Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?

[bluefirecorp_]

In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it hasn't been presented thoroughly throughout this thread.

Raw data has been presented after you discarded the information compiled by the data.

The data has been sourced from multiple different independent agencies, and institutions.

I don't think there's anything in this world that'll ever convince you of man made climate change.

Pretty much, all climate change deniers have this issue; they refuse to accept the science without justifiable cause or reason.

[1714601622]

1714601622

[1714601622]

1714601622

[1714601622]

1714601622

[1714601622]

1714601622

[TECSHARE]

So, for the sake of argument, even assuming humans are causing it... what are the costs of reducing C02 output? People like to pretend "oh we might as well be safe rather than sorry! Why not? We have nothing to lose!"

Actually we have plenty to lose. Direct loss of life and reduction in quality of life for millions. Economic collapse is potentially another outcome. All for the "Well maybe we MIGHT slow down global warming." This is the main sticking point here. Implementing Co2 reduction as planned will have EXTREME COSTS.

In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output.

    Fossil fuel are not in unlimited supply here on Earth. Eventually, the cost to mine it will become more to more. Market forces are eventually going to force us to find more efficient and alternate forms of energy. We might as well start now rather than later. We already have hydroelectric plants for electricity and Hybrid cars are already becoming cheaper. If you prefer, not expending these "extreme costs" now will just translate to the costs having to be expended in the future. I really doubt that we are going to see an unbearable reduction in the quality of life for millions. From where I live, almost everyone is driving around in a huge SUV or monster truck. Is driving a compact car and/or hybrid car instead really that much of a tragic loss of the quality of life?  

Edit: TLDR? to be a bit trite, "A stitch, in time, saves nine."

There is a big difference between natural market forces and government mandated restriction. I have no problem with THE MARKET deciding oil is not worth it any more, but we aren't there yet. Also they have predicted peak oil how many times by now? No it is not unlimited, but there will be availability for the foreseeable future in spite of the naysayers.

We use electricity for running hospitals, infrastructure for food and water, etc. If these global warming standards are implemented there WILL be energy shortages, brown outs, and black outs. Additionally developing nations will continue to be held down by these regulations the industrialized world MIGHT be able to cope with, while they will not.

You are claiming that these regulations are equivalent to everyone driving around hybrid cars. Frankly that is a gross oversimplification bordering on being disingenuous. These regulations will have REAL COSTS.

[Spendulus]

That is just the nature of Science.  New, more accurate data comes in all the time.  Your desire for "proof" of static facts that never change explains your anti-science positions.  

You do not know what you are talking about.

Scientific data must be publicly available, both the raw and adjusted data. The formulas used for adjustments must be available

Then a conclusion made by a scientist can be independently validated.

If the data and methods are secret, this cannot be done.

It is all available on the homepage of the site I linked.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/
If you click that link and click on any of the datasets, there is a big "GET DATA" link right below the graph that takes you to a txt file of the raw data.  

These data are made freely available to the public and the
# scientific community in the belief that their wide dissemination
# will lead to greater understanding and new scientific insights.
# The availability of these data does not constitute publication
# of the data.  

I'm well aware of where the data sets are maintained. Here is an explanation of the problem.

Neither I or anyone else should be expected to accept data unless the raw data is available and can be validated, and the adjustments explained which take it to the "adjusted value."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/

Separately, as an example of the problem, here is a recent case where a warming study showed large amounts of heat in the oceans that had previously not been known. Big headlines, everyone saw them. And independent researcher found a problem with their math and notified them. They fixed it and announced their errors.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/07/global-warming-study-oceans-error/

That's the way it SHOULD work. But there are many cases with climate research where it does not...

[Astargath]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

[bones261]

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

   Well, I think the thrust in thinking of many conservative people is it is just another way for the government to increase their revenues through taxes and penalties. Then that money is wasted in the inefficient bureaucracy of the federal government.  Furthermore, when deciding what to do with the extra revenue, we can expect lots of pork to crop up.

