Hoyt should've never trusted those two trolls in his house.
Yes, they're the trolls, not him.
Governments love climate change, it increases their tax collecting ability.
Private corporations (particularly multi-national dirty energy conglomerates) love to distort scientific information to deny climate change, it increases their trillions in profits.
"Global warming" has been an incredible cash cow, birthing the big "green" toilet and generating propaganda to propel both the environmental and socialist agendas. It has provided a vehicle for bilking taxpayers of billions.
But hasn't the cause of climate change been an incredible cash cow for the polluters?
And again we have more private profit and even bigger public losses!
No, but a good job has been done marketing that line. Lucky for us I suppose that we have so many willing to "save" our environment. All they need from us is our freedom, property and money. If they play the rhetoric right some fools might even say "thank you" when the dirty deeds are done. Plenty of folks have been drinking the kool-ade. I wonder if it was warm.
What line? The Climate change is real and human affected line? Well that would be simple scientific fact.
The people made lot's of money off reckless environmental damage line? Well that would be simple scientific fact too.
There is no "line" just hard science and archeological proofs.
Yep, look to the scholars, on either side. Climate change exists, the debate is not about whether it exists-but why.
It is being exploited as man made to imply it can be controlled by us, but all I see is a power grab.
Maybe it's being exploited as natural cycles to ensure that polluters can continue to pollute and profit. Who profits most, polluters (deniers) or their opposition?
Good question. We are getting it from both sides, no doubt.
I'm sure we're getting the findings from both sides- but follow the money, where does it lead?
Into the pockets of the polluters--coal companies, coal-fired power plant utilities, oil companies and car companies and their puppet politicians.
But yet we still use their products and vote for their politicians.
The fact is man is ruining the planet yet no one is in favour of population control.
The fact is man is ruining the planet but no one is in favour of banning all motor vehicles
The fact is man is ruining the planet but no one is in favour of sitting in the dark
the fact is man is ruining the planet and no one has an idea how to stop it
We know how to fix it, instituting green technologies and carbon reduction methods that are not really that drastic and protecting sources of carbon recycling like the Amazon we can get our margin to be a very very long time, as in thousands of years and with that time i have no doubt we will invent technologies to solve the problem especially if we fund green technology research.
What is happening now on the other hand is big industries are doing all they can to crush emerging green technologies and at the same time recklessly polluting, the terminal effect being we don't have enough time to fix the problem before it's too late.
There are plenty of ways to stop or slow climate change if we get started before it's too late.
Yup, what is more likely? That advocacy groups and green organizations have somehow corrupted all of the legitimate scientific and archeological community on climate change using their very limited funds to bring about a massive conspiracy on the issue. Or oil and coal companies using their enormous sums of money have completely failed to gain any traction in the scientific community in an attempt to make more money?
It's not the toughest question.
Are you certain sure that climate change is a hoax?
On what evidence do you base this conclusion? Remember, "I just know" in't a satisfactory answer.
The hoax is that surrendering our freedom, livelihood, property and tax dollars will solve anything.
Again scientific fact that the introduction 9compulsory or otherwise) of energy efficient technologies etc. will help ease the problem. It's already worked in many countries, the ones with the lowest carbon footprints per capita in the first world.
No, that doesn't answer my question. Either produce your evidence or drop the subject.
So many people utterly ignorant of the hard science and willing to destroy what we will leave our children for a few bucks. Very sad.
It may seem inconvenient that not everyone is buying the green agenda's truth, but don't be discouraged. Perhaps we will finally learn it now that Al's Jazeera is coming to our local cable provider.
Hard science is not a version of the truth, it's simple fact is all.
Josak, that is fallacy. The earth is flat was a scientific notion and yet it never was fact. The moon could not be reached was a scientific fact in 1836 but not by 1986. Science is a snapshot of what we know this second, it is not fact.
Plenty of facts about climate change are well established by scientific measurements. It's true there is more to learn, but we know enough that we should be taking prudent measures before it's too late. It's quite clear that the climate at any point in time is a product of natural cycles AND the effects of greenhouse gases. Not much we can to about natural cycles, but we are capable of cutting back on CO2 if we put our mind to it.
