The science of the "left" claims their science is settled and we only have 12 years until the end of the world. Endless studies, graphs and charts prove them to be right. Anyone denying their claims are only deniers of science. Long live the science...the science is dead...long live the science.
The science of the "right"espouses that most of the climate change we are seeing is simply cyclic in nature, that man as little to nothing to do with it. Their graphs, models and studies on historical climate trends show us in a certain point in the cycle. If you don't agree with them, you are denying science and fear mongering to create a one world government. Long live the science, the science is dead, long live the science.
The arrogance abounds in both sides of this discussion. The "right" is seemingly oblivious to the fact we have subtracted from (as well as added to) so many things to the environment that it is either naive or arrogant to believe we haven't affected the climate. On the left side, the science revolves around greenhouse gases.
You cannot have an accurate model, nor reach a scientific conclusion unless all of the variables affecting the outcome are included in the research, yet this is what both sides of the climate discussion are doing. Those on the right are ignoring all of the things we have been doing for the last 200 years, and those on the left ignoring things which are beyond the parameters of atmospheric gasses.
At 2.9 acres per mile of two lane road, plus airports, military installations and parking lots, we are pushing 100,000,000 acres (in the USA alone) reflecting heat back into the atmosphere in addition to disrupting soil hydrology....ignored by both sides of the "settled science" of climate change. This is ignored by both sides of the discussion.
Also ignored by both sides of the discussion is urban expansion and the flood control projects. Millions of acres heat reflecting buildings replacing carbon sequestering plants of all kinds, along with the flood control projects, not only replacing oxygen producing plants, but assuring that the "excess" water goes into waterways and eventually into the ocean rather than into the soil in the natural water cycle.
While the left side of the argument acknowledges the carbon emitted by air travel they fail to take into account how the heat and turbulence produced at high altitudes may affect weather patterns. (over 30,000 commercial flights a day, and with the larger planes creating so much turbulence single engine aircraft must wait for 7 minutes for the turbulence to die down enough for a safe take off)
Last on my list (which may not be complete) is degradation of soil, otherwise known as "desertification." Despite the fact roughly two thirds of the world's land being in some stage of desertification, neither side acknowledges this to be a contributing factor to climate change, the left side incredibly considers it to be a "symptom" of climate change. At 98 F ground temperature in healthy grass is only 78 degrees while on bare ground it is 128 degrees (and even hotter on the fore mentioned roads and parking lots...) The fact the left doesn't take this into consideration as a cause of climate change is absolutely mind boggling.
I accept the fact we are effecting the global climate. However, when the "settled science" posited by left fails to take all of the different contributing factors into account, how accurate can they be? When they don't just make claims, but change from global warming to global cooling, then, when their predictions fail, change it to simply "climate change," how accurate can their science be?
Some will label anyone who questions the politics behind climate change as a "science denier" or "climate skeptic" when in reality many of us are only questioning the motives behind the politics.
How do you believe in a "climate summit" which looks at a "carbon credit" system which allows polluters to pay someone already sequestering carbon (because it is more profitable for them) without actually doing anything to reduce their own pollution?
How to you take a governmental body seriously which proposes taxes on eating meat as a preventative method of climate change when it has been scientifically proven time and again that more animals grazing in the proper manner builds soils and sequesters carbon from the atmosphere?
If the UN and other governmental bodies were serious about controlling climate change why do they invite celebrities to give hysteria inspiring speeches with no solutions rather than listening to groups like Soil 4 Climate or any of the Holistic management organizations out there?
Finally, if the media were actually serious, wouldn't every media out let there is be clamoring to interview people who have regenerated grasslands or improved soils at a profit through carbon sequestration? People like Alan Savory, Gabe Brown, Joel Salatin and Alejandro Carillos and Seth Itzkan should be in high demand in the media, but instead they are basically relegated to preaching to the choir.
Fear and hysteria may garner votes and high ratings, but without giving actual solutions it accomplishes nothing but geopolitical and socioeconomic indecision and divisiveness. If you want to actually solve problems, look at ALL of the causes instead of only a few. Above all, give credit where credit is due and use the people with proven solutions to educate both the general public and those on the ground who can actually implement the solutions.
Climate skepticism is rooted in the incomplete science of climate change. It is amplified by the unfulfilled prophecies of global cooling, global warming and submerged cities. It is amplified by fear mongering government bodies. It is also exacerbated by well meaning believers in the partisan politics of climate change who have solutions, yet let their emotions over ride logic in discussing any science which doesn't align perfectly with their view. Science is always in a state of flux. Noting should be totally ignored nor should any science be totally accepted without looking at all of the variables. To not do so is not scientific.
