Doesn't matter. No theory of evolution or creationism is 100% correct. That's why they're theories.
You liberal and conservative coward wont respond to the real problem in IOWA water!!!!!!!
Its full of nitrates and it causing flood and our water supply will run low because of tile!!!]]
Global warming will nothing to IOWA compared to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its full of nitrates and it causing flood and our water supply will run low because of tile!!!]]
Global warming will nothing to IOWA compared to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly. WWJD is like so many leftists. He puts anyone that he disagrees with on ignore.
Just like the "scientists" are doing with anyone that dares to question them. Note, I didn't even say "disagrees with". I said QUESTIONS them.
I've seen numerous accounts of people being locked out of, uninvited or even kicked out of Global Warming circle jerks simply because they started asking simple questions.
It's no wonder Cigarretteman etc are so adamant that they are the smartest guys in the room. The people they get their news from won't even allow discussion. "The science is" NOT "settled". It is simply being manipulated to produce their agendas results.
Tell that to these anti-science folks.
Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ – Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009
The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.
Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08...climate-depot-flashback-report/#ixzz3fMQszmFh
Part 2 from above:
Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.
(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.
In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.
The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.
McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08...climate-depot-flashback-report/#ixzz3fMTkpNHe
Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.
(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.
In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.
The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.
McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08...climate-depot-flashback-report/#ixzz3fMTkpNHe
Still dont want to admit farmers are ruing our water supply and using up the rest! Global warming is nothing compared to this!
I have to admit that the consensus among reputable science and scientists, seems to me to be overwhelming in the favor of real climate change.
I'm in the hard science field, but certainly not a climate scientist. So, when it comes to climate change, I rely on scientific consensus.
What's so discouraging is that we as a country filled with so many bright, informed scientists, can't agree on the facts. This is no different than much political debate. Science; factual evidence, is "great" when it doesn't threaten someone's belief system or ideology. But, strangely, it's not so great, to some people when it does. People aren't in an uproar about the biochemical makeup of water being H2O. But, that's not threatening to people.
This country, and world, has so many problems. And, we end up arguing endlessly, spending money, and using our time debating things that could be put aside as factual within a reasonable doubt, or even less doubt. Why can't we say, ok, we know this, let's move on to something we DONT know and spend our valuable resources on that. That's rhetorical, because I know the answer, but it begs the asking.
I used to not like hearing, or reading things, that opposed my stances on things. But, knowledge is good. I may, and do, end up falling much more in line with one side of the political spectrum. But, I don't wave anybody's flag. If I'm shown legitimate evidence contrary to a stance I have, I will change, because, like I said before, knowledge is good.
I'm in the hard science field, but certainly not a climate scientist. So, when it comes to climate change, I rely on scientific consensus.
What's so discouraging is that we as a country filled with so many bright, informed scientists, can't agree on the facts. This is no different than much political debate. Science; factual evidence, is "great" when it doesn't threaten someone's belief system or ideology. But, strangely, it's not so great, to some people when it does. People aren't in an uproar about the biochemical makeup of water being H2O. But, that's not threatening to people.
This country, and world, has so many problems. And, we end up arguing endlessly, spending money, and using our time debating things that could be put aside as factual within a reasonable doubt, or even less doubt. Why can't we say, ok, we know this, let's move on to something we DONT know and spend our valuable resources on that. That's rhetorical, because I know the answer, but it begs the asking.
I used to not like hearing, or reading things, that opposed my stances on things. But, knowledge is good. I may, and do, end up falling much more in line with one side of the political spectrum. But, I don't wave anybody's flag. If I'm shown legitimate evidence contrary to a stance I have, I will change, because, like I said before, knowledge is good.
Hardly so. It is impossible to have a logical debate when the other side is misinformed, cites uninformed and innaccurate opinions as fact, and refuses to educate themselves on the scientific merits of the arguments on either side of the issue.
Ciggy, you have proven over the years to be one of the dumber posters on this site, incapable of doing much more than cutting and pasting articles and calling people names. The fact that you are behind a particular viewpoint regarding climate change is not an endorsement. WWJD, on the other hand, while obviously bright, is much too polarizing and condescending to be taken seriously here either. Not to mention his morality is seriously messed up.
I do believe that the climate is changing (everyone does) and I also believe man is playing a role here. However, the problem is that the issue has become far too entangled with politics. Too many people are pushing actions in regard to climate change simply because it will benefit them financially. Scientists, if they express any skepticism, are simply ostracized. This is not a way to encourage vigorous science and healthy political debate.
If they have problems with the science, then why don't they publish their own work instead of trashing others' work in a blog forum where there is no real opportunity to respond to the allegations?
I see lots of 'the science is unsound' generalizations here, but nothing specific; thus, this seems like a lot of out of context blabbering or outright false claims.
B....bbut all those are just agenda driven right wing nut jobs listening to the echo chamber..
Or something.
Or something.
