cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Everyone who believes in man made global warming is pretty much a flat earther. So, yeah, most Democrats.

---

And most scientists and environmental engineers I guess.

---

Most Climate 'scientists' agree they should receive new funding to 'study' a nonexistent phenomenon that happens to be what they decided will be their meal ticket. In other news, heroinaddicts think heroin should be freely available and fatasses think Krispy Kreme donuts should be free.

---

If you can't trust the experts then who can you trust?

Drug companies agree they should receive "new funding" for their research at the expense of the American people. But you agree with this, and not with that.

Lastly, climate change and the science behind it is only a partisan issue in America.

---

Trust the experts?????


Would these be the same experts that said smoking was NOT A HEALTH hazard?

Or the experts that designed paint with lead in it? Gas?

Or invented asbestos?

Or decided lobotomies were good?

Leeches?

Opium?

Bleeding?

OR about a dozen other medical practices?

Are these experts you speak of the same type as the experts who gave out all the above advice?

---

I'm assuming you live off the grid then (aside from your posting time), and reject all medicine, diet recommendations, and have built your own mud hut on an indian reservation somewhere.

---

You can't trust "experts" such as the tobacco industry experts who were paid to skew data and interpret data in favor of the industry. But, you can trust the independent experts that evaluated the data on its merits and exposed the health risks of tobacco. The same for Monsanto and asbestos. The same for every other ill conceived practice you listed above.

---

To cover up your conspiracy you spread false conspiracy rumors.

---

LOL !

Game, set and match .

Conversation over.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

As I've said before.

Decades ago....I was a research entomologist...conducting applied and basic research.

Published a few papers in referred journals.

I vividly remember that particular working environment.

It is literally impossible to coordinate a world wide 'conspiracy ' among hundreds of research institutions in order to falsely promote erroneous data .

The egos of these boys are far too big . They love nothing more than to blast holes in someone else's research .

And that has not been the case with the data involving man made global warming . In fact just the opposite...because the data has been re confirmed over and over .

Honestly I'm tired of discussing it . Believe whatever you want .

---

You don't need a conspiracy, you just need a panic.

---

No panic .

Massive famines have occurred many times ....even in the last 150 years .

China , Russia, India, Ukraine

---

Yes, panic among political decision makers means you don't need a "conspiracy" to get bad policy choices. Not sure where you are going with famine.
Famine

---

The scientific community has not reached their conclusions due to panic .

They have not repeatedly confirmed their conclusions due to panic.

---

I see a lot of hysteria in the "press releases" from BS 'climate change' activists.

Maybe the scientists should tell those idiots to STFU and let us discuss the facts and not the spin.

---

We shouldn't let the noise and. hysteria from any side interfere with discussion of the facts.

---

Yet many scientists do just that. They pick a side then pretend they are still 'objective'.

cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

As I've said before.

Decades ago....I was a research entomologist...conducting applied and basic research.

Published a few papers in referred journals.

I vividly remember that particular working environment.

It is literally impossible to coordinate a world wide 'conspiracy ' among hundreds of research institutions in order to falsely promote erroneous data .

The egos of these boys are far too big . They love nothing more than to blast holes in someone else's research .

And that has not been the case with the data involving man made global warming . In fact just the opposite...because the data has been re confirmed over and over .

Honestly I'm tired of discussing it . Believe whatever you want .

---

Canada is right. The scientific community is too diverse and large to propagate widespread false information. It's not possible.

---

False.

tobacco.

---

Propagated by the Tobacco industry cooked research. Independent scientific research exposed tobacco.

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

As I've said before.

Decades ago....I was a research entomologist...conducting applied and basic research.

Published a few papers in referred journals.

I vividly remember that particular working environment.

It is literally impossible to coordinate a world wide 'conspiracy ' among hundreds of research institutions in order to falsely promote erroneous data .

The egos of these boys are far too big . They love nothing more than to blast holes in someone else's research .

And that has not been the case with the data involving man made global warming . In fact just the opposite...because the data has been re confirmed over and over .

Honestly I'm tired of discussing it . Believe whatever you want .

---

Canada is right. The scientific community is too diverse and large to propagate widespread false information. It's not possible.

---

False.

tobacco.

---

Propagated by the Tobacco industry cooked research. Independent scientific research exposed tobacco.

---

Scientists exposed scientists.

cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Everyone who believes in man made global warming is pretty much a flat earther. So, yeah, most Democrats.

---

And most scientists and environmental engineers I guess.

---

Most Climate 'scientists' agree they should receive new funding to 'study' a nonexistent phenomenon that happens to be what they decided will be their meal ticket. In other news, heroinaddicts think heroin should be freely available and fatasses think Krispy Kreme donuts should be free.

---

If you can't trust the experts then who can you trust?

Drug companies agree they should receive "new funding" for their research at the expense of the American people. But you agree with this, and not with that.

Lastly, climate change and the science behind it is only a partisan issue in America.

---

Trust the experts?????


Would these be the same experts that said smoking was NOT A HEALTH hazard?

Or the experts that designed paint with lead in it? Gas?

Or invented asbestos?

Or decided lobotomies were good?

Leeches?

Opium?

Bleeding?

OR about a dozen other medical practices?

Are these experts you speak of the same type as the experts who gave out all the above advice?

---

I'm assuming you live off the grid then (aside from your posting time), and reject all medicine, diet recommendations, and have built your own mud hut on an indian reservation somewhere.

---

You can't trust "experts" such as the tobacco industry experts who were paid to skew data and interpret data in favor of the industry. But, you can trust the independent experts that evaluated the data on its merits and exposed the health risks of tobacco. The same for Monsanto and asbestos. The same for every other ill conceived practice you listed above.

---

LOL.

To cover up your conspiracy you spread false conspiracy rumors.

