midgett said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

I believe in climate change.

But your post is absurd.

First, to cry wolf yet again on an urgent 10 year pronouncement is why you and your Al Gore cohorts can't be taken seriously. You perpetuate the problem.

Using less inflammatory language would be a good start.

They will not be significant changes in the next decade.

Here's the problem. Any current solution has TWO YUGE drawbacks. First, almost any solution will increase costs to consumers especially if you immediately ban coal. Sure, Al Gore and you can afford higher energy costs. But it'd be yet another burden liberals stick to poor people. Second, if all Americans take the expensive measures to battle climate change, it becomes naught due to the emissions from so many emerging economies which we can't force to pay.

The good news to me is that we are finally beginning to see solar energy becoming affordable. Self driving cars have the potential to dramatically reduce the use of fuel. Many people may find it feasible to not own an automobile.

I do believe the ingenuity present in a capitalist economy will lead to better, affordable alternative solutions. Create a market and become fabulously famous and wealthy.

I don't know the answers but I'm not going to stick the poor with higher costs just to make me feel better about myself.

---

We can reduce carbon emissions by 85% in 10 years with no new laws, no new tech, and grow the economy by $5 trillion. With a t.

And there will be new tech.

It won't be apocalyptic predictions that causes change, it will be the market. Now China, as noted above, can make political changes but the market will drive even Chinese political decisions.

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

I believe in climate change.

But your post is absurd.

First, to cry wolf yet again on an urgent 10 year pronouncement is why you and your Al Gore cohorts can't be taken seriously. You perpetuate the problem.

Using less inflammatory language would be a good start.

They will not be significant changes in the next decade.

Here's the problem. Any current solution has TWO YUGE drawbacks. First, almost any solution will increase costs to consumers especially if you immediately ban coal. Sure, Al Gore and you can afford higher energy costs. But it'd be yet another burden liberals stick to poor people. Second, if all Americans take the expensive measures to battle climate change, it becomes naught due to the emissions from so many emerging economies which we can't force to pay.

The good news to me is that we are finally beginning to see solar energy becoming affordable. Self driving cars have the potential to dramatically reduce the use of fuel. Many people may find it feasible to not own an automobile.

I do believe the ingenuity present in a capitalist economy will lead to better, affordable alternative solutions. Create a market and become fabulously famous and wealthy.

I don't know the answers but I'm not going to stick the poor with higher costs just to make me feel better about myself.

---

We can reduce carbon emissions by 85% in 10 years with no new laws, no new tech, and grow the economy by $5 trillion. With a t.

And there will be new tech.

It won't be apocalyptic predictions that causes change, it will be the market. Now China, as noted above, can make political changes but the market will drive even Chinese political decisions.

---

These ultra left governments are having none of that.

It's about taxes and taking down capitalism.

Canada2017 said:

---

canoso said:

---

Hey, anybody remember when the US was running out of petroleum reserves?

---

Remember when the lead industry claimed leaded gasoline was not harmful ?

---

No.

Doc Holliday said:

---

If the end of the industrialized world via climate change really were imminent, governments of the world wouldn't try and fix it with carbon pricing or taxation.

They would be slaughtering us and lowering the population etc.

---

who is "they" and who is "us" in the last sentence?

it makes no sense.

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

I believe in climate change.

But your post is absurd.

First, to cry wolf yet again on an urgent 10 year pronouncement is why you and your Al Gore cohorts can't be taken seriously. You perpetuate the problem.

Using less inflammatory language would be a good start.

They will not be significant changes in the next decade.

Here's the problem. Any current solution has TWO YUGE drawbacks. First, almost any solution will increase costs to consumers especially if you immediately ban coal. Sure, Al Gore and you can afford higher energy costs. But it'd be yet another burden liberals stick to poor people. Second, if all Americans take the expensive measures to battle climate change, it becomes naught due to the emissions from so many emerging economies which we can't force to pay.

The good news to me is that we are finally beginning to see solar energy becoming affordable. Self driving cars have the potential to dramatically reduce the use of fuel. Many people may find it feasible to not own an automobile.

I do believe the ingenuity present in a capitalist economy will lead to better, affordable alternative solutions. Create a market and become fabulously famous and wealthy.

I don't know the answers but I'm not going to stick the poor with higher costs just to make me feel better about myself.

