That works too.
OK? You try convincing the public that they need to act before you convince them that there is a problem.
How’s that been working out for your side, so far? :smack:
I notice you’re backing away from your claim, but I’m still waiting for that cite.
Do you take pleasure in thinking that the environment may be destroyed because there are enough people on “your side” who have swallowed the lies of scum like the Kochs that any meaningful action on global warming is impossible? Is it that important to you that no Democratic policies prevail that you want to dance over the grave of Mother Nature?
Apparently only partially. :dubious:
What do you mean, “may be destroyed”? Don’t you believe the consensus of global warming scientists? Are you suggesting that the other scientists, who haven’t fallen inline with the consensus, might be right?
No, I hold out hope that we might yet do something to address it. It might be destroyed if those who delight in Democratic defeats and would sacrifice the planet on the altar of Republican orthodoxy have their way.
After you attempted to turn the torches-and-pitchfork set loose on me in post 73, I’m uncomfortable responding to you.
However -
*What has emerged this week, though, is just how much UEA paid the Outside Organisation for its services during this period. A Freedom of Information request by Graham Stringer MP (pdf) has finally forced this figure out of the university, which had tried to resist releasing it citing the commercial interests and confidentiality of the Outside Organisation. The Information Commissioner’s Office indicated that it disagreed and, as a result, we now know this figure to be £112,870.71.
We don’t know how this figure breaks down, but, however you view it, it is still a considerable amount of money for a taxpayer-funded university to be spending on PR.*
Respectfully I decline your invitation to amok another’s viewpoint.
Then you need to try harder to convince the public that your side is correct.
Or you can continue to tell the people who haven’t been convinced, or have changed their minds, that they aren’t very smart, or are gullible, or are ignorant, or are too stupid to live. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s not a very convincing argument.
And I will go out on a limb and say there are no arguments that could convince you.
I believe you said both sides are spending millions and millions…
*A study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined that the United States funded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations’ authority on alleged man-made global warming, with $31.1 million since 2001, nearly half of the panel’s annual budget.
…In a Nov. 17, 2011 report, “International Climate Change Assessments: Federal Agencies Should Improve Reporting and Oversight of U.S. Funding,” the GAO found that the State Department provided $19 million for administrative and other expenses, while the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) provided $12.1 million in technical support through the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), averaging an annual $3.1 million to the IPCC over 10 years – $31.1 million so far.
The IPCC runs an annual budget of $7 million, according to the Wall Street Journal, making the United States a major benefactor for its global warming agenda.
…In explaining its reason for auditing U.S. funding of the IPCC, the GAO said, “Interest in IPCC’s activities increased after the theft of e-mails among IPCC scientists was made public, and with the discovery of several errors in its 2007 set of reports.”*
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-taxpayers-cover-nearly-half-cost-un-s-global-warming-panel
Apparently, the U.S. taxpayer foots the bill for much of the IPCC’s “science”. The IPCC then funds it’s feeder organizations which return the favor with four dead polar bears and 20 ft ocean rise.
Wow, the IPCC has a whopping budget of $7 million a year? This study found a network of anti-climate change groups spent $558 million over the same period.
Au contraire, mon frere. Simply prove that the global temp has been rising at the rate that the IPCC predicted it would over the last 25 years. Provide the actual sea level rise if both poles were to melt (provide the math. X tons of ice into water spread over an ever increasing water line. Prove that the minimal amount of man-made CO2 has more effect on global warming than the much larger amount of CO2 created naturally. I’m also open to considering anything that you provide.
This would also be a good place to note that the Republican Party’s total opposition to climate science is kind of a new thing, as they did not take that position in the 1990s and even into the 2000s.
True, man’s share of CO2 emissions is small. But it’s big enough. The natural CO2 levels in the atmosphere were at the level that resulted in what was essentially thermal equilibrium. But even a small amount of manmade CO2 is enough to tip the scales. Consider a large balance scale with identical cars on each pan. They’re heavy, but they balance. A bird lands on one car. The bird weighs a whole lot less than the car, but the added weight of the bird tips the scale.
It’s also a good place to note that the decline in support of the IPCC beliefs could be because many former believers in the IPCC results seem to have changed their minds.
Yes. I wonder if that has anything to do with the shit tons of money donated to anti-climate change groups I mentioned in my last post.
Nah, it’s probably a coincidence.