While the tobacco industry did pay for certain studies to produce certain results there were also hundreds, no thousands, of doctors across the US and world who didn't believe smoking was bad, caused cancer, had effects on lungs, etc.

But not all these doctors were paid by the tobacco companies.

Heck some of the big studies that caused people to wake up and realize smoking was harmful were done by doctors who smoked.

---

The fact that the tobacco industry paid for skewed reports and spread false information about the safety of smoking is not a conspiracy rumor. It is a well known and documented fact. Court records are replete with documentation.

The doctors you are referring to were M.D.'s, who didn't believe smoking was bad because many of them liked to smoke themselves. They were not scientists involved in independent tobacco research. Their opinions were not based in solid science and were no better than anyone else off the street. Once enough data was gathered, the evidence was irrefutable and they had no choice but to accept the conclusions.

Doc Holliday said:

---

There is smugness and hypocrisy to yourselves as well: you're asking everyone to give up their lifestyles...yet you yourselves won't do it while you sceech about others needing to be concerned.

---

While I agree, in a perfect world you wouldn't have politicians taking private flights and renting out hotels to promote climate policies, but this is a weak excuse for inaction.

Got off the phone a hour ago going over a patient case with a brilliant neurosurgeon, he is at least 50lbs overweight, should patients not take his recommendations based on the latest studies and best practices?

Bob Huggins is a great b-ball coach, lived a hard life and his fitness is so poor he can't stand for 10 minutes at a time, should he not be a leader of young men in athletic performance?

I could go on. People need to practice what they preach, but even so ignoring objective science in the name of protecting your financial best interest is dirty politics and affecting all of us in the long run. You claim to hate politics...

TexasScientist said:

---

The doctors you are referring to were M.D.'s, who didn't believe smoking was bad because many of them liked to smoke themselves. They were not scientists involved in independent tobacco research. Their opinions were not based in solid science and were no better than anyone else off the street. Once enough data was gathered, the evidence was irrefutable and they had no choice but to accept the conclusions.

---

You are correct.

"who didn't believe smoking was bad because many of them liked to smoke themselves."

One could easily replace that with, "who didn't believe in climate science because many of them made millions/billions of dollars in the industry". Nobody is saying Oil/gas hasn't played a HUGE role in advancing our society or that there are not many good people in the industry. But when cowboycwr wants to play like some woke individual into conspiracies (and he brings up good points that should be discussed), why does he and others like him never talk about the 100's of millions $ spent lobbying to protect their financial interests and the millions spent to promote misinformation regarding the science? Its a wokeness from one side that is heavily biased in protecting their jobs and makes it hard to take their claims seriously.

Doc Holliday said gleefully awhile ago when journalists were getting laid off from biased media outlets to "#learntocode". Odd he/they don't apply this same standard here. Or maybe it is only funny when it is not your industry.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

As I've said before.

Decades ago....I was a research entomologist...conducting applied and basic research.

Published a few papers in referred journals.

I vividly remember that particular working environment.

It is literally impossible to coordinate a world wide 'conspiracy ' among hundreds of research institutions in order to falsely promote erroneous data .

The egos of these boys are far too big . They love nothing more than to blast holes in someone else's research .

And that has not been the case with the data involving man made global warming . In fact just the opposite...because the data has been re confirmed over and over .

Honestly I'm tired of discussing it . Believe whatever you want .

---

Canada is right. The scientific community is too diverse and large to propagate widespread false information. It's not possible.

---

False.

tobacco.

---

Propagated by the Tobacco industry cooked research. Independent scientific research exposed tobacco.

---

Scientists exposed scientists.

---

That's how science works, it advances with new or better evidence.

There are problems in science (p-hacking, refusal to submit negative results, etc.) but the process for resolving these issues isn't tabloid journalism, thoughts and prayers, or conspiracy theories. It's just good science.

Prairie_Bear: "One could easily replace that with, "who didn't believe in climate science because many of them made millions/billions of dollars in the industry".

Or, just as reasonably, "who promoted what they knew to be unproven claims because they received fame and money from special interest groups trying to destroy US industries, including companies doing more to fight pollution than 'clean' competitors from Asia and Europe."

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Everyone who believes in man made global warming is pretty much a flat earther. So, yeah, most Democrats.

---

And most scientists and environmental engineers I guess.

---

Most Climate 'scientists' agree they should receive new funding to 'study' a nonexistent phenomenon that happens to be what they decided will be their meal ticket. In other news, heroinaddicts think heroin should be freely available and fatasses think Krispy Kreme donuts should be free.

---

If you can't trust the experts then who can you trust?

Drug companies agree they should receive "new funding" for their research at the expense of the American people. But you agree with this, and not with that.

Lastly, climate change and the science behind it is only a partisan issue in America.

---

Trust the experts?????


Would these be the same experts that said smoking was NOT A HEALTH hazard?

Or the experts that designed paint with lead in it? Gas?

Or invented asbestos?

Or decided lobotomies were good?

Leeches?

Opium?

Bleeding?

OR about a dozen other medical practices?

Are these experts you speak of the same type as the experts who gave out all the above advice?

---

I'm assuming you live off the grid then (aside from your posting time), and reject all medicine, diet recommendations, and have built your own mud hut on an indian reservation somewhere.

---

So I take it you have lost the argument because you cannot answer questions anymore and can only deflect?

---

Science as a whole significantly outweighs the bad, and has propelled society forward in a way that no one could have imagined 100 years ago. The experts did this for us. We are living to 80 instead of 40 because of scientists. I'll choose to "believe" in the science moving forward, because it's common sense.

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Everyone who believes in man made global warming is pretty much a flat earther. So, yeah, most Democrats.

---

And most scientists and environmental engineers I guess.