[TECSHARE]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder?

[Astargath]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder?

I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc.

The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit?

[coins4commies]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

So, for the sake of argument, even assuming humans are causing it... what are the costs of reducing C02 output? People like to pretend "oh we might as well be safe rather than sorry! Why not? We have nothing to lose!"

Actually we have plenty to lose. Direct loss of life and reduction in quality of life for millions. Economic collapse is potentially another outcome. All for the "Well maybe we MIGHT slow down global warming." This is the main sticking point here. Implementing Co2 reduction as planned will have EXTREME COSTS.

In this context it is very appropriate to demand solid evidence, none of which has yet produced any reliable data suggesting humans are responsible. As you noted the sun cycles are also a factor, and in my opinion THE primary factor, not human contribution to C02 output.

Its actually quite the opposite.  All of the CO2 reduction solutions would make the world a better place.  Lets say climate change didn't exist.  The steps taken to solve climate change would still create sustainable, renewable energy systems, provide energy independence, make energy available in places that do not have access to infrastructure like roads for tankers and power plants.   (solar panels and wind turbines), no more reliance on fuel prices. 

Big advantages in human health as DALYs caused by air pollution would be mostly eliminated.  Cities would be more livable which would encourage more walking and hanging out in green spaces (better quality of life from time spent in green spaces).

The increase in green spaces and decrease in deforestation would reduce ecological harm. 

Cutting back on livestock production would force people to eat a healthier diet absent of red meat.  You would see heart disease risk diminish. 

Public transportation and mass transit availability would increase access and economic opportunities bringing people and ideas closer together.

[bones261]

I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc.

The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit?

Colorado is definitely cashing in on pot revenues.    Also the government is "Satan." Every time that I have to go visit the DMV, I am reminded of this. Thank goodness that I can deal with most government business over the mail or internet these days.

[Spendulus]

....
Its actually quite the opposite.  All of the CO2 reduction solutions would make the world a better place.  ....

No, that's ridiculous.

First of all, your mistake is this claim. Note the bolded word.

All of the CO2 ....

It should be obvious there have been some really, really bad ideas floated.

You want examples or would you like to revise your claim?

[TECSHARE]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder?

I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc.

The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit?

Remind me where I used the word government anywhere in my statement.

[Astargath]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder?

I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc.

The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit?

Remind me where I used the word government anywhere in my statement.

Who makes the regulations? Yeah.. Government / company / xxxx. It doesn't matter, my point is that it's not a good enough argument. A lot of different people/companies/governments can profit from a lot of different things at any given time. Saying they would or are profiting from it doesn't mean it's a hoax.

[Spendulus]

....I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

Then you know that science is not science unless it can be independently verified and validated, and you know that data sets must be freely available, both the raw and the final sets, for that to be possible.


About half of the temperature sensors now used are located at airports.

See any problem with that?

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/

[Astargath]

....I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

Then you know that science is not science unless it can be independently verified and validated, and you know that data sets must be freely available, both the raw and the final sets, for that to be possible.


About half of the temperature sensors now used are located at airports.

See any problem with that?

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/

Most scientists say that climate change is real, I really don't see why they would lie, not to say that we should just believe them but still. I don't know I don't really trust those conspiracy theory websites too much.

[Spendulus]

....I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

Then you know that science is not science unless it can be independently verified and validated, and you know that data sets must be freely available, both the raw and the final sets, for that to be possible.


About half of the temperature sensors now used are located at airports.

See any problem with that?

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/

Most scientists say that climate change is real, I really don't see why they would lie, not to say that we should just believe them but still. I don't know I don't really trust those conspiracy theory websites too much.

Nobody needs to trust conspiracy blah blah blah, and nobody needs to trust things scientists or politicians say. Science is PROVABLE, or it is not science. There's almost no room for belief.

The very essence of science is repeatability. The data problems with HADCRUT and the other indices of temperature are well known.

I passed a temperature sensor today, maybe 50-75 feet away. Guess where that was? AT AN AIRPORT!!!!

