| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Let's hope so; A fair and balanced debate | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 3 2017, 12:31 AM (127 Views) | |
| Pat | Jan 3 2017, 12:31 AM Post #1 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I believe at the end of the next eight years, all of this climate nonsense will have been put to rest. The number one crisis facing humanity is over population, the failure to give this even lip service should have been enough to awaken skeptics, but again, the cost of bucking the political and peer pressure from the scam artists was intense enough to make most keep their opinions and opposition facts to themselves. Trump has been a skeptic so we will now have a grown up discussion where all the facts are on the table. Climate Change Skeptics Welcome Open Debate Under Trump Presidency by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.2 Jan 2017566 After years of imposed “scientific consensus” on global warming, a number of skeptical climate scientists are hopeful that their views may finally get a hearing under the new administration. Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry, for instance, labelled a “climate heretic” by Scientific American for her contrarian views, sees a light at the end of the long Obama tunnel. “Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” she wrote last month on her popular blog Climate Etc. Part of the problem is that no one really knows how many climate change skeptics there are among scientists because of the high personal and professional cost of heterodoxy. Dilbert creator Scott Adams has compared climate change skeptics within the scientific community to “Shy Trump Supporters” who are too afraid to say what they really think for fear of being ridiculed or worse. As we can plainly see, he wrote, “the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist.” William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, played his cards close to the vest for years in order survive in a hostile scientific climate. “I held my tongue for a long time because friends told me I would not be elected to the National Academy of Sciences if I didn’t toe the alarmists’ company line,” he said. As the political climate changes, however, climate change skeptics may find their voice and enter a debate that has hitherto been closed off to them. Happer, for instance, is more optimistic of what the future holds. “I think we’re making progress,” he said. “I see reassuring signs.” Dr. Duane Thresher, a climate scientist with a PhD from Columbia University and NASA GISS, has pointed to “publication and funding bias” as a key to understanding how scientific consensus can be manipulated. Although scientists are held up as models of independent thinkers and unbiased seekers of truth, the reality is that they depend on funding even more than other professions, since much of their research has no market value. Thus, they will study what they are funded to study. The Obama administration, which doggedly denied that a climate debate even existed, funneled billions of federal dollars into programs and studies that supported its claims, while silencing contrary opinions. “In reality, it’s the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, an expert on climate research spending and a longtime government consultant. Federal agencies order up studies that focus on their concerns, so politics ends up guiding science according to its particular interests. “Government actions have corrupted science, which has been flooded by money to produce politically correct results,” said Happer. “It is time for governments to finally admit the truth about global warming. Warming is not the problem. Government action is the problem.” Thresher, who has done pioneering work in both tree ring climate proxy modeling and ocean climate proxy modeling, says that scientists know far less about historical climate than people are led to believe. Scientists us climate “proxies” like tree rings and ice cores, Thresher says, as substitutes for real climate measurements. The inferences reached are “inaccurate and unreliable well beyond what is required for the conclusions drawn,” he states. When it comes to forecasting future climate trends, however, the situation is even worse, Thresher contends. “Climate models are just more complex/chaotic weather models, which have a theoretical maximum predictive ability of just 10 days into the future,” he notes. “Predicting climate decades or even just years into the future is a lie, albeit a useful one for publication and funding.” President-elect Donald Trump’s choices for key cabinet posts have exhilarated climate scientists tired of being black-balled as “climate change deniers” just because they raise uncomfortable questions. Tapping former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to run the Energy Department, Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma to run the Environmental Protection Agency, and Exxon chief executive Rex Tillerson as secretary of state signals a radical change from Obama’s conforming climate alarmists. Every friend of honest debate and free exchange of information will take heart in the changing environment, where every voice will be heard. In the area of climate science, the change couldn’t come at a more opportune time. |
![]() |
|
| Neutral | Jan 3 2017, 12:41 AM Post #2 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Fire_And_Ice/topic/8053134/1/?x=15#new |