---

Most Climate 'scientists' agree they should receive new funding to 'study' a nonexistent phenomenon that happens to be what they decided will be their meal ticket. In other news, heroinaddicts think heroin should be freely available and fatasses think Krispy Kreme donuts should be free.

---

If you can't trust the experts then who can you trust?

Drug companies agree they should receive "new funding" for their research at the expense of the American people. But you agree with this, and not with that.

Lastly, climate change and the science behind it is only a partisan issue in America.

---

Trust the experts?????


Would these be the same experts that said smoking was NOT A HEALTH hazard?

Or the experts that designed paint with lead in it? Gas?

Or invented asbestos?

Or decided lobotomies were good?

Leeches?

Opium?

Bleeding?

OR about a dozen other medical practices?

Are these experts you speak of the same type as the experts who gave out all the above advice?

---

I'm assuming you live off the grid then (aside from your posting time), and reject all medicine, diet recommendations, and have built your own mud hut on an indian reservation somewhere.

---

So I take it you have lost the argument because you cannot answer questions anymore and can only deflect?

---

Science as a whole significantly outweighs the bad, and has propelled society forward in a way that no one could have imagined 100 years ago. The experts did this for us. We are living to 80 instead of 40 because of scientists. I'll choose to "believe" in the science moving forward, because it's common sense.

---

No.

Capitalism is what catapulted society forward. Private enterprise has done more to help mankind than all the scientists together.

Science is a tool. It is sometimes used to good effect, sometimes to ill. Most scientists today are not willing to admit the bad, much less police their ranks.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Everyone who believes in man made global warming is pretty much a flat earther. So, yeah, most Democrats.

---

And most scientists and environmental engineers I guess.

---

Most Climate 'scientists' agree they should receive new funding to 'study' a nonexistent phenomenon that happens to be what they decided will be their meal ticket. In other news, heroinaddicts think heroin should be freely available and fatasses think Krispy Kreme donuts should be free.

---

If you can't trust the experts then who can you trust?

Drug companies agree they should receive "new funding" for their research at the expense of the American people. But you agree with this, and not with that.

Lastly, climate change and the science behind it is only a partisan issue in America.

---

Trust the experts?????


Would these be the same experts that said smoking was NOT A HEALTH hazard?

Or the experts that designed paint with lead in it? Gas?

Or invented asbestos?

Or decided lobotomies were good?

Leeches?

Opium?

Bleeding?

OR about a dozen other medical practices?

Are these experts you speak of the same type as the experts who gave out all the above advice?

---

I'm assuming you live off the grid then (aside from your posting time), and reject all medicine, diet recommendations, and have built your own mud hut on an indian reservation somewhere.

---

So I take it you have lost the argument because you cannot answer questions anymore and can only deflect?

---

Science as a whole significantly outweighs the bad, and has propelled society forward in a way that no one could have imagined 100 years ago. The experts did this for us. We are living to 80 instead of 40 because of scientists. I'll choose to "believe" in the science moving forward, because it's common sense.

---

No.

Capitalism is what catapulted society forward. Private enterprise has done more to help mankind than all the scientists together.

Science is a tool. It is sometimes used to good effect, sometimes to ill. Most scientists today are not willing to admit the bad, much less police their ranks.

---

That is an entirely different argument. Capitalism didn't invent the A-Bomb. Government and scientists did. While capitalism has improved our quality io life more than any other economic and political system, we would not be living to 80 without science.

In fact, under capitalism right now, our life expectancy declined. Most likely do to the laziness, gluttony, and warped priorities of many Americans, but even more likely due to the lack of access to the healthcare that science has provided us.

Buddha Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Everyone who believes in man made global warming is pretty much a flat earther. So, yeah, most Democrats.

---

And most scientists and environmental engineers I guess.

---

Most Climate 'scientists' agree they should receive new funding to 'study' a nonexistent phenomenon that happens to be what they decided will be their meal ticket. In other news, heroinaddicts think heroin should be freely available and fatasses think Krispy Kreme donuts should be free.

---

If you can't trust the experts then who can you trust?

Drug companies agree they should receive "new funding" for their research at the expense of the American people. But you agree with this, and not with that.

Lastly, climate change and the science behind it is only a partisan issue in America.

---

Trust the experts?????


Would these be the same experts that said smoking was NOT A HEALTH hazard?

Or the experts that designed paint with lead in it? Gas?

Or invented asbestos?

Or decided lobotomies were good?

Leeches?

Opium?

Bleeding?

OR about a dozen other medical practices?

Are these experts you speak of the same type as the experts who gave out all the above advice?

---

I'm assuming you live off the grid then (aside from your posting time), and reject all medicine, diet recommendations, and have built your own mud hut on an indian reservation somewhere.

---

So I take it you have lost the argument because you cannot answer questions anymore and can only deflect?

---

Science as a whole significantly outweighs the bad, and has propelled society forward in a way that no one could have imagined 100 years ago. The experts did this for us. We are living to 80 instead of 40 because of scientists. I'll choose to "believe" in the science moving forward, because it's common sense.

---

No.

Capitalism is what catapulted society forward. Private enterprise has done more to help mankind than all the scientists together.

Science is a tool. It is sometimes used to good effect, sometimes to ill. Most scientists today are not willing to admit the bad, much less police their ranks.

---

That is an entirely different argument. Capitalism didn't invent the A-Bomb. Government and scientists did. While capitalism has improved our quality io life more than any other economic and political system, we would not be living to 80 without science.

In fact, under capitalism right now, our life expectancy declined. Most likely do to the laziness, gluttony, and warped priorities of many Americans, but even more likely due to the lack of access to the healthcare that science has provided us.

---

Again, Science is a tool, not a virtue,

Buddha Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Everyone who believes in man made global warming is pretty much a flat earther. So, yeah, most Democrats.

