~ C02 climate catastrophe nonsense is all about politics — and political "science ". ' ~ There is no "entire world of science related to climate " ... "'
Of course it is. Just like the ones screaming that "fusion is tomorrow" and a million other "future predictions". Kina like "Peak Oil". Experts have been claiming for over a century we have hit and passed "peak oil", yet amazingly every few years we are extracting more than ever. Over 100 years of predictions that have been proven to be false by "experts", yet we still hear it every time some new "expert" makes a new one. One would think that after more than a century some would actually start to question their claims with at least some skepticism. But no, they are simply applauding because some are saying what they want to hear. I see this as no different. Decades of "predictions", some even claiming we were making a new ice age. And decades of failures. Yet they still believe it, cause they want to believe it. He believes science is a popularity contest, based on a completely fake claim.
There are many studies by sound analysis groups that show that burning fossil fuel inside our cities exacerbates numerous health issues. That's especially true for lung related issues, but it goes beyond that. EVs allow transportation in our cities without the combustion products of ICE vehicles.
If you read my posts, you would know that this is absolute and total BS. Please be a little bit careful with your claims about me and other posters.
You mean that your general fallback is a bogus popularity contest? You see, here is the thing. I see almost anything where some claim "97% of anybody" agrees with something. I see that, and am reminded of the election results in places like Venezuela and North Korea. I see it as complete BS, especially as a lot of experts have said over and over that they do not agree, and nobody had ever asked them their opinion. It is bogus, completely made-up, and that is your ultimate fail-safe when ever you can't answer somebody who challenges your facts. It is not BS, it is entirely true. Just like for decades prognosticators have been giving out doom and gloom predictions about a ton of things for decades. And amazingly, they never come true but people still suck them up because they want to believe. It is a religion though, not science. Just as much as Scientology is a religion, and not science.
WR absolutely loves "science" that can not be measured, and making claims that can not be validated. "Well, we don't know and can't prove how many die from pollution, but they are there and there are a lot of them!"
I have no idea what this has too do with what I said. What exactly am I supposed to be ‘admitting? I seem to remember Trump not following any kind of science when it came to covid19. In fact, he promoted misinformation which caused people to do really stupid things.
My comments on EVs in this thread have been about the healthcare costs of burning fossil fuel on our city streets. I know you fervently object to the vast majority of the scientists in climate related field throughout the world. But, that wasn't the issue.
So now you are resorting to making up crap and then claiming I said it? If that's what you've got, you really should just go away.
Sen. Kennedy Lights up Biden Energy Official With Question We’d All Like an Answer to on Climate Agenda. '[Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA)] was questioning Biden Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk. He was asking the questions that you should ask about budgeting, spending, and the Biden team’s nonsensical climate agenda.' '“If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral in the United States by 2050,” Kennedy asked, “Give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures.” Great question — what are we going to get if the Biden team spends all of that money from us, the American taxpayers, this way? What’s going to be the result?' 'Turk, of course, couldn’t answer the question. He looks like it never even occurred to him that that should be a question to which he should have an answer. But that’s the problem of the Biden administration, and the Democrats, right there. Because ultimately, that’s not how they think, and I don’t think they care. I think it’s about the money and the control the regulations give them. The “crisis” is secondary. They think the money is never ending—and they never have to justify what they’re doing with it.'
Sorry if that was confusing. I'm pointing to all the scientists throughout the world who are working in fields related to climatology. Of this population of scientists, the vast majority support that the warming of Earth that is clearly taking place has it's origins in human activity.
Of course. That's how they make a living. Working in or near climatology has no other real way to make a living.
Doesn’t pay THAT much. Meanwhile the likes of Willie Soon got a million dollar paycheck for saying climate change is not happening and these “think tanks” that pay denialist scientists get lots of cash from Koch bros and others https://www.theguardian.com/environ...k-received-funding-from-fossil-fuel-interests
But it pays. They're there to make a living. Mostly because there's no other practical use for "climate science" other than being a weatherman on TV, maybe. Makes shilling for government hand outs the best they can do. Being a scientist in a useful field can pay more. Because it's actually useful to humanity. Oil companies for instance, can pay decently. Because they make products people can use to help humanity. It's not that hard to understand.
Willie Soon gets paid by Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. You can not consider that a legitimate source of science. The vast majority of those all over the world actually studying issues that have an impact on climate do support the fact that Earth is warming and that the reason has to do with human activity. There is no evidence that this enormous collection of scientists could possibly be paid off like Soon absolutely is. That conspiracy idea is not even possible.
Soon is paid by successful businesses that have been intimately involved with improving lives and mankind in general for 150 years. Their science is proven many times over and is virtually unimpeachable. Climate scientists are paid through government grants and their science is neither proven or provable. And in the end, their science is squarely aimed at destroying lives and mankind if allowed any control of anything whatsoever. Until climate science can actually run legitimate experiments instead of models, the best answer is to trust Soon, API, Exxon, etc. and encourage their mission.
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO justification to trust these gigantic fossil fuel companies on judging whether there are ramifications that justify not burning fossil fuel. They are NOT going to come to the conclusion that there is something negative about the only product they sell - the product that has made them stupendously wealthy. It's like you want to ask the King whether to slaughter the Golden Goose.
The justification to trust them is that they've got a proven track record of improving humanity and there is no other known alternative.
False. The have a proven ability to make gigantic profits from selling fossil fuel. Period. They are NOT paid to "improve humanity". There is no profit in that. If what's best for humanity is solar, it has been demonstrated that they will not provide that, because it isn't as profitable. That's been good when there are few choices. But, that does NOT mean that fossil fuel is always the best choice for humanity. That is a ludicrous claim.
