No one is angry at renewable energy, although I have a problem with windmills killing millions of birds and bats. But, the problem is the plans to tax the crap out of us to support these companies. If they really cared about AGW, there would be a lot more options on the table besides the favorites of lobbyists, solar and windmills.
You mean like recently during the viking period or the roman era, both of which were warmer points in the very recent history? If it was warmer than both of those, which was basically yesterday in geological time, how exactly is our CO2 emissions an issue? Again, you fail to understand that the "reference points" AGW worshippers adhere to are not valid in geological time.
Obviously you cannot provide a credible source for the allegation "windmills killing millions of birds and bats" but thanks for trying.
He is, but you still have to chuckle at people relying on the funny papers to bolster their positions on a serious issue.
Why can't we? I don't see any AGW advocate saying anything but that we should make efforts to use less oil and coal, and both are finite resources which pollute the atmosphere terribly, while other sources are available and have just started to become competitive: so I really don't see the problem. I just switched my electric over to more sustainable sources, I SAVED money. All this fracking and the Saudis turning on the taps has made oil cheap, NOW. The Sauds want us to think that will be forever and go back to just lapping it up, then they'll turn the spigots off and you're all going to be hurting, And pissing and moaning, "it's the libruls, they all love the Sauds, if we had invaded and killed them all like Ann Coulter wanted we wouldn't be having this problem now'
Ah! The old "post unreferenced and unsupported crap and hope I can get at least a grade school pass BZZZZT sorry wrong!! Even Grade schools these days insist on the kids learning how to reference At least they do here - America might be a bit more backward So, come on show some research that proves your point and it had better show that the warming was GLOBAL not local
Well then you should be lobbying for high rise building to remove all the plate glass windows https://www.carbonbrief.org/bird-death-and-wind-turbines-a-look-at-the-evidence
I already did. Ocean levels have flatlined compared to what they were 15,000 years ago and global temps were higher with much less CO2. Since we can't put the sun on a yo-yo that's irrelevant. The suns cycles are commonly ignored in AGW anyway. ITS ALL MANS FAULT WE'RE GONNA DIEEEEEe! QUICK EVERYONE GET A PRIUS!
LOL, we literally have to debate conservatives by fact-checking cartoons. You literally have no evidence scientists have forged data for climate funding. Scientists are actually normal people like you and me with middle-class incomes and a few probably live in your neighorhood. They tend to be nice people who are very bright, logical, and value objectivity and evidence. You are essentially claiming these people making stuff up for money. Another problem is the peer review process which is an intensive process of vetting published papers, especially high-profile ones. Scientists who just made stuff up wouldn't get very far. In addition a wide-spread global conspiracy like this would be full of leaks. Where are they? In addition funding doesn't just come from the government and the fossil fuel industry and conservative billionaires have been flooding climate science with money to make research denying global warming for decades. It hasn't worked and no good evidence against it has been produced and no viable alternative demonstrated and 97% of climate scientists agree it is CO2.
NASA is talking about the science. My post was based on my personal experience with scientists. You think scientists are this: Actually they are this:
So what is the real "narrative"? Where does the literally billions, maybe even trillions, of dollars that would be necessary to produce the amazingly involved, complicated and mind bogglingly complete and well hidden conspiracy you propose come from? I can pretty well tell who finances the deniers, and it's possibly the richest group of entities that have ever existed. Who do you think the scientists have to defend them against the combined resources of the Oil Cos. or hell, just 130 billion dollars Exxon could bring against them on its own?
Not a real scientist actually. He is a mechanical engineer and television personality. Shouldn't be a problem for you though, none of the people you listen to about climate science are actual scientists.