---

We can reduce carbon emissions by 85% in 10 years with no new laws, no new tech, and grow the economy by $5 trillion. With a t.

And there will be new tech.

It won't be apocalyptic predictions that causes change, it will be the market. Now China, as noted above, can make political changes but the market will drive even Chinese political decisions.

---

you over estimate the "market" and its power and don't acknowledge the million of factors that impact "the market" that are political/social

Here is Al Gore missing the mark ..... by a lot

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

Look at both sides. Plenty of scientists not sponsored and funded by the UN are not on board with the doomsday scenario.

---

In a world wide scientific study ....there is never 100% agreement on anything .

So one can always find 'plenty' to disapprove .

However the overwhelming majority of the scientific community not only supports the reality of global warming....they are amazed that so many people simply refuse to accept the obvious . There have even been studies on such behavior.

Unfortunately that is human nature . We often refuse to inconvenience ourselves even when it's necessary for our own survival .

---

Have you forgotten that global warming errr I mean climate change was determined to be "settled science" during the early 2000s primarily from data supplied by the premier climate lab in the world based in the UK? And then somebody hacked into their system and exposed emails where they were discussing how they changed the data they recorded to meet the criteria needed to demonstrate global warming, and that the actual data they recorded didn't support that conclusion? Oh and how the International press completely ignored this staggering revelation, which should have put an immediate end to this ridiculous hoaky climate religion?

---

This kind of 'rationale' flies the the face of literally dozens of studies conducted by various universities and governmental agencies throughout the entire world . Common sense would suggest it would be utterly impossible to coordinate such a fraud throughout the worldwide scientific community.

Done here.

Peace

---

Lots of frauds that were the consensus have been debunked precisely because science was biased, faulty or just outright wrong.

---

Give me some examples of frauds with a consensus of science behind it. I know you have "lots", but just cite a few, please.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

I believe in climate change.

But your post is absurd.

First, to cry wolf yet again on an urgent 10 year pronouncement is why you and your Al Gore cohorts can't be taken seriously. You perpetuate the problem.

Using less inflammatory language would be a good start.

They will not be significant changes in the next decade.

Here's the problem. Any current solution has TWO YUGE drawbacks. First, almost any solution will increase costs to consumers especially if you immediately ban coal. Sure, Al Gore and you can afford higher energy costs. But it'd be yet another burden liberals stick to poor people. Second, if all Americans take the expensive measures to battle climate change, it becomes naught due to the emissions from so many emerging economies which we can't force to pay.

The good news to me is that we are finally beginning to see solar energy becoming affordable. Self driving cars have the potential to dramatically reduce the use of fuel. Many people may find it feasible to not own an automobile.

I do believe the ingenuity present in a capitalist economy will lead to better, affordable alternative solutions. Create a market and become fabulously famous and wealthy.

I don't know the answers but I'm not going to stick the poor with higher costs just to make me feel better about myself.

---

We can reduce carbon emissions by 85% in 10 years with no new laws, no new tech, and grow the economy by $5 trillion. With a t.

And there will be new tech.

It won't be apocalyptic predictions that causes change, it will be the market. Now China, as noted above, can make political changes but the market will drive even Chinese political decisions.

---

These ultra left governments are having none of that.

It's about taxes and taking down capitalism.

---

The US is making progress without taking down capitalism.

bularry said:

---

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

I believe in climate change.

But your post is absurd.

First, to cry wolf yet again on an urgent 10 year pronouncement is why you and your Al Gore cohorts can't be taken seriously. You perpetuate the problem.

Using less inflammatory language would be a good start.

They will not be significant changes in the next decade.

Here's the problem. Any current solution has TWO YUGE drawbacks. First, almost any solution will increase costs to consumers especially if you immediately ban coal. Sure, Al Gore and you can afford higher energy costs. But it'd be yet another burden liberals stick to poor people. Second, if all Americans take the expensive measures to battle climate change, it becomes naught due to the emissions from so many emerging economies which we can't force to pay.

The good news to me is that we are finally beginning to see solar energy becoming affordable. Self driving cars have the potential to dramatically reduce the use of fuel. Many people may find it feasible to not own an automobile.

I do believe the ingenuity present in a capitalist economy will lead to better, affordable alternative solutions. Create a market and become fabulously famous and wealthy.

I don't know the answers but I'm not going to stick the poor with higher costs just to make me feel better about myself.

