leov
Well-Known Member
My electric bill is higher than ever...very comforting.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
US officially quits Paris climate accord
- Thread starter leov
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Not everyone is selfish.
You've talked a lot about reliable sources, and now you're dissing on a main link from the home page of whitehouse.gov!
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
According to their website, NASA's vision is, "NASA's Vision: To discover and expand knowledge for the benefit of humanity."
There's your agenda. So, what is it that you don't trust?
About NASA
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Government resources should not be used just to promote the President. Did you see that there was just a headline, but no data there? They made themselves an unreliable source by excessively promoting Trump.You've talked a lot about reliable sources, and now you're dissing on a main link from the home page of whitehouse.gov!
I politely disagree.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Where is the data then?
Where on Energy & Environment | The White House does Donald Trump take credit? It's a main page... those are meant to be trusted by way of needing to be brief right?
I can't convince half of the US to think Trump is doing a good job here... let it subside.
I hinted the information might be out there... If you care, that's enough. We don't live in the age where someone has to put a list of citations with their post. If you think they're wrong see what they're reading and see why they think what they do.
There are still plenty of real scientists doing work and they put a lot of the information on the Internet -- unfortunately, they don't live anywhere in the USA. That is applicable toward a number of fields, BTW, not just "climate change" nonsense, but also psychology and other medical fields. In the USA, the academic powers that be have given up science for politics or religion. So, yes, I generally will immediately seek contrary information to their claims -- because I don't believe a damn thing they say unless other sources back them up. There are about 20 "academic research" organizations that just rubber stamp whatever nonsense NOAA or NASA put out and tow the political line. Don't blame me for having an issue with that, anyone truly rational should. Realize also that if climate change is complete bull these guys lose a lot of money. It's not so much that they're into the truth, but that they're into the funding. Just Occam's Razor in effect here... I have nothing to gain either way by hinting that they're not presenting the whole story, so think whatever you want. These are the same guys that said the ice caps are melting, that we'd be in a desert in the middle of the country by now, and that low-lying areas at the coast would be submerged. They were wrong on all that -- why am I supposed to trust another damn thing coming out of their mouths? Citations or not, it's just absurd to take them at their word for anything.
NOAA, especially, has been going back and "refactoring" their historical temp data and other such nonsense for awhile. We have copies of data before 1970, and we know what those numbers are -- they are not the numbers they publish. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, it's just bull**** is what it is.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's a combination of factors. We well know that the increased CO2 levels are largely due to an increase in carbon emissions that date all the way back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. Also the increased consumption of meat has led to more livestock being raised, thus higher levels of methane gas and with fewer trees to absorb CO2.
What especially concerns the climate scientists is the melting of the tundra whereas billions if tons of organic material is trapped that is releasing an increasing amount of methane gas as it is gradually be exposed and then decomposing. That is why some of the climate models are indicating that if we hit an increase of 2 degrees C, that we will hit a point of no return and the effect will "snowball" to even hotter temperatures. .
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So in other words it can only be found at science denial sites.I hinted the information might be out there... If you care, that's enough. We don't live in the age where someone has to put a list of citations with their post. If you think they're wrong see what they're reading and see why they think what they do.
There are still plenty of real scientists doing work and they put a lot of the information on the Internet -- unfortunately, they don't live anywhere in the USA. That is applicable toward a number of fields, BTW, not just "climate change" nonsense, but also psychology and other medical fields. In the USA, the academic powers that be have given up science for politics or religion. So, yes, I generally will immediately seek contrary information to their claims -- because I don't believe a damn thing they say unless other sources back them up. There are about 20 "academic research" organizations that just rubber stamp whatever nonsense NOAA or NASA put out and tow the political line. Don't blame me for having an issue with that, anyone truly rational should. Realize also that if climate change is complete bull these guys lose a lot of money. It's not so much that they're into the truth, but that they're into the funding. Just Occam's Razor in effect here... I have nothing to gain either way by hinting that they're not presenting the whole story, so think whatever you want. These are the same guys that said the ice caps are melting, that we'd be in a desert in the middle of the country by now, and that low-lying areas at the coast would be submerged. They were wrong on all that -- why am I supposed to trust another damn thing coming out of their mouths? Citations or not, it's just absurd to take them at their word for anything.
NOAA, especially, has been going back and "refactoring" their historical temp data and other such nonsense for awhile. We have copies of data before 1970, and we know what those numbers are -- they are not the numbers they publish. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, it's just bull**** is what it is.
He is? Wow, i dont think most of the world population agreea
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Didn't you know? He is the best President ever. All you have to do is to ask him. Trump will tell you himself how great he is. And again, and again and again ad infinitum.
Oh God! Not again
???
We are talking trump here, not south American populism which trump is so scared of he wants a wall. But i do agree some of that site mirrors trump very well...
Just as importantly, however, such governments have also made a point of undermining informal democratic norms, such as conflict of interest laws, financial transparency, or respect for opposition. Here the damage may go deeper and be far less reversible: such norms and informal rules are the product of decades of elite and popular interactions. Once such trust and consensus disappears, it is not be easy to bring it back.
Last edited:
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Please do not fall into this "sky is falling" trap. No where in the articles you cited do they provide one scintilla of proof that "climate change" was instrumental in causing one death anywhere! You can believe whatever you wish, but facts, especially scientific facts, are tricky little devils. Where's the proof? It's a hoax...
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Notanumber
A Free Man
I like what this man has to say.