Firstly flat earth theory was never a scientific theory, truly it came about before the empirical scientific process by people just naturally assuming and the scientists who did investigate the theory found something else entirely. Secondly there is a big difference between supposing something and being able to categorically prove it experimentally as we can do with global warming.
And by your unassailable logic faith is valid for proof. We had proof that we could not fly to the moon. It was a fact. Now we have proof that we can. It is a fact.
We have proof that climates change. We have facts that we can effect/affect that. Those are facts. Tomorrow that will change when a Volcano blows so high and so hard that climate is instantly changed and we cannot effect/affect that.
Scientific proof is limited by current knowledge. Faith is not. I have faith that the climates will change, that will not change. I have fact and knowledge that we can effect/affect change,,,, that will change. As the Solar Flairs brought our temperatures to over 100 in May, which never happens, we may see cooling in August due to the Cholula Volcanic activity and resulting ash. Man is blind to his lack of impact. Climates change, get over it.
Nope scientific experiment is proof.
Yes Volcanoes etc. can change the climate so can we, an asteroid could destroy the earth next month butt hat doesn't mean we should start dropping nukes everywhere. Climates do change, indeed massive volcanic activity has caused global warming before the consequence of which was mass extinction that almost exterminated all life on earth, now we are doing the same thing, getting over it would be pretty idiotic.
Being unable to reach the moon was never fact or scientific opinion btw so that is nonsense.
Well I certainly want my government to spend money to stop solar flares and volcanoes from erupting. But I do like the concept of climate change. If you think about it, the essence of climate is not the sameness but the patterns of change. ie cool in the morning, hot in the afternoon, rainy when there are clouds and sunny when there are not. If climates were always the same we would have no climates.
It's quite funny isn't it? The distorters would love to have us believe that the debate is about whether climate change exists or not. When in fact, the real debate is not about whether the earth is warming, but whether the changes are man made or the result of natural cycles.
I do wish people would look a bit deeper, and not just jump onto the bandwagon that "fits" their ignorance and misconceptions.
Follow the freakin' money.
Can anyone say with a straight face that government (who some of the same people often say can't do anything at all with any efficacy) somehow got 99.98% of underpaid university researchers to advance fraudulent scientific information simply to jack up taxes, hurt ordinary people, and "limit freedom"?
Can anyone say with a straight face that glaciers aren't melting, that weather systems haven't been more severe lately, that bad farming practices didn't have any role in the Dust Bowl (e.g. proof of direct human effect on climate), that Exxon-BP-Shell and the coal industry doesn't have a vested financial interest in distorting information, that the dirty energy crowd isn't pouring hundreds of millions into campaign funds, or that a "green agenda" is more cumulatively powerful than commercial interests of the most profitable corporations on earth who want to maintain those profits at any cost?
Please. Either government is incompetent, or it's not. It can't be both hopelessly inefficient AND capable of an intricate, nearly universal conspiracy involving almost every scientist on earth and supported by anecdotal evidence seen increasingly everywhere around us. And enormous "free-enterprise" corporations can't be incredibly superior in every way to government while still being hapless victims of a clever yet sinister fraud perpetrated by a bunch of hippies and bureaucrats to impose damaging restrictions on people for the fun of it.
The earth needed to warm up after the iceage of the 1970's. Widespread destruction from that iceage is still being felt.
What? There wasn't an iceage in the 70s? How can that be, the scientist told us it was gonna get cold.
Oh well, damn, starting to get hot.
So many of you don't seem to realize that that argument actually defeats yours, that "ice age" (actually a slight cooling period) should still be going for the next ten years because of the sun's distancing, but instead the temperature has been rising or staying the same due to the greenhouse effect which is fine for now but we will soon enter a warming period...
Does no such thing, there was no ice age as the experts predicted. All it proves is that those experts are just as wrong about Global warming (now changed to climate change to protect their selves) as they were about the ice age.