---

And most scientists and environmental engineers I guess.

---

Most Climate 'scientists' agree they should receive new funding to 'study' a nonexistent phenomenon that happens to be what they decided will be their meal ticket. In other news, heroinaddicts think heroin should be freely available and fatasses think Krispy Kreme donuts should be free.

---

If you can't trust the experts then who can you trust?

Drug companies agree they should receive "new funding" for their research at the expense of the American people. But you agree with this, and not with that.

Lastly, climate change and the science behind it is only a partisan issue in America.

---

Trust the experts?????


Would these be the same experts that said smoking was NOT A HEALTH hazard?

Or the experts that designed paint with lead in it? Gas?

Or invented asbestos?

Or decided lobotomies were good?

Leeches?

Opium?

Bleeding?

OR about a dozen other medical practices?

Are these experts you speak of the same type as the experts who gave out all the above advice?

---

I'm assuming you live off the grid then (aside from your posting time), and reject all medicine, diet recommendations, and have built your own mud hut on an indian reservation somewhere.

---

So I take it you have lost the argument because you cannot answer questions anymore and can only deflect?

---

Science as a whole significantly outweighs the bad, and has propelled society forward in a way that no one could have imagined 100 years ago. The experts did this for us. We are living to 80 instead of 40 because of scientists. I'll choose to "believe" in the science moving forward, because it's common sense.

---

No.

Capitalism is what catapulted society forward. Private enterprise has done more to help mankind than all the scientists together.

Science is a tool. It is sometimes used to good effect, sometimes to ill. Most scientists today are not willing to admit the bad, much less police their ranks.

---

That is an entirely different argument. Capitalism didn't invent the A-Bomb. Government and scientists did. While capitalism has improved our quality io life more than any other economic and political system, we would not be living to 80 without science.

In fact, under capitalism right now, our life expectancy declined. Most likely do to the laziness, gluttony, and warped priorities of many Americans, but even more likely due to the lack of access to the healthcare that science has provided us.

---

Drugs, booze and suicide.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Everyone who believes in man made global warming is pretty much a flat earther. So, yeah, most Democrats.

---

And most scientists and environmental engineers I guess.

---

Most Climate 'scientists' agree they should receive new funding to 'study' a nonexistent phenomenon that happens to be what they decided will be their meal ticket. In other news, heroinaddicts think heroin should be freely available and fatasses think Krispy Kreme donuts should be free.

---

If you can't trust the experts then who can you trust?

Drug companies agree they should receive "new funding" for their research at the expense of the American people. But you agree with this, and not with that.

Lastly, climate change and the science behind it is only a partisan issue in America.

---

Trust the experts?????


Would these be the same experts that said smoking was NOT A HEALTH hazard?

Or the experts that designed paint with lead in it? Gas?

Or invented asbestos?

Or decided lobotomies were good?

Leeches?

Opium?

Bleeding?

OR about a dozen other medical practices?

Are these experts you speak of the same type as the experts who gave out all the above advice?

---

I'm assuming you live off the grid then (aside from your posting time), and reject all medicine, diet recommendations, and have built your own mud hut on an indian reservation somewhere.

---

So I take it you have lost the argument because you cannot answer questions anymore and can only deflect?

---

Science as a whole significantly outweighs the bad, and has propelled society forward in a way that no one could have imagined 100 years ago. The experts did this for us. We are living to 80 instead of 40 because of scientists. I'll choose to "believe" in the science moving forward, because it's common sense.

---

No.

Capitalism is what catapulted society forward. Private enterprise has done more to help mankind than all the scientists together.

Science is a tool. It is sometimes used to good effect, sometimes to ill. Most scientists today are not willing to admit the bad, much less police their ranks.

---

That is an entirely different argument. Capitalism didn't invent the A-Bomb. Government and scientists did. While capitalism has improved our quality io life more than any other economic and political system, we would not be living to 80 without science.

In fact, under capitalism right now, our life expectancy declined. Most likely do to the laziness, gluttony, and warped priorities of many Americans, but even more likely due to the lack of access to the healthcare that science has provided us.

---

Drugs, booze and suicide.

---

I think you both are right but Buddha is more on target

D. C. Bear said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Everyone who believes in man made global warming is pretty much a flat earther. So, yeah, most Democrats.

---

And most scientists and environmental engineers I guess.

---

Most Climate 'scientists' agree they should receive new funding to 'study' a nonexistent phenomenon that happens to be what they decided will be their meal ticket. In other news, heroinaddicts think heroin should be freely available and fatasses think Krispy Kreme donuts should be free.

---

If you can't trust the experts then who can you trust?

Drug companies agree they should receive "new funding" for their research at the expense of the American people. But you agree with this, and not with that.

Lastly, climate change and the science behind it is only a partisan issue in America.

---

Trust the experts?????


Would these be the same experts that said smoking was NOT A HEALTH hazard?

Or the experts that designed paint with lead in it? Gas?

Or invented asbestos?

Or decided lobotomies were good?

Leeches?

Opium?

Bleeding?

OR about a dozen other medical practices?

Are these experts you speak of the same type as the experts who gave out all the above advice?

---

I'm assuming you live off the grid then (aside from your posting time), and reject all medicine, diet recommendations, and have built your own mud hut on an indian reservation somewhere.

---

So I take it you have lost the argument because you cannot answer questions anymore and can only deflect?

---

Science as a whole significantly outweighs the bad, and has propelled society forward in a way that no one could have imagined 100 years ago. The experts did this for us. We are living to 80 instead of 40 because of scientists. I'll choose to "believe" in the science moving forward, because it's common sense.

---

No.

Capitalism is what catapulted society forward. Private enterprise has done more to help mankind than all the scientists together.