---

We can reduce carbon emissions by 85% in 10 years with no new laws, no new tech, and grow the economy by $5 trillion. With a t.

And there will be new tech.

It won't be apocalyptic predictions that causes change, it will be the market. Now China, as noted above, can make political changes but the market will drive even Chinese political decisions.

---

you over estimate the "market" and its power and don't acknowledge the million of factors that impact "the market" that are political/social

---

Excuse me for being a capitalist.

bularry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If the end of the industrialized world via climate change really were imminent, governments of the world wouldn't try and fix it with carbon pricing or taxation.

They would be slaughtering us and lowering the population etc.

---

who is "they" and who is "us" in the last sentence?

it makes no sense.

---

They = Government

Us = Citizens

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

Look at both sides. Plenty of scientists not sponsored and funded by the UN are not on board with the doomsday scenario.

---

In a world wide scientific study ....there is never 100% agreement on anything .

So one can always find 'plenty' to disapprove .

However the overwhelming majority of the scientific community not only supports the reality of global warming....they are amazed that so many people simply refuse to accept the obvious . There have even been studies on such behavior.

Unfortunately that is human nature . We often refuse to inconvenience ourselves even when it's necessary for our own survival .

---

Have you forgotten that global warming errr I mean climate change was determined to be "settled science" during the early 2000s primarily from data supplied by the premier climate lab in the world based in the UK? And then somebody hacked into their system and exposed emails where they were discussing how they changed the data they recorded to meet the criteria needed to demonstrate global warming, and that the actual data they recorded didn't support that conclusion? Oh and how the International press completely ignored this staggering revelation, which should have put an immediate end to this ridiculous hoaky climate religion?

---

This kind of 'rationale' flies the the face of literally dozens of studies conducted by various universities and governmental agencies throughout the entire world . Common sense would suggest it would be utterly impossible to coordinate such a fraud throughout the worldwide scientific community.

Done here.

Peace

---

Lots of frauds that were the consensus have been debunked precisely because science was biased, faulty or just outright wrong.

---

Give me some examples of frauds with a consensus of science behind it. I know you have "lots", but just cite a few, please.

---

Already stated. 1980s. Eggs are bad for you. So very, VERY bad.

Of course, when "global warming" couldn't be empirically proven, they switched to the incredibly broad term of "climate change," because of course the climate is always changing anyway, and plus they can lop in other natural events such as hurricanes, which is among the most ridiculous crapola ever pushed on the public. But of course before global warming, we had the "global cooling" scare and the predictable "LOOK OUT THE NEXT ICE AGE IS APPROACHING SEND MONEY NOW TO STOP IT DERRRR."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

I believe in climate change.

But your post is absurd.

First, to cry wolf yet again on an urgent 10 year pronouncement is why you and your Al Gore cohorts can't be taken seriously. You perpetuate the problem.

Using less inflammatory language would be a good start.

They will not be significant changes in the next decade.

Here's the problem. Any current solution has TWO YUGE drawbacks. First, almost any solution will increase costs to consumers especially if you immediately ban coal. Sure, Al Gore and you can afford higher energy costs. But it'd be yet another burden liberals stick to poor people. Second, if all Americans take the expensive measures to battle climate change, it becomes naught due to the emissions from so many emerging economies which we can't force to pay.

The good news to me is that we are finally beginning to see solar energy becoming affordable. Self driving cars have the potential to dramatically reduce the use of fuel. Many people may find it feasible to not own an automobile.

I do believe the ingenuity present in a capitalist economy will lead to better, affordable alternative solutions. Create a market and become fabulously famous and wealthy.

I don't know the answers but I'm not going to stick the poor with higher costs just to make me feel better about myself.

---

We can reduce carbon emissions by 85% in 10 years with no new laws, no new tech, and grow the economy by $5 trillion. With a t.

And there will be new tech.

It won't be apocalyptic predictions that causes change, it will be the market. Now China, as noted above, can make political changes but the market will drive even Chinese political decisions.

---

These ultra left governments are having none of that.

It's about taxes and taking down capitalism.

---

The US is making progress without taking down capitalism.

---

What I am telling you is that is not the preferred method of the governments and agencies pushing for climate change initiatives.

They want your tax money.

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

I believe in climate change.

But your post is absurd.