Credible scientists are not 'ostracized'. Lindzen published lots of articles claiming the warming was small and feedbacks were negative; however most of his contributions have been re-analyzed by others with new data and new approaches and found to be wrong. He has not published anything that addresses those new papers. That's not being ostracized, it's being wrong and it means no one is going to listen to your public opinions when your published scientific ones have been borne out as incorrect.
Anthony Watts was a major part of the BEST study, and they used a lot of his datasets as part of that analysis. He originally stated he would stand by the results, whatever they come out to be. Only, when they turned out to debunk his hypothesis and show that land warming was unequivocally worse than prior studies had shown, and that it was almost certainly driven my manmade emissions, he turned tail and started criticizing the work. And of course he did - it literally erased years worth of his efforts claiming urban heat island effects were impacting the data. When he found out that was not true, instead of accepting it and moving on to another worthwhile project, he simply denied it. That's not science. That's not being 'ostracized'. That's being idiotic and political.
Bull crap. Anyone who questions, QUESTIONS the GW worshippers are castigated. It has happened repeatedly.
You must drink the kool-aid entirely or be ostracised. Of course, the left runs with it because by doing so, they get the end result they need and want for their agenda to continue.
It is a beautiful sham. Just like the anti right agenda the have put forth. They've convinced you dopes that there is:
-the right has a war on women
-the right are all racists
-the right hates old people
-the right hates immigrants
All for votes, power and agenda. Saul Alyninski is so proud
Conspiracy theories cannot displace simple facts. Perhaps you'd like to discuss those facts; but if you simply disregard them outright, you really are just a noisemaker with a tinfoil hat.
Read The Deniers. Some really good examples of excellent scientists who are often silenced if they deviate even slightly from the "consensus."
OK, so you are uninformed about evolution, too.
Homo sapiens is a very adaptable species. So lots of us will probably survive - unless the fringe alarmists are correct and the positive feedback loops we are currently fostering drive temps and changes to greater extremes than most currently expect. But mutation and evolution occur on a time scale many orders of magnitude slower than the expected changes to the habitability of our planet. Many - perhaps most - humans will adapt. But we won't evolve. And if we do as little as we seem to be willing to do, most surviving humans won't live very pleasant existences.
Sure, there are lots of things we could do - both to reduce the negative impacts and to ameliorate them. But we aren't doing those things. And sure, we might be able to use tech and genetic engineering to get ourselves out of this jam. But we don't seem to be looking at those things, either. If/when they come, they will probably be mainly available to the very well off who, in case you haven't noticed, have been accumulating sufficient wealth and power to create safe, exclusive enclaves to survive whatever happens. After all, why invest in saving all Americans (much less all of humanity) when we can consolidate wealth, live high, and come out fine on the other side?
While fertilizer and pesticide runoff isn't specifically a GW issue, water is. The Pentagon has been predicting water wars due to GW for nearly a decade (if not longer). So anything that further degrades our water resources is making GW even worse and jeopardizing our future.
Most people are sheep. They just serve different masters. It sounds like you are upset that some people think their master is better than yours.
LMAO!!!
Just reading the Amazon summary, there's a Who's Who of false narratives and factually incorrect statements - the last one about "the sun is the hottest it's over the past 60 years" is utter nonsense. You can look up and see that solar activity has not changed in at least 70 years. It that same timeframe, we have seen rapid increases in global temperatures, but the solar output is totally flat.
I'll be happy to pick a couple and demonstrate for you that they are demonstrably wrong. Will you actually look at facts for yourself, or are you going to claim 'the data have been falsified' and go off into ConspiracyTheoryLand?
FWIW...here is total solar output over the past century or so. Can you point out where this 'big increase in the past 60 years' has occurred? (Hint: 2015 - 60 = 1955)
It's amusing that those loudest about GW being a myth are usually the ones that think Obama, ISIS, gay marriage, etc were going to destroy the world. What a nutbag world we live in.
The simple facts are that all our industry went to china and a few people made a lot of money. Try not looking at the GW issue as true or false. Just look at the consequences. It helps you see a little clearer.
Sure. The difference between making a product in the US and China is x amount of dollars in cost. Of that x amount of dollars 7 percent is wages. 93 percent is taxes and REGULATIONS. We created an environment in the US that made it very difficult for industry to succeed do to over taxing and over regulating.
So, the jobs go overseas and create the same if not more pollutants. The people selling GW are making millions of dollars and nothing was accomplished other than reducing the 7 percent and 93 percent to .5 and 1.
If our country was serious about global warming. (Which they aren't) They would only accept products from foreign nations that had the same environmental standards as us. Also, they would have done it from the start. Instead of talking about it for 30 years.
So, the jobs go overseas and create the same if not more pollutants. The people selling GW are making millions of dollars and nothing was accomplished other than reducing the 7 percent and 93 percent to .5 and 1.
If our country was serious about global warming. (Which they aren't) They would only accept products from foreign nations that had the same environmental standards as us. Also, they would have done it from the start. Instead of talking about it for 30 years.