Science is a tool. It is sometimes used to good effect, sometimes to ill. Most scientists today are not willing to admit the bad, much less police their ranks.

---

That is an entirely different argument. Capitalism didn't invent the A-Bomb. Government and scientists did. While capitalism has improved our quality io life more than any other economic and political system, we would not be living to 80 without science.

In fact, under capitalism right now, our life expectancy declined. Most likely do to the laziness, gluttony, and warped priorities of many Americans, but even more likely due to the lack of access to the healthcare that science has provided us.

---

Drugs, booze and suicide.

---

I'm assuming you are trying to correct Buddha? You realize why people turn to these things, right? We have an engrained culture of consumption that the more you consume, the more you are winning. People take out loans on cars/homes/stuff they can't afford to fake it, get depressed bc it looks like others are winning more than them, over work themselves in a stressful job to lifestyle meds they never get off of, use drugs/booze/food to ease the stress temporarily, and eventually succumb to the sweet release of death by their own hand if their lifestyle doesn't do it for them.

For the first time in modern history our children have a lifespan shorter than their parents (obesity/consumption). Capitalism has obviously produced a prosperous country, but there are downsides to it too and I believe we are on the backside of this curve.

Are we not considering product innovation a form of science?

Diet is a major health factor in terms of morbidity and longevity. Most people, including MD's, don't know what constitutes a healthy diet. Our dietary advice, and a lot of medical advice for that matter, comes through advertising and marketing strategies. End result - a health crisis.

Prairie_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

Everyone who believes in man made global warming is pretty much a flat earther. So, yeah, most Democrats.

---

And most scientists and environmental engineers I guess.

---

Most Climate 'scientists' agree they should receive new funding to 'study' a nonexistent phenomenon that happens to be what they decided will be their meal ticket. In other news, heroinaddicts think heroin should be freely available and fatasses think Krispy Kreme donuts should be free.

---

If you can't trust the experts then who can you trust?

Drug companies agree they should receive "new funding" for their research at the expense of the American people. But you agree with this, and not with that.

Lastly, climate change and the science behind it is only a partisan issue in America.

---

Trust the experts?????


Would these be the same experts that said smoking was NOT A HEALTH hazard?

Or the experts that designed paint with lead in it? Gas?

Or invented asbestos?

Or decided lobotomies were good?

Leeches?

Opium?

Bleeding?

OR about a dozen other medical practices?

Are these experts you speak of the same type as the experts who gave out all the above advice?

---

I'm assuming you live off the grid then (aside from your posting time), and reject all medicine, diet recommendations, and have built your own mud hut on an indian reservation somewhere.

---

So I take it you have lost the argument because you cannot answer questions anymore and can only deflect?

---

Science as a whole significantly outweighs the bad, and has propelled society forward in a way that no one could have imagined 100 years ago. The experts did this for us. We are living to 80 instead of 40 because of scientists. I'll choose to "believe" in the science moving forward, because it's common sense.

---

No.

Capitalism is what catapulted society forward. Private enterprise has done more to help mankind than all the scientists together.

Science is a tool. It is sometimes used to good effect, sometimes to ill. Most scientists today are not willing to admit the bad, much less police their ranks.

---

That is an entirely different argument. Capitalism didn't invent the A-Bomb. Government and scientists did. While capitalism has improved our quality io life more than any other economic and political system, we would not be living to 80 without science.

In fact, under capitalism right now, our life expectancy declined. Most likely do to the laziness, gluttony, and warped priorities of many Americans, but even more likely due to the lack of access to the healthcare that science has provided us.

---

Drugs, booze and suicide.

---

I'm assuming you are trying to correct Buddha? You realize why people turn to these things, right? We have an engrained culture of consumption that the more you consume, the more you are winning. People take out loans on cars/homes/stuff they can't afford to fake it, get depressed bc it looks like others are winning more than them, over work themselves in a stressful job to lifestyle meds they never get off of, use drugs/booze/food to ease the stress temporarily, and eventually succumb to the sweet release of death by their own hand if their lifestyle doesn't do it for them.

For the first time in modern history our children have a lifespan shorter than their parents (obesity/consumption). Capitalism has obviously produced a prosperous country, but there are downsides to it too and I believe we are on the backside of this curve.

---

You make a false assumption.

If science "proves" that global warming is a thing why did the name change to climate change?

Why are the Obamas buying ocean front property if it will be under water in a few years?

Why are they not investing their money in a climate change organization?

Etc. Etc etc.

cowboycwr said:

---

If science "proves" that global warming is a thing why did the name change to climate change?

Why are the Obamas buying ocean front property if it will be under water in a few years?

Why are they not investing their money in a climate change organization?

Etc. Etc etc.

---

Why do you ignore the historical climate change record, and why do you ignore physics? Most people are concerned with living in the moment. Venturing beyond that is too much to comprehend, too inconvenient, with no perceived near term benefit.

TexasScientist said:

---

Diet is a major health factor in terms of morbidity and longevity. Most people, including MD's, don't know what constitutes a healthy diet. Our dietary advice, and a lot of medical advice for that matter, comes through advertising and marketing strategies. End result - a health crisis.

---

It's more basic than marketing.

I read an interesting essay by a doctor last week, about why we have food with so much less fat and sugar than a century ago, yet we see so many heath issues related to diet. It turns out that the natural fats in the foods eaten pre-1940 were filling and satisfying, enough that most people stopped eating when they had enough. Also, people had a certain amount of physical activity in their daily lives, such as walking more and going up/down stairs and a bit more physical chores at home, to keep us fit aside from exercising.