First, to cry wolf yet again on an urgent 10 year pronouncement is why you and your Al Gore cohorts can't be taken seriously. You perpetuate the problem.

Using less inflammatory language would be a good start.

They will not be significant changes in the next decade.

Here's the problem. Any current solution has TWO YUGE drawbacks. First, almost any solution will increase costs to consumers especially if you immediately ban coal. Sure, Al Gore and you can afford higher energy costs. But it'd be yet another burden liberals stick to poor people. Second, if all Americans take the expensive measures to battle climate change, it becomes naught due to the emissions from so many emerging economies which we can't force to pay.

The good news to me is that we are finally beginning to see solar energy becoming affordable. Self driving cars have the potential to dramatically reduce the use of fuel. Many people may find it feasible to not own an automobile.

I do believe the ingenuity present in a capitalist economy will lead to better, affordable alternative solutions. Create a market and become fabulously famous and wealthy.

I don't know the answers but I'm not going to stick the poor with higher costs just to make me feel better about myself.

---

We can reduce carbon emissions by 85% in 10 years with no new laws, no new tech, and grow the economy by $5 trillion. With a t.

And there will be new tech.

It won't be apocalyptic predictions that causes change, it will be the market. Now China, as noted above, can make political changes but the market will drive even Chinese political decisions.

---

Which is why we pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord. The market is already fixing it.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

Look at both sides. Plenty of scientists not sponsored and funded by the UN are not on board with the doomsday scenario.

---

In a world wide scientific study ....there is never 100% agreement on anything .

So one can always find 'plenty' to disapprove .

However the overwhelming majority of the scientific community not only supports the reality of global warming....they are amazed that so many people simply refuse to accept the obvious . There have even been studies on such behavior.

Unfortunately that is human nature . We often refuse to inconvenience ourselves even when it's necessary for our own survival .

---

Have you forgotten that global warming errr I mean climate change was determined to be "settled science" during the early 2000s primarily from data supplied by the premier climate lab in the world based in the UK? And then somebody hacked into their system and exposed emails where they were discussing how they changed the data they recorded to meet the criteria needed to demonstrate global warming, and that the actual data they recorded didn't support that conclusion? Oh and how the International press completely ignored this staggering revelation, which should have put an immediate end to this ridiculous hoaky climate religion?

---

This kind of 'rationale' flies the the face of literally dozens of studies conducted by various universities and governmental agencies throughout the entire world . Common sense would suggest it would be utterly impossible to coordinate such a fraud throughout the worldwide scientific community.

Done here.

Peace

---

Lots of frauds that were the consensus have been debunked precisely because science was biased, faulty or just outright wrong.

---

Give me some examples of frauds with a consensus of science behind it. I know you have "lots", but just cite a few, please.

---

Already stated. 1980s. Eggs are bad for you. So very, VERY bad.

---

Yep. And then all the studies said red meat will kill you followed by the wildly popular Atkins Diet.

The only thing for sure in this life is that things are gonna change.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

Look at both sides. Plenty of scientists not sponsored and funded by the UN are not on board with the doomsday scenario.

---

In a world wide scientific study ....there is never 100% agreement on anything .

So one can always find 'plenty' to disapprove .

However the overwhelming majority of the scientific community not only supports the reality of global warming....they are amazed that so many people simply refuse to accept the obvious . There have even been studies on such behavior.

Unfortunately that is human nature . We often refuse to inconvenience ourselves even when it's necessary for our own survival .

---

Have you forgotten that global warming errr I mean climate change was determined to be "settled science" during the early 2000s primarily from data supplied by the premier climate lab in the world based in the UK? And then somebody hacked into their system and exposed emails where they were discussing how they changed the data they recorded to meet the criteria needed to demonstrate global warming, and that the actual data they recorded didn't support that conclusion? Oh and how the International press completely ignored this staggering revelation, which should have put an immediate end to this ridiculous hoaky climate religion?

---

This kind of 'rationale' flies the the face of literally dozens of studies conducted by various universities and governmental agencies throughout the entire world . Common sense would suggest it would be utterly impossible to coordinate such a fraud throughout the worldwide scientific community.

Done here.

Peace

---

Lots of frauds that were the consensus have been debunked precisely because science was biased, faulty or just outright wrong.

---

Give me some examples of frauds with a consensus of science behind it. I know you have "lots", but just cite a few, please.

