What Do We Think About Climate Change

That's the difference between me an some of the climate change deniers that post here. When I post something that is just my opinion I say so outright. When they post something that is just their opinion they expect us to accept it as proven fact.

 

Dear Alan...your hypothesis, can not float not even in the dead sea.
Do you really think that the opposition to man made global warming hypothesis comes from fossil fuel suppliers because they think their market is going to shrink? Why then haven't they waged a war against nuclear? There is a real threat to coal!

Think again, how much of petroleum goes into fuel that can be replaced by "alternative energy" Can you see container ships driven by batteries?, what about passenger planes powered by pedals? Diesel locomotive with a sail?

Think rationally, this is not a battle against alternative sources of energy. Far from it. It has been said at nauseam by all the different lunatic green groups that a new cheap source of energy would be disastrous to the planet. This is a battle against humankind, those that drive this CO2 nonsense, also declare human as a plague that needs to be culled and hope that no one will ever find a way to produce H2 or other sources of cheap fuel because that would drive the plague (humans) to intolerable (to them) numbers.

The big fuel corporation have a secure market for all the time the resource last and beyond, particularly coal, the cleanest and more abundant source of energy on the planet.
The technology that will replace fossil fuel is not solar nor wind nor any of the toy-like ******** that is been peddled and subsidised at great cost and no gain whatsoever.

Eventually a good cheap technology will be invented and if so, it will be the greens who will try to bury it and not the fuel producers just like it was done with nuclear.

I would like to mention that the above paragraph deserves special attention.
Clearly you adhere to the mantra that money is dirty and that whoever makes money deserves punishment, or rather that rich is evil and poor is virtuous.
When not surprising, this anti-value is common currency among liberals, greens and assorted sub-employed pretend self sustained hobby goat farmers, who nurture in adulthood the attitudes a 12 year old has against his parents.

It is interesting to note that in our Australian Labour government, we have the dubious privilege to be keeping a collection of ministers and members of parliament who, all ex government or union employees that collectively, don't have more than 10 years of working in a business, or as independent professionals, or in a board of directors or any other activity that has any resemblance with real life.
Their tirades are sickening and their decisions life threatening. It is little surprise that they also share that point of view that rich be it personal or corporate is bad and must be punished, whilst poor incompetent or fool must be upheld and subsidied.

 

30 years ago when I was a kid apparently the oceans, by now would have risen several metres and the small town I lived in would be completely submerged according to the "experts". The beaches there are still at the same level now as then.

 

Baloney. Name the experts who said such a thing thirty years ago. I was an adult at the time, and can't think of any.

You may be confusing the occasional hyped magazine or newspaper article for actual scientific research....

 

No, Marco. Money is not dirty in itself. But money collected for dirty science is dirty.

Explain why the same 'scientific' non-profits who used to publish pseudo-scientific studies and opinion pieces denying that smoking is unhealthy are now cranking out papers denying that global warming is real. Like the Heartland Institute, for example.

 

Mark is a special case Alan, even among this elite group of ignorant ideologues. He's the undisputed master of cheap shots. You should be honored that he considered you worthy of his attention....

 

When I read the reference to FOX News I knew you wack jobs of the AGW KoolAid Club would go ballistic. Easy prediction as the left hasn't stopped foaming at the mouth since they lost their monopoly on news organizations. The source is pretty irrelevent though and you guys know it. Is what was reported relevent? That's what counts. Troy, you Boston and the rest of you philosophical misfits and elitists who still believe that the AGW hypothesis is valid(or maybe you don't but are bound by liberal dogma) are the ones taking a beating. Boston still thinks he can combine two pieces of fiction and it will become a fact. He doesn't see the difference between posting altered, edited and fraudulent data in order to win a riposte and actually proving a theory.

I don't know if what the good professor of 150 peer reviewed studies proposed is true. But I didn't see any rebuttal of the science, just ad hominem attacks, ******** and the usual patronizing insults from the AGW supporters.

 

Truer than all them other lyin' propagandists for world socialism.

 

"Don't cast pearls before swine..." No point in having the pearls trampled, so now I am slinging slop.

 

If you think CNN is a right wing propaganda machine, then there is little hope for you. Fox is fair and balanced, with both left and right wing opinion being aired. Your remarks lack any transverse framing. Your logic has fallen victim to origami.

 

Why do you think our ancestors left Europe? Precisely because their thinking was all wrong.

 

This pretty well sums it up. All that propaganda was scare tactic to frighten a whole generation of kids over the edge into the arms of the socialist movement. Everybody wake up!

 

Yes, it is a fact that fossil fuel suppliers have been funding an anti-global warming crusade. That has been well documented, including, if I recall correctly, several times in this thread. It is not even in much dispute why they would want to spend company money to do so.

The only thing that is uncertain is whether they are doing so in full knowledge that they are on the wrong side of the science, or if they really believe their own propaganda and the pseudo-science (and rare bit of real science that agrees with them) that they are funding.

 

And they colluded with Dick Cheney and big auto to buy and bury the 100MPH carburetor...

 

Huh? You were replying to Boston, but your answer is a complete non sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything he said.

Another complete non sequitur.