[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by mickey100

You people can can waste your breath "debating" global warming, but the people in the know, ie. scientists (not retired Villagers) have agreed there is no more debate - the consensus of the scientific community is near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect.

Absolutely!!!!!!!!

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree. And I can't understand the MOTIVATION to go against the 95 or so percent of the REAL Climate Scientists. The greater summer HEAT of the last 10 years has caused social problems, like unnecessary deaths, more crime, and inefficient outdoor working and recreation conditions. It is indisputable that the oceans are rising. That alone should scare many people into buying electric vehicles.

You could replace every vehicle with an EV and it wouldn’t make the slightest difference

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Mulliganguy

Global warming puts a chill down my spine 😂

It should. The same chill you get when St Peter directs you to the Down elevator

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Bull. The consensus is among those that are reliant on government and universities for their living

Really, all 95 % of them. That does NOT pass the logic test. Sorry.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

If the earth was "greening" so much (whatever that means) then why are there hoards of people from a South America where crops can't grow (due to excessive HEAT) - invading our southern border? Global Warming has destroyed quality farmland.

Yes——an invasion. And the response to a foreign invasion should be to repel it with the full force of the US military, not sign them up for welfare

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

We have to assume that the world's scientists are smart enough to make accurate temperature measurements. They can quantify a trend.

No! There are some who believe GW is a global conspiracy. Crazy, huh?

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree. And I can't understand the MOTIVATION to go against the 95 or so percent of the REAL Climate Scientists. The greater summer HEAT of the last 10 years has caused social problems, like unnecessary deaths, more crime, and inefficient outdoor working and recreation conditions. It is indisputable that the oceans are rising. That alone should scare many people into buying electric vehicles.

I wonder, could They be the scamers

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Really, all 95 % of them. That does NOT pass the logic test. Sorry.

Yes. Read post #79. Maybe a few percent are simply deranged but given the choice of complying with the party line or starvation they will fall in line with the false narrative

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Oklahoma? Where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain? And how does this relate to the growing average annual temperature of the entire planet? Or did you just like the look of the graph that shows local weather? Like a piece of art.

Oklahoma ?? Many people think that man is NOT powerful enough to influence nature. Well Oklahoma proves otherwise. The state never had earthquakes and now after so many holes are dug into their ground looking for oil and pumping oil - they have plenty of earthquakes. Morale of the story......man's greed for fossil fuels.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Cattle are one of the most INEFFICIENT ways to produce protein. Pure land waste.

True! But it's a tasty inefficiency. Guess I could switch to prime peanut butter instead of rib

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I second that emotion !!!!!!!

I know you want to ignore it, since it decimates your case of "the 95%", so I guess I'll just repeat it so everyone understands how academia works:

You see, there are politically correct studies and those that are not-----the "correct" studies get the grant money. If you don't believe that, you are naive, and I suggest that you apply for a federal grant to do a study proving that global warming is completely independent of human activity. Rotsa ruck. So therefore, 90%+ of grant money goes to studies "proving" humans are the cause of global warming---and the more immediate and catastrophic, the better. Then, as even this thread proves, the acolytes come out of the woodwork claiming "90+% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man"---no kidding, it is a foregone conclusion that would be touted.

Continuing the narrative, who gets published? Those who do studies, and the studies are done by those that have taken the federal grants to "prove" humans cause global warming. Then who gets tenure? Answer, those who publish.

Now, one might question why the powers that be want to push a false narrative on the public. The answer is simple---$139 TRILLION to comply with the Paris accords---which the US couldn't rush there quick enough to sign. Follow the money.

Bottom line, except for retired climatologists and those few that get grants from private foundations, it would be professional suicide for a climatologist to claim anything other than anthropomorphic climate change.

Now does everyone understand??????

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Interesting, but fallacious analysis.

First of all, as a retired professor of medicine at a NY university, I was neither "passed over" nor hate learned people. But it does mean I know how the academic system works.

You see, there are politically correct studies and those that are not-----the "correct" studies get the grant money. If you don't believe that, you are naive, and I suggest that you apply for a federal grant to do a study proving that global warming is completely independent of human activity. Rotsa ruck. So therefore, 90%+ of grant money goes to studies "proving" humans are the cause of global warming---and the more immediate and catastrophic, the better. Then, as even this thread proves, the acolytes come out of the woodwork claiming "90+% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man"---no kidding, it is a foregone conclusion that would be touted.

Continuing the narrative, who gets published? Those who do studies, and the studies are done by those that have taken the federal grants to "prove" humans cause global warming. Then who gets tenure? Answer, those who publish.

Now, one might question why the powers that be want to push a false narrative on the public. The answer is simple---$139 TRILLION to comply with the Paris accords---which the US couldn't rush there quick enough to sign. Follow the money.

Bottom line, except for retired climatologists and those few that get grants from private foundations, it would be professional suicide for a climatologist to claim anything other than anthropomorphic climate change.

Now does everyone understand??????

That is well written and semi-logical. It is also a PERFECT example of the psychological term "rationalization" where an end result is predetermined and then a justification is prepared to meet that "rationalization".
............But, I do believe that it is SINCERE as proven by the length of the post.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Al Gore was, is, and always will be a complete idiot. Or am I mistaken in believing our polar ice caps did not completely disappear in 2010?

Wow! That's cold! Al never talks about you that way.
And the polar caps still exist, but they are melting quickly.
(Seeing is believing.)

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by PersonOfInterest

So now global warming is caused by too many people? What happened to the pollution theory? Is the current prescribed solution to limit allowable births?

I'm confused

An easy explanation. People cause pollution. The more people, the more pollution. Which is coming out of vehicle tailpipes, by the way.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

An easy explanation. People cause pollution. The more people, the more pollution. Which is coming out of vehicle tailpipes, by the way.

Comes out of my tailpipe as well,! Damn those Brussel sprouts!!