---

Already stated. 1980s. Eggs are bad for you. So very, VERY bad.

---

Yep. And then all the studies said red meat will kill you followed by the wildly popular Atkins Diet.

The only thing for sure in this life is that things are gonna change.

---

And don't forget about butter and how bad it is for you. Eat margarine because it doesn't have fat!!! Well, about that....

Just for the record - the more sex the better for prostate health

That is the current thinking .... they gotta be right on some things

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

I don't care.

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

I don't care.

---

You are in the majority.

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

One of the difficulties with climate science is that it is not really something that can be replicated or tested. People argue about whether a model is correct, but we don't have multiple Earths and 1,000s of years to figure it out.

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

The best examples I can think of involve falsifying data in social science research. For a time, the fake studies are accepted.

Where the heck did that emoji come from?!

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

Your reading comprehension sucks as badly as your ability to reason. Already pointed out the global cooling scare.

contrario said:

---

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Let's listen to a scientist who's not a propagandist. 5 minutes.

---

Everyone posting in this thread needs to watch this video. This guy knows more about the climate than all of us combined.

---

Yep.

Jinx is just a carnival barker when it comes to the subject.

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

The best examples I can think of involve falsifying data in social science research. For a time, the fake studies are accepted.

---

What you mean like the top climate research lab in the world did? Say it ain't so.

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

Scientist laughed at the very idea of continental drift. Then came plate tectonics.

Scientists scoffed at the idea of Glacial Lake Missoula. Then an upstart analyzed the scab lands.

Scientists ridiculed the very idea of germ theory.

Science can't replicate any of the above, but now they are well settled.

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

The best examples I can think of involve falsifying data in social science research. For a time, the fake studies are accepted.

Where the heck did that emoji come from?!

---

The social science stuff, various victims studies programs, are certainly an area of concern. But neither the real articles nor Sokal-type fakes qualify as consensus frauds. Also of concern is P-hacking and the reluctance to fund or publish negative results. But again, not consensus fraud.

An emoji in my post? I'm on my phone and don't see any emojis. Nor did I place one in my post, not intentionally. I have noticed that on FB sometimes when people do an alphabetic list that B followed by a closed parenthesis will generate a smiley, with glasses I think.

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

Scientist laughed at the very idea of continental drift. Then came plate tectonics.

Scientists scoffed at the idea of Glacial Lake Missoula. Then an upstart analyzed the scab lands.

Scientists ridiculed the very idea of germ theory.

Science can't replicate any of the above, but now they are well settled.

---

Not one of those is a consensus hoax. Doc says there are lots of them. Y'all haven't shown me any. Scientific wrong turns? Sure. But Doc claimed hoaxes. Lots of them.

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

Scientist laughed at the very idea of continental drift. Then came plate tectonics.

Scientists scoffed at the idea of Glacial Lake Missoula. Then an upstart analyzed the scab lands.

Scientists ridiculed the very idea of germ theory.

Science can't replicate any of the above, but now they are well settled.

---

Not one of those is a consensus hoax. Doc says there are lots of them. Y'all haven't shown me any. Scientific wrong turns? Sure. But Doc claimed hoaxes. Lots of them.

---

When the examples I listed were first proffered, they were considered shams and rejected by the science establishment.

Not sure what a consensus 'hoax' is. Maybe cranberries causing cancer?

Fifty-six Years Ago This Month, Americans Panicked Over Cranberries: the anniversary of the first carcinogen panic of the last century In 1999, we published the first edition of our classic cancer-scare compendium, "Facts vs. Fears: A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times." But the Great Cranberry Scare, which created havoc at the worst possible time, remains #1 on the list even today. Our initial booklet covered twenty scares. Unfortunately, too few among the public and the media paid sufficient attention, as the number of health scares in the latest edition of our publication (2004) ballooned to 28.