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Jan 3 2017, 12:43 AM Post #3 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The owl loving tree sitters have long gone by the wayside. The climate Nazis will eventually move on to some other asinine made up cause. |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Jan 3 2017, 02:18 AM Post #4 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I believe the true intent has been to destroy the industrial strength of some nations in order to create a vacuum that allows other countries to fill. a means of choosing winners and losers. Anybody who recall the 60's and 70's realizes that America has done a fantastic job in dealing with pollution as well as population growth. It is asinine to sign treaties that limit our growth based on fake evidence and hysteria developed by propagandists. |
![]() |
|
| Neutral | Jan 3 2017, 02:39 AM Post #5 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Unbelievable, you didn't look for a like thread, I showed it to you and you just ignore it. LOL |
![]() |
|
| icy-woman | Jan 3 2017, 04:01 AM Post #6 |
|
Silver Star Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OK Pat, over population, So tell me, who gets to live, and who has to die? But yes, it all makes sense now, why we need the cops to be corrupt and sadistic. Why Trump loves them so much. But what if these cops come to realize that after they rid the world of us lowly humans, Trump will no longer have a use for them? Better to keep them in the dark huh? Let me see if I follow this. Cops get rid of the people, solve the over population problem, then DHS gets rid of the cops that Trump and his wealthy friends no longer need. Then with maybe under a million people left on the planet, Those most wealthy and those who are best suited to provide their services, the problem is solved. One last question, if i may, is there anyone posting here on this forum that stands a ghost of a chance to be spared? Anyone who has wealth and power similar or greater than Trump's? Small price to pay for the good of Earth. http://b2.ifrm.com/47/98/0/e33855//e33855.gif |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Jan 3 2017, 04:33 AM Post #7 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If the governments would allow nature to do the choosing, then the problem would go away. Instead we have open border immigration where the breeders spill into other countries. Africa has the highest birth rate in the world let Africans feed themselves. Diseases. AIDS is rampant, let it take it's course without interfering. Let nature do the choosing, it's all set up to do so. |
![]() |
|
| icy-woman | Jan 3 2017, 05:30 AM Post #8 |
|
Silver Star Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If the governments would allow nature to do the choosing, then the problem would go away. That's Gary Johnson's message only he would have used "our government" not "the government" and he would have mentioned making the government ours again. Sure beats making America great again, Make the government our government again. Gary wants to make it easy for anyone to be their own boss. Trump wants more employed slaves to large companies, if you can even believe what he says. Gary on the other hand says to get rid of the middle man so to speak. Then uses the example of the plumber who takes their own calls or maybe has someone taking their calls and setting a price and doing the work on his own instead of sending one of his workers to. It would drive prices down and increase the quality of the work, No monopolies. No laws in place to prevent anyone from taking up their own business and being their own boss. Instead we have open border immigration where the breeders spill into other countries. Africa has the highest birth rate in the world let Africans feed themselves. Diseases. AIDS is rampant, let it take it's course without interfering. Let nature do the choosing, it's all set up to do so. We are living in a world, we can no longer afford to be proud Americans. Your talking about human lives. I get the whole let nature take it's course thing, but as long as there are people willing to do the human thing for their fellow human/s, It's not morally right to stop them. If you really want a nature solving the population problem solution (A form of anarchy) then the best way would be to get rid of the cops. Disband the sheriffs and all law enforcement. Only the strongest and smartest survive, a better quality of people of all races and backgrounds emerge from that. It's how Humanity has evolved as far as it has. I might even be in favor of that kind of thinking. What it all boils down to, it's like Ron Paul said. We need to decide what we want and all be on the same page. Big or small government, the government or our government. I would be fine with either. The split between the two is destroying us though. We have spent way too much time on the fence. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Jan 3 2017, 06:33 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree 100% Pat. So when are you going to stop quoting fake evidence from unqualified Right Wing Propagandists, and accept real science from real scientists? |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Jan 3 2017, 07:56 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Follow the money. Then you will find where the fake science is coming from. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






4:37 PM Jul 11
