Now see, that's just dumb. You know the sun has nothing to do with global warming. What sense would that make?

Reminds me of 2 cows in a commercial having a serious discussion.

Then one says, " Look. A dandelion?"

Discussion over.

Even if global warming where more natural than man-made just look at what we've accomplished... https://youtu.be/7VRArXdRNSo

@ Chuang and Ken - - Geez guys. Of course solar cycles have an effect on Earth Climate but obviously it is one factor of many. There is a distinct parallel between climate change and increasing human produced CO2 of the Industrial Age. They track perfectly together. So you guys think it's a good idea during increased insolation to just go ahead and add to that, eh?

Interesting article, yet USA gets all the blame.
https://www.dw.com/en/these-cities-h...int/a-44404119

UK has made largest contribution to global warming says study
http://www.climatechangenews.com/201...ng-says-study/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism

The End Game of Climate Change: Socialism
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-en...m_2692791.html

It's All About System Change (to Socialism), Not Climate Change
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...te_change.html

An ‘Ecosocialist’ Heard From
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ets-socialism/

Climate change and the capitalist system
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../clim-s20.html

LOL ChuangTzu do you think maybe just once you could submit a post that wasn't political. This topic needs evidence not agenda-driven speculation and opinion that goes nowhere.

"Scientific" Socialism is NOT scientific. It's pseudoscience and is all too common when politics and religion seeks some kind of borrowed authenticity. It has no place here.

Epoch Times is extremely political, and while understandably so having endured Chinese Communist Autocracy, they took the exact opposite pole in reaction and are hard party liners with zero interest in objectivity. They exist solely for a right wing conservative political and philosophical agenda, not science.

American Thinker is a homegrown version of the same... entirely political, evidence be damned.

National Review was created by William Buckley for crying out loud. Again, entirely political.

Gee! What can we expect from World Socialist Web Site I wonder? Duh! It certainly isn't science. Those people are so radical they barely avoid charges of conspiring to overthrow not only the US government but Capitalism everywhere.


Here's an example of what I'd like to see posted here. ARS Technica is one of many sites/publications built on the framework of Popular Science magazine who try to translate real science in simple language with zero political agenda. Oh they very likely would like to see increased funding for scientific projects but they care little for the kind of government that provides it as long as they have the freedom to be who they are doing what they do. They simply leave mundane politics to those interested in such things.

The example I spoke of is on this page about when electric airliners might become viable but down near the bottom is a really decent video regarding the true nature of rising (and falling) sea levels. It's quite good. I hope you watch it and if you're feeling really adventurous stick around for the follow up about Flat Earth "Theory". Oh wait... that's probably too much to ask. Oh well. ;)

Anyway the page and video is here to do with as you see fit ===>> https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...rs-make-sense/

Good fortune to you and your loved ones.

Yeah, let's rely on political ideological BS, "socialism", religious BS, etc instead of real science - that's a great idea. :rolleyes:

I mean honestly, no wonder you're average joe doesn't have a chance when comes to knowing who to believe...

Impossible to separate Philosophy or Politics from a situation/scenario that is, for the most part, driven by philosophy/politics. I am not saying that all have a vested interest in the results, however, the vast majority is just as vested in the results as so called Big Oil.

enorbet, just because you might not be influenced by an agenda, does not mean that you are not the exception. Interesting that it's ok to point out the politics of those opposed to man made climate change, however, any attempt to point out the political/philosophical agenda of the man made climate change group is considered heresy, closed minded-foolish etc...

Thank you for the best wishes, I wish you and yours the same and a prosperous, healthy and happy New Year as well. :)

NASA Scientist: Global Warming Is Nonsense
https://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/na...g-is-nonsense/

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#4e7f62c84c7c

Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM


Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

This situation did most definitely not begin as a political issue because for the obvious reasons scientists in climatology stumbled on to data that hinted at a trend and they wanted to see more of the curve. Politics latched onto it largely because of entrenched, short term economic interests. I understand you see it as mostly political because it seems you see through "political eyes". That's perfectly within your rights. I'm just trying to influence you, and other hard liners, to see a more encompassing view.

BTW "so-called Big Oil"? So are you saying those two terms are not descriptive?

It is true that it has become a rather hot topic in political circles so there are few who don't have some opinion om the subject but I really don't think politics dominates the field, and some evidence for this exists right here in this thread. Look at the poll results. Even with such a small sample of people of a very small niche of common interest there are extremely few "Undecided" and though the "Real" substantially outweighs the "Hoax", other than my responses the thread is dominated by "Hoaxers" in posts AND Politics.

I am obviously not "riding the fence" on this issue but (and I even went back through all my posts here to make certain) none of the links I've posted are political or from publications with a strong political bent in either direction. It seems to me that I have treated both ends of that spectrum equally and fairly - I think none of them have anything worthwhile to offer on the subject of climate change and I have said so. How is that biased?


You are quite welcome and it should be noted that my well-wishing had nothing to do with anything as abstract as a holiday season but simply to let you know that despite any conflict here I think you are at least sincere and gentlemanly and that is to be valued and respected and our conflicts don't alter that one iota on my part. I have quoted you for what I consider correction a lot here and I thought the not-so-obvious should also be honestly stated.

Very descriptive and I agree that they are a problem with a vested interest and that is not necessarily in the best interest of humanity. I do, however, think that the same is true for other "Big" entities/interests (political parties, organizations, NGO's, special interests groups, conglomerates, corporations etc...). There is a tendency for the special interest groups to absorb the legitimate movements, similar to how in the USA the so called "Tea Party movement" was absorbed by the Republican party; or how Alopathic medicine is trying to absorb "alternative treatments" under the guise of "Integrative Medicine" as two examples.


This is why I think you are the exception (in the minority), most scientists and laymen alike, are about as one sided on this issue as a Religious preacher.

Usually responding with a cup of tea. I am not in the camp of only being able to speak with people I agree with, such boring company that is. ;)

I agree with enorbet; it maybe be "impossible" for you to separate it from philosophy, politics, etc, but it isn't for me and anyone else that wants to put that stuff to one side, and just focus on the hard data surrounding "climate change". It's actually quite easy to separate the BS from the facts.

I think you've hit the mark when you say "vested interests", as that's precisely the problem with lumping it together with philosophy, politics, etc...

Interesting article:
"The Supposedly Pristine, Untouched Amazon Rainforest Was Actually Shaped By Humans"
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ans-180962378/

"Largest continuous oil and gas resource potential ever
Date: December 6, 2018
Source: US Geological Survey
Summary: USGS announces an assessment of continuous oil and gas in Texas and New Mexico's Delaware Basin, the largest USGS has ever conducted, with an estimate of 46.3 billion barrels of oil and 281 trillion cubic feet of natural gas." https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1206135643.htm #MAGA

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1206135643.htm