You know those don't read the same as sensors did in 1910 or 1935.

Skepticism is well needed as far as "climate science." When people like you suppress skepticism with derisive statements associating it with conspiracy, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorist etc etc etc you are negating the very nature of scientific inquiry.

[TECSHARE]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder?

I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc.

The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit?

Remind me where I used the word government anywhere in my statement.

Who makes the regulations? Yeah.. Government / company / xxxx. It doesn't matter, my point is that it's not a good enough argument. A lot of different people/companies/governments can profit from a lot of different things at any given time. Saying they would or are profiting from it doesn't mean it's a hoax.

The point was that I never made the argument "governments would profit", you did. I specifically cited financial sectors and large corporate entities who would greatly benefit from this legislation while smaller companies and individuals will be unable to cope. Now if you are denying corporations would manipulate government for profit then I have a special jar of magic piss to sell you, its delicious you'll love it.

[Astargath]

....I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

Then you know that science is not science unless it can be independently verified and validated, and you know that data sets must be freely available, both the raw and the final sets, for that to be possible.


About half of the temperature sensors now used are located at airports.

See any problem with that?

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/

Most scientists say that climate change is real, I really don't see why they would lie, not to say that we should just believe them but still. I don't know I don't really trust those conspiracy theory websites too much.

Nobody needs to trust conspiracy blah blah blah, and nobody needs to trust things scientists or politicians say. Science is PROVABLE, or it is not science. There's almost no room for belief.

The very essence of science is repeatability. The data problems with HADCRUT and the other indices of temperature are well known.

I passed a temperature sensor today, maybe 50-75 feet away. Guess where that was? AT AN AIRPORT!!!!

You know those don't read the same as sensors did in 1910 or 1935.

Skepticism is well needed as far as "climate science." When people like you suppress skepticism with derisive statements associating it with conspiracy, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorist etc etc etc you are negating the very nature of scientific inquiry.

What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?

[Astargath]

Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.

Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more.

I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it?

What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder?

I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc.

The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit?

Remind me where I used the word government anywhere in my statement.

Who makes the regulations? Yeah.. Government / company / xxxx. It doesn't matter, my point is that it's not a good enough argument. A lot of different people/companies/governments can profit from a lot of different things at any given time. Saying they would or are profiting from it doesn't mean it's a hoax.

The point was that I never made the argument "governments would profit", you did. I specifically cited financial sectors and large corporate entities who would greatly benefit from this legislation while smaller companies and individuals will be unable to cope. Now if you are denying corporations would manipulate government for profit then I have a special jar of magic piss to sell you, its delicious you'll love it.

It's not an argument, that's what I'm saying. That's not proof that climate change is a hoax. Just because someone can benefit from it somewhere. Flat earthers also think governments benefit from hiding the truth from us, should I believe them as well?

[TECSHARE]

It's not an argument, that's what I'm saying. That's not proof that climate change is a hoax. Just because someone can benefit from it somewhere. Flat earthers also think governments benefit from hiding the truth from us, should I believe them as well?

Great, we are agreement because I never even made that argument. Also I never claimed it was proof, you asked for motives so I provided them. The burden of proof is not on me to prove anthropogenic climate change is not real, it is on the supporters of the theory to prove it is real. So far none of the evidence presented that I have seen is legitimate or reliable as it all depends on either projections, estimates, or computer simulations, not empirical data. Really? You are going to pull out flat Earthers... common, that is chicken shit guilt via association tactics, and it is not even associated. You can do better than that bald faced slander.

[Spendulus]

...

What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?

I answered your questions with a re-explanation of the nature of scientific inquiry.

Now what? Change the subject? What are you trying to get to exactly?

Let me say my opinion one more time and see if it sinks in.

Because of the very intensity with which people are told to believe in climate change, one should question all the more the actual science, and insist on quality science.

If you don't, you will not get quality. Ever. And yes, right now, many of the studies are poor quality and will not stand up to a rigorous examination.