When scientists discovered that fats and sugars led to diabetes, strokes, heart attacks and so on, they demanded changes in out foods, and fats were removed and sugars controlled. But we ended up discovering the wonders of corn syrup, not the least of which was that the body effectively does not know when it's had enough, and always wants more. That's why so many obese people drink 'diet' soda and eat 'nonfat' treats but still gain weight - they literally are not satisfied by the foods.

Worse, corn syrup and other artificial ingredients have so permeated our culture that it's almost impossible to eat in a restaurant without consuming some of the artificial sweeteners, even in foods

Japan, for example, long regarded as one of the best examples of long living and healthy lifestyles, is experiencing rising obesity as more western-style food is consumed.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/03/11/national/science-health/obesity-on-the-rise-as-japanese-eat-more-western-style-food/

Worldwide since 1975, obesity rates have tripled, again largely due to more and more people eating western-style foods.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/277450.php


It's simply that artificial sweeteners are cheap, easy to find and use, and the human body likes it ... a lot.

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

If science "proves" that global warming is a thing why did the name change to climate change?

Why are the Obamas buying ocean front property if it will be under water in a few years?

Why are they not investing their money in a climate change organization?

Etc. Etc etc.

---

Why do you ignore the historical climate change record, and why do you ignore physics? Most people are concerned with living in the moment. Venturing beyond that is too much to comprehend, too inconvenient, with no perceived near term benefit.

---

I don't ignore the historical record.

In fact if you paid attention to my posts and actually read them you would see that I have constantly mentioned the earth goes through numerous warming and cooling phases, that the earth just recently (in geological/climate time) came out of a mini ice age.

However, what I constantly argue against is that the earth is currently warming BECAUSE of man and not because of the sun and other natural causes as has happened for millions of millions years.

The actual historical record does not speak well for climate alarmists.

Maybe you should be paying closer attention to the historical record.

cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

If science "proves" that global warming is a thing why did the name change to climate change?

Why are the Obamas buying ocean front property if it will be under water in a few years?

Why are they not investing their money in a climate change organization?

Etc. Etc etc.

---

Why do you ignore the historical climate change record, and why do you ignore physics? Most people are concerned with living in the moment. Venturing beyond that is too much to comprehend, too inconvenient, with no perceived near term benefit.

---

I don't ignore the historical record.

In fact if you paid attention to my posts and actually read them you would see that I have constantly mentioned the earth goes through numerous warming and cooling phases, that the earth just recently (in geological/climate time) came out of a mini ice age.

However, what I constantly argue against is that the earth is currently warming BECAUSE of man and not because of the sun and other natural causes as has happened for millions of millions years.

---

What other unaccounted for component, other than increased CO2, do you attribute to the recent apparent rapid increased rate in ocean warming?

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

If science "proves" that global warming is a thing why did the name change to climate change?

Why are the Obamas buying ocean front property if it will be under water in a few years?

Why are they not investing their money in a climate change organization?

Etc. Etc etc.

---

Why do you ignore the historical climate change record, and why do you ignore physics? Most people are concerned with living in the moment. Venturing beyond that is too much to comprehend, too inconvenient, with no perceived near term benefit.

---

I don't ignore the historical record.

In fact if you paid attention to my posts and actually read them you would see that I have constantly mentioned the earth goes through numerous warming and cooling phases, that the earth just recently (in geological/climate time) came out of a mini ice age.

However, what I constantly argue against is that the earth is currently warming BECAUSE of man and not because of the sun and other natural causes as has happened for millions of millions years.

---

What other unaccounted for component, other than increased CO2, do you attribute to the recent apparent rapid increased rate in ocean warming?

---

Cute. Do yourself a favor and go back to, say, 1960 and see what scientists said about the factors driving temperature, waves, and weather. The sun has always been the biggest factor, and has more to do with heat waves and changes in climate than any other known factor.

Glacial cycles are also an underrated cause for historical climate change

https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/cycles-control-climate.pdf

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/13/can-carbon-dioxide-levels-50-million-years-ago-tell-us-climate-change-today/


It should also be noted that the US does more to control/reduce carbon dioxide emissions than any other nation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#734826de3535

So it's not as if we are ignoring the potential effects of CO2, but rather that a number of nations which emit more than the US are doing far less to address their own emissions.

Finally, I found the report below a refreshingly balanced approach to the matter, especially regarding predictions and separating fact from fiction on CO2.

https://granthaminstitute.com/2015/10/19/carbon-dioxide-the-good-and-the-bad-the-right-and-the-wrong/

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

If science "proves" that global warming is a thing why did the name change to climate change?

Why are the Obamas buying ocean front property if it will be under water in a few years?

Why are they not investing their money in a climate change organization?

Etc. Etc etc.

---

Why do you ignore the historical climate change record, and why do you ignore physics? Most people are concerned with living in the moment. Venturing beyond that is too much to comprehend, too inconvenient, with no perceived near term benefit.

---

I don't ignore the historical record.

In fact if you paid attention to my posts and actually read them you would see that I have constantly mentioned the earth goes through numerous warming and cooling phases, that the earth just recently (in geological/climate time) came out of a mini ice age.

However, what I constantly argue against is that the earth is currently warming BECAUSE of man and not because of the sun and other natural causes as has happened for millions of millions years.

---

What other unaccounted for component, other than increased CO2, do you attribute to the recent apparent rapid increased rate in ocean warming?

---

If it is unaccounted how would I know but the "scientists" wouldn't know about it?

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

If science "proves" that global warming is a thing why did the name change to climate change?

Why are the Obamas buying ocean front property if it will be under water in a few years?

Why are they not investing their money in a climate change organization?

Etc. Etc etc.

---

Why do you ignore the historical climate change record, and why do you ignore physics? Most people are concerned with living in the moment. Venturing beyond that is too much to comprehend, too inconvenient, with no perceived near term benefit.

---

I don't ignore the historical record.