Do you remember about twenty or so years ago, holes started to appear in the ozone layer affecting the climate.
These holes were attributed to the use of CFCs in aerosols and refrigeration plants.
They banned the use of CFCs in aerosols and enforced the contained capture of CFCs from refrigerators.
The ozone holes repaired themselves.
You of course will say purely coincidence, I will say, it might be coincidence but everything points to it being cause and effect.
There was actually, if we remove the effect of the greenhouse effect the temperature dropped significantly. Arguing with science will just make you look the fool.
You may want to go back and look at those 1970's predictions.
They were dead on, they wrote that solar shift would cause a drop in the earth's temperature. They got that dead right. The earths temperature was dropped by those factors but also raised by global warming. Of course their field was a totally different one to the field of research that would find that other factors would cause global warming.
The frightening thing is despite that drop (even you can't be ignorant enough to argue that the sun being further away will cause a temperature drop) the global temperature has risen.
Yup exactly as I said, scientists correctly predicted that the sun shift would cause global cooling, at the same time global warming rose the temperature. Scientists were right both times.
Also note that I love it when an author with no scientific knowledge whatsoever attempts to claim that people who actually have two braincells to rub together and knowledge+education on the topic are all wrong
When looking for opinions on a subject maybe stick to people who know the subject
Predicted an ice age, and it never happened.
Nope they predicted global cooling as a result of solar positioning, solar positioning did indeed reduce the earth's temperature. They were right.
Your argument is the same as me pointing out that if you put water in a freezer it will freeze it begins to do this then you go in with a blowtorch and melt it and claim that proves I was wrong. Pretty dumb.
The earth is currently further away from the sun than it was before these predictions are you actually arguing that this will not cause global cooling if not counteracted by other forces?
They predicted an ice age!
Why do you keep denying that fact?
Actually they didn't they predicted some global cooling. Which happened for some time, temperatures did drop. Then other man man causes reversed that trend namely the greenhouse effect. Which those scientists had no way of predicting.
So yes they were precisely correct an unsurprising win for people who actually know the subject against old men with no scientific knowledge or training at all.
They go on theories, not facts. Such is the nature of modern "science" (at least......modern science has been invaded by wild theory).
"Note that many of the oh-there-was-an-ice-age-predicted type articles tend to focus on non-science articles for their sources: newsweek, for example. This is cheating on their part. Newsweek isn't science, of course."
For those who reject the scientific claims, this is a global, BUSINESS-oriented
company (not nonprofit). Because, as we all know, BUSINESSES are always right!
Climate change does not equal global warming.
Climate Change might involve a change in seasons, an increase in the average temperature, or an increase in precipitation each year. Climate must not be confused with weather, which is a short term phenomenon.
Global warming results from an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causing the surface of the Earth to become warmer by trapping heat reflected off the Earth. Climate change is an effect of global warming.
The instance of a few cool or rainy days does not mean that global warming is not occuring. Climate change is exactly that, a change in climate. Climate is the weather patterns in a specific area, over a specific time period.
An increase in the temperature of the Earth can change climate and weather patterns. There are many scientific predictions about the results and extent of climate change. Climate change might involve a change in seasons, a change in rainfall patterns, a change in temperature around the world, and more extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and storms. A change in climate will affect people, plant and animal species, agriculture, industry and culture.
by Sychophantastic2 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not...
by Liwayway Memije-Cruz23 months ago
Almost everyone is already alarmed by the impacts of climate change. Several initiatives by scientists, climatologists, educators, researchers and environmental advocates on the issue of climate change are so many and...
by Jack Lee14 months ago
Recently, Doc Snow and I decided to each create a hub on the topic of "How accurate are climate change predictions." Here are our opposing hubs - http://hubpages.com/education/Climate-C …...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
Amusing or horrifying -- or both?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdFrpXMQ … embedded#!
by ThunderKeys5 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please...
by mbuggieh2 years ago
In May of 1950 President Harry Truman signed a bill---passed by Congress, that created the National Science Foundation. In signing the bill, Truman noted:"Throughout our history, scientists and scientific knowledge...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.