In November 1959, just days before Thanksgiving, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (the agency that preceded Health and Human Services), Arthur Fleming, set off a national food panic when he announced that domestic cranberry products were contaminated with a weed-killer called aminotriazole. Aminotriazole is a chemical that in huge doses the equivalent of eating 15,000 pounds of cranberries every day for several years was found to cause cancer in laboratory rodents. As a result of the federal warning, schools discarded cranberry products, restaurants changed their menus, supermarkets suspended sales and millions of Americans had Thanksgiving dinner without cranberry sauce. The cranberry scare of 1959 set the stage for decades of completely unnecessary anxiety about trace levels of agricultural chemicals and additives in food, noted Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan in "Facts vs. Fears." Dr. Whelan, the president of ACSH, and a co-founder of our organization, passed away in September of 2014. An important catalyst in the 1959 cranberry scare was the Delaney Clause, a 1958 amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that banned from food any artificial substance that could be shown to cause cancer in lab animals. What the Delaney Clause fails to recognize, explained Dr. Whelan is that lab animals are not little humans. The Delaney Clause also overlooks the fact that many natural substances safely consumed by Americans every day are also high-dose animal carcinogens, added Dr. Whelan. (Our "Holiday Dinner Menu" expands cogently and clearly on this topic). While animal studies play an important role in identifying potentially toxic or cancer-causing substances (carcinogens), their results often found at extraordinarily high doses cannot be directly applied to humans.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2015/11/23/the-first-great-chemical-cancer-scare-cranberries-thanksgiving-1959

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

The best examples I can think of involve falsifying data in social science research. For a time, the fake studies are accepted.

Where the heck did that emoji come from?!

---

The social science stuff, various victims studies programs, are certainly an area of concern. But neither the real articles nor Sokal-type fakes qualify as consensus frauds. Also of concern is P-hacking and the reluctance to fund or publish negative results. But again, not consensus fraud.

An emoji in my post? I'm on my phone and don't see any emojis. Nor did I place one in my post, not intentionally. I have noticed that on FB sometimes when people do an alphabetic list that B followed by a closed parenthesis will generate a smiley, with glasses I think.

---

Emoji in MY post.

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

Scientist laughed at the very idea of continental drift. Then came plate tectonics.

Scientists scoffed at the idea of Glacial Lake Missoula. Then an upstart analyzed the scab lands.

Scientists ridiculed the very idea of germ theory.

Science can't replicate any of the above, but now they are well settled.

---

Not one of those is a consensus hoax. Doc says there are lots of them. Y'all haven't shown me any. Scientific wrong turns? Sure. But Doc claimed hoaxes. Lots of them.

---

When the examples I listed were first proffered, they were considered shams and rejected by the science establishment.

Not sure what a consensus 'hoax' is. Maybe cranberries causing cancer?

Fifty-six Years Ago This Month, Americans Panicked Over Cranberries: the anniversary of the first carcinogen panic of the last century In 1999, we published the first edition of our classic cancer-scare compendium, "Facts vs. Fears: A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times." But the Great Cranberry Scare, which created havoc at the worst possible time, remains #1 on the list even today. Our initial booklet covered twenty scares. Unfortunately, too few among the public and the media paid sufficient attention, as the number of health scares in the latest edition of our publication (2004) ballooned to 28.

In November 1959, just days before Thanksgiving, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (the agency that preceded Health and Human Services), Arthur Fleming, set off a national food panic when he announced that domestic cranberry products were contaminated with a weed-killer called aminotriazole. Aminotriazole is a chemical that in huge doses the equivalent of eating 15,000 pounds of cranberries every day for several years was found to cause cancer in laboratory rodents. As a result of the federal warning, schools discarded cranberry products, restaurants changed their menus, supermarkets suspended sales and millions of Americans had Thanksgiving dinner without cranberry sauce. The cranberry scare of 1959 set the stage for decades of completely unnecessary anxiety about trace levels of agricultural chemicals and additives in food, noted Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan in "Facts vs. Fears." Dr. Whelan, the president of ACSH, and a co-founder of our organization, passed away in September of 2014. An important catalyst in the 1959 cranberry scare was the Delaney Clause, a 1958 amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that banned from food any artificial substance that could be shown to cause cancer in lab animals. What the Delaney Clause fails to recognize, explained Dr. Whelan is that lab animals are not little humans. The Delaney Clause also overlooks the fact that many natural substances safely consumed by Americans every day are also high-dose animal carcinogens, added Dr. Whelan. (Our "Holiday Dinner Menu" expands cogently and clearly on this topic). While animal studies play an important role in identifying potentially toxic or cancer-causing substances (carcinogens), their results often found at extraordinarily high doses cannot be directly applied to humans.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2015/11/23/the-first-great-chemical-cancer-scare-cranberries-thanksgiving-1959

---

Consensus hoax is Doc's term, still waiting on him to support it.