In fact if you paid attention to my posts and actually read them you would see that I have constantly mentioned the earth goes through numerous warming and cooling phases, that the earth just recently (in geological/climate time) came out of a mini ice age.

However, what I constantly argue against is that the earth is currently warming BECAUSE of man and not because of the sun and other natural causes as has happened for millions of millions years.

---

What other unaccounted for component, other than increased CO2, do you attribute to the recent apparent rapid increased rate in ocean warming?

---

Cute. Do yourself a favor and go back to, say, 1960 and see what scientists said about the factors driving temperature, waves, and weather. The sun has always been the biggest factor, and has more to do with heat waves and changes in climate than any other known factor.

Glacial cycles are also an underrated cause for historical climate change

https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/cycles-control-climate.pdf

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/13/can-carbon-dioxide-levels-50-million-years-ago-tell-us-climate-change-today/


It should also be noted that the US does more to control/reduce carbon dioxide emissions than any other nation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#734826de3535

So it's not as if we are ignoring the potential effects of CO2, but rather that a number of nations which emit more than the US are doing far less to address their own emissions.

Finally, I found the report below a refreshingly balanced approach to the matter, especially regarding predictions and separating fact from fiction on CO2.

https://granthaminstitute.com/2015/10/19/carbon-dioxide-the-good-and-the-bad-the-right-and-the-wrong/

---

I don't think we have an argument here. The increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (especially CO2) must have an impact on climate. That is a fact of physics and chemistry. The degree of impact from anthropic induced change is not fully known. Whether we can or should do anything to effectively mediate our contribution to warming is what is debatable. Change is already baked into the equation. It is coming. The question is are we better off to reduce and clean up emissions where practical and prepare for adapting to the coming changes in sea level and global temperatures, as opposed to imposition of drastic and extreme changes to our economies for an unknown beneficial result without complete global participation. I think we have to realistically acknowledge the inevitable. The developing world is not going to do anything other than possibly clean up some of their emissions. The world is not capable, technologically nor politically, of changing to alternative sources of energy quick enough nor thoroughly enough to significantly alter what is coming. We're much better off to prepare the world to cooperatively adapt to what is coming in order to avoid global conflict and violence.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

If science "proves" that global warming is a thing why did the name change to climate change?

Why are the Obamas buying ocean front property if it will be under water in a few years?

Why are they not investing their money in a climate change organization?

Etc. Etc etc.

---

Why do you ignore the historical climate change record, and why do you ignore physics? Most people are concerned with living in the moment. Venturing beyond that is too much to comprehend, too inconvenient, with no perceived near term benefit.

---

I don't ignore the historical record.

In fact if you paid attention to my posts and actually read them you would see that I have constantly mentioned the earth goes through numerous warming and cooling phases, that the earth just recently (in geological/climate time) came out of a mini ice age.

However, what I constantly argue against is that the earth is currently warming BECAUSE of man and not because of the sun and other natural causes as has happened for millions of millions years.

---

What other unaccounted for component, other than increased CO2, do you attribute to the recent apparent rapid increased rate in ocean warming?

---

Cute. Do yourself a favor and go back to, say, 1960 and see what scientists said about the factors driving temperature, waves, and weather. The sun has always been the biggest factor, and has more to do with heat waves and changes in climate than any other known factor.

Glacial cycles are also an underrated cause for historical climate change

https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/cycles-control-climate.pdf

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/13/can-carbon-dioxide-levels-50-million-years-ago-tell-us-climate-change-today/


It should also be noted that the US does more to control/reduce carbon dioxide emissions than any other nation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#734826de3535

So it's not as if we are ignoring the potential effects of CO2, but rather that a number of nations which emit more than the US are doing far less to address their own emissions.

Finally, I found the report below a refreshingly balanced approach to the matter, especially regarding predictions and separating fact from fiction on CO2.

https://granthaminstitute.com/2015/10/19/carbon-dioxide-the-good-and-the-bad-the-right-and-the-wrong/

---

I don't think we have an argument here. The increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (especially CO2) must have an impact on climate. That is a fact of physics and chemistry. The degree of impact from anthropic induced change is not fully known. Whether we can or should do anything to effectively mediate our contribution to warming is what is debatable. Change is already baked into the equation. It is coming. The question is are we better off to reduce and clean up emissions where practical and prepare for adapting to the coming changes in sea level and global temperatures, as opposed to imposition of drastic and extreme changes to our economies for an unknown beneficial result without complete global participation. I think we have to realistically acknowledge the inevitable. The developing world is not going to do anything other than possibly clean up some of their emissions. The world is not capable, technologically nor politically, of changing to alternative sources of energy quick enough nor thoroughly enough to significantly alter what is coming. We're much better off to prepare the world to cooperatively adapt to what is coming in order to avoid global conflict and violence.

---

The only part I disagree with is that we are in fact capable technically of changing to alternative energy sources. And even though we lack the political will I'm OK with that. The impetus to change can come from the market..

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

If science "proves" that global warming is a thing why did the name change to climate change?

Why are the Obamas buying ocean front property if it will be under water in a few years?

Why are they not investing their money in a climate change organization?

Etc. Etc etc.

---

Why do you ignore the historical climate change record, and why do you ignore physics? Most people are concerned with living in the moment. Venturing beyond that is too much to comprehend, too inconvenient, with no perceived near term benefit.

---

I don't ignore the historical record.

In fact if you paid attention to my posts and actually read them you would see that I have constantly mentioned the earth goes through numerous warming and cooling phases, that the earth just recently (in geological/climate time) came out of a mini ice age.

However, what I constantly argue against is that the earth is currently warming BECAUSE of man and not because of the sun and other natural causes as has happened for millions of millions years.