Perhaps it is best put forth by physicist Richard Feynman who said "We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain."
The science of the "right"espouses that most of the climate change we are seeing is simply cyclic in nature, that man as little to nothing to do with it. Their graphs, models and studies on historical climate trends show us in a certain point in the cycle. If you don't agree with them, you are denying science and fear mongering to create a one world government. Long live the science, the science is dead, long live the science.
The arrogance abounds in both sides of this discussion. The "right" is seemingly oblivious to the fact we have subtracted from (as well as added to) so many things to the environment that it is either naive or arrogant to believe we haven't affected the climate. On the left side, the science revolves around greenhouse gases.
You cannot have an accurate model, nor reach a scientific conclusion unless all of the variables affecting the outcome are included in the research, yet this is what both sides of the climate discussion are doing. Those on the right are ignoring all of the things we have been doing for the last 200 years, and those on the left ignoring things which are beyond the parameters of atmospheric gasses.
At 2.9 acres per mile of two lane road, plus airports, military installations and parking lots, we are pushing 100,000,000 acres (in the USA alone) reflecting heat back into the atmosphere in addition to disrupting soil hydrology....ignored by both sides of the "settled science" of climate change. This is ignored by both sides of the discussion.
Also ignored by both sides of the discussion is urban expansion and the flood control projects. Millions of acres heat reflecting buildings replacing carbon sequestering plants of all kinds, along with the flood control projects, not only replacing oxygen producing plants, but assuring that the "excess" water goes into waterways and eventually into the ocean rather than into the soil in the natural water cycle.
While the left side of the argument acknowledges the carbon emitted by air travel they fail to take into account how the heat and turbulence produced at high altitudes may affect weather patterns. (over 30,000 commercial flights a day, and with the larger planes creating so much turbulence single engine aircraft must wait for 7 minutes for the turbulence to die down enough for a safe take off)
Last on my list (which may not be complete) is degradation of soil, otherwise known as "desertification." Despite the fact roughly two thirds of the world's land being in some stage of desertification, neither side acknowledges this to be a contributing factor to climate change, the left side incredibly considers it to be a "symptom" of climate change. At 98 F ground temperature in healthy grass is only 78 degrees while on bare ground it is 128 degrees (and even hotter on the fore mentioned roads and parking lots...) The fact the left doesn't take this into consideration as a cause of climate change is absolutely mind boggling.
I accept the fact we are effecting the global climate. However, when the "settled science" posited by left fails to take all of the different contributing factors into account, how accurate can they be? When they don't just make claims, but change from global warming to global cooling, then, when their predictions fail, change it to simply "climate change," how accurate can their science be?
Some will label anyone who questions the politics behind climate change as a "science denier" or "climate skeptic" when in reality many of us are only questioning the motives behind the politics.
How do you believe in a "climate summit" which looks at a "carbon credit" system which allows polluters to pay someone already sequestering carbon (because it is more profitable for them) without actually doing anything to reduce their own pollution?
How to you take a governmental body seriously which proposes taxes on eating meat as a preventative method of climate change when it has been scientifically proven time and again that more animals grazing in the proper manner builds soils and sequesters carbon from the atmosphere?
If the UN and other governmental bodies were serious about controlling climate change why do they invite celebrities to give hysteria inspiring speeches with no solutions rather than listening to groups like Soil 4 Climate or any of the Holistic management organizations out there?
Finally, if the media were actually serious, wouldn't every media out let there is be clamoring to interview people who have regenerated grasslands or improved soils at a profit through carbon sequestration? People like Alan Savory, Gabe Brown, Joel Salatin and Alejandro Carillos and Seth Itzkan should be in high demand in the media, but instead they are basically relegated to preaching to the choir.
Fear and hysteria may garner votes and high ratings, but without giving actual solutions it accomplishes nothing but geopolitical and socioeconomic indecision and divisiveness. If you want to actually solve problems, look at ALL of the causes instead of only a few. Above all, give credit where credit is due and use the people with proven solutions to educate both the general public and those on the ground who can actually implement the solutions.
Climate skepticism is rooted in the incomplete science of climate change. It is amplified by the unfulfilled prophecies of global cooling, global warming and submerged cities. It is amplified by fear mongering government bodies. It is also exacerbated by well meaning believers in the partisan politics of climate change who have solutions, yet let their emotions over ride logic in discussing any science which doesn't align perfectly with their view. Science is always in a state of flux. Noting should be totally ignored nor should any science be totally accepted without looking at all of the variables. To not do so is not scientific.
Perhaps it is best put forth by physicist Richard Feynman who said "We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain."