---

What other unaccounted for component, other than increased CO2, do you attribute to the recent apparent rapid increased rate in ocean warming?

---

Cute. Do yourself a favor and go back to, say, 1960 and see what scientists said about the factors driving temperature, waves, and weather. The sun has always been the biggest factor, and has more to do with heat waves and changes in climate than any other known factor.

Glacial cycles are also an underrated cause for historical climate change

https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/cycles-control-climate.pdf

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/13/can-carbon-dioxide-levels-50-million-years-ago-tell-us-climate-change-today/


It should also be noted that the US does more to control/reduce carbon dioxide emissions than any other nation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#734826de3535

So it's not as if we are ignoring the potential effects of CO2, but rather that a number of nations which emit more than the US are doing far less to address their own emissions.

Finally, I found the report below a refreshingly balanced approach to the matter, especially regarding predictions and separating fact from fiction on CO2.

https://granthaminstitute.com/2015/10/19/carbon-dioxide-the-good-and-the-bad-the-right-and-the-wrong/

---

I don't think we have an argument here. The increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (especially CO2) must have an impact on climate. That is a fact of physics and chemistry. The degree of impact from anthropic induced change is not fully known. Whether we can or should do anything to effectively mediate our contribution to warming is what is debatable. Change is already baked into the equation. It is coming. The question is are we better off to reduce and clean up emissions where practical and prepare for adapting to the coming changes in sea level and global temperatures, as opposed to imposition of drastic and extreme changes to our economies for an unknown beneficial result without complete global participation. I think we have to realistically acknowledge the inevitable. The developing world is not going to do anything other than possibly clean up some of their emissions. The world is not capable, technologically nor politically, of changing to alternative sources of energy quick enough nor thoroughly enough to significantly alter what is coming. We're much better off to prepare the world to cooperatively adapt to what is coming in order to avoid global conflict and violence.

---

The only part I disagree with is that we are in fact capable technically of changing to alternative energy sources. And even though we lack the political will I'm OK with that. The impetus to change can come from the market..

---

I don't disagree. Political will and sometimes markets are slow to change. Nature may not cooperate.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

If science "proves" that global warming is a thing why did the name change to climate change?

Why are the Obamas buying ocean front property if it will be under water in a few years?

Why are they not investing their money in a climate change organization?

Etc. Etc etc.

---

Why do you ignore the historical climate change record, and why do you ignore physics? Most people are concerned with living in the moment. Venturing beyond that is too much to comprehend, too inconvenient, with no perceived near term benefit.

---

I don't ignore the historical record.

In fact if you paid attention to my posts and actually read them you would see that I have constantly mentioned the earth goes through numerous warming and cooling phases, that the earth just recently (in geological/climate time) came out of a mini ice age.

However, what I constantly argue against is that the earth is currently warming BECAUSE of man and not because of the sun and other natural causes as has happened for millions of millions years.

---

What other unaccounted for component, other than increased CO2, do you attribute to the recent apparent rapid increased rate in ocean warming?

---

Cute. Do yourself a favor and go back to, say, 1960 and see what scientists said about the factors driving temperature, waves, and weather. The sun has always been the biggest factor, and has more to do with heat waves and changes in climate than any other known factor.

Glacial cycles are also an underrated cause for historical climate change

https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/cycles-control-climate.pdf

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/13/can-carbon-dioxide-levels-50-million-years-ago-tell-us-climate-change-today/


It should also be noted that the US does more to control/reduce carbon dioxide emissions than any other nation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#734826de3535

So it's not as if we are ignoring the potential effects of CO2, but rather that a number of nations which emit more than the US are doing far less to address their own emissions.

Finally, I found the report below a refreshingly balanced approach to the matter, especially regarding predictions and separating fact from fiction on CO2.

https://granthaminstitute.com/2015/10/19/carbon-dioxide-the-good-and-the-bad-the-right-and-the-wrong/

---

I don't think we have an argument here. The increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (especially CO2) must have an impact on climate. That is a fact of physics and chemistry. The degree of impact from anthropic induced change is not fully known. Whether we can or should do anything to effectively mediate our contribution to warming is what is debatable. Change is already baked into the equation. It is coming. The question is are we better off to reduce and clean up emissions where practical and prepare for adapting to the coming changes in sea level and global temperatures, as opposed to imposition of drastic and extreme changes to our economies for an unknown beneficial result without complete global participation. I think we have to realistically acknowledge the inevitable. The developing world is not going to do anything other than possibly clean up some of their emissions. The world is not capable, technologically nor politically, of changing to alternative sources of energy quick enough nor thoroughly enough to significantly alter what is coming. We're much better off to prepare the world to cooperatively adapt to what is coming in order to avoid global conflict and violence.

---

This is why I say we need to shut down the alarmists. There is reason for serious investigation and search for real, pragmatic solutions, but the alarmists drown out the adults in the room, and provoke bitter reaction which leads to just more noise.

My brother was born in Pittsburgh, which is relevant because of how the city changed from 1957 to now. The steel mills pumped particulate matter into the air for decades, making people sick and the city suffering from bad air, water, and inarable land. Cooperation between business and local authorities turned things around, and as early as 1990 the city was stronger in all tangible respects. Pittsburgh stands as an example of the good which can be done when people avoid hysteria and focus on finding real solutions.

I think there should be more focus on those businesses and industries, including and perhaps especially oil and gas, who voluntarily stepped up their emissions controls and prevention of toxic emissions. We only hear about the failures which are comparatively rare, especially compared to before 1980. If you want more businesses to work for emission control, praise and reward the leaders for what they have already done.

Hmmm,

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/the_next_ice_age.html


https://nextgrandminimum.com/2018/11/22/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/


http://www.thegwpf.com/new-solar-research-raises-climate-questions-triggers-attacks/

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming