Major Climate Change Rules the Trump Administration Is Reversing

[kmott]

there was a time much of the southwest was under water.

scientists say it was so , so it must be , they are honorable men. did man cause that also??


point is nothing is happening today that hasn't happened in the past before man was around to be blamed for it.

 

[TheJason]

point is, scientist skew their results to get the outcome they desire so they can continue to get their grants.

keeping the sheep in a perpetual state of fear, insures the benjamins keep coming. if you can't even acknowledge this as being so, there is no point in continuing.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve read. Put on another layer of tin foil.

 

[BigHornRam]

If oceans are rising, why do the liberal elite buy homes on the coast?

Good home owners insurance?

 

[kmott]

If oceans are rising, why do the liberal elite buy homes on the coast?

if saltwater floods their home it saves em a trip to the spa.

 

[The Hedgehog]

 

[3855WIN]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1178602302871134209

 

[3855WIN]

Must watch

https://twitter.com/x/status/1178460196512784384

 

[BigHornRam]

To get this thread back to Mark's original point, greed and corruption in the world oil and gas industry, I leave you this exceptional piece of journalism published in none other than the New York Times.

Joe Biden, His Son and the Case Against a Ukrainian Oligarch (Published 2015)

As the vice president aims to curb corruption in Ukraine, Hunter Biden sits on the board of a Ukrainian company accused of having “illicit assets.”

www.nytimes.com

I know the article is 4 years old and probably intended to deflate V P Joe's 2016 Presidential bid, but the information exposed in it is timeless.

 

[RockinU]

point is, scientist skew their results to get the outcome they desire so they can continue to get their grants.

keeping the sheep in a perpetual state of fear, insures the benjamins keep coming. if you can't even acknowledge this as being so, there is no point in continuing.

You draw too many lines in the sand based on conclusions that are questionable at best. If you are that close minded to having a conversation, why enter it to begin with?

 

[kmott]

You draw too many lines in the sand based on conclusions that are questionable at best. If you are that close minded to having a conversation, why enter it to begin with?

mostly just to rebuke the sky is falling bunch. and I tire of all the money wasted on such sillyness.

 

[onpoint]

You draw too many lines in the sand based on conclusions that are questionable at best. If you are that close minded to having a conversation, why enter it to begin with?

Actually, a more apropos question might read:
"If you know where the conversation will lead, why bother starting it"?
These usually go exactly where they go.
Hell, discussions regarding/targeting actual sportsmens/womens issues and/or public lands (becoming increasingly rare....) usually go here.
The anti-gubmint, conspiracy theory, personal agenda, etc., tinfoil hat wearers invariably suck all the oxygen from the room.
That is until Greenhorn diverts their attention for 10 seconds with a pic of a big bull.
#makehunttalkgreatagain ?
Good luck.

 

[Straight Arrow]

scientist(sic) skew their results to get the outcome they desire so they can continue to get their grants.

You are throwing a pretty wide loop there, cowboy! Such a strong statement (opinion) is better received if "scientists" is modified by "most", "some", "few", "majority of", or such terms.

 

[RockinU]

Good point...I'll let it go.

 

[The Hedgehog]

this is worth a second time:

 

[kmott]

You are throwing a pretty wide loop there, cowboy! Such a strong statement (opinion) is better received if "scientists" is modified by "most", "some", "few", "majority of", or such terms.

you may be right but I don't really believe it is a few or most , I believe it is all who grovel for grants.

 

[Ben Lamb]

you may be right but I don't really believe it is a few or most , I believe it is all who grovel for grants.

This is a pretty common myth. but the reality is there is far more money to be made in denying climate change, than to get a grant that covers the costs of your scientific work.

 

[TheJason]

you may be right but I don't really believe it is a few or most , I believe it is all who grovel for grants.

Second most ridiculous post. Having written a few, and helped proof a few, I can assure you they were not groveling.

 

[Ben Sellers]

I would say most scientists on either side of the issue aren’t intentionally skewing their data for profit. The issue is that they have preconceived notions about their subject and choose data that supports those preconceived notions. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy, if you think climate change is a huge problem then you’re more likely to subconsciously disregard data that contradicts that point of view. Also, if you think global warming if full of crap, you go looking for data that proves that point even though there may be evidence that shows GW is happening.

Some researchers do cherrypick data to support their hypothesis intentionally but I don’t think that is the majority of scientists. The problem is that climate change has become a part of our left vs right power struggle. It is dogma for the left and absurd to the right.

In reality we’re talking about possibility the most complex issue man has ever investigated. Countless factors play into this including the earths rotaion and orbit, the intensity of the sun’s radiation , trends in water vapor, carbon dioxide and other ghg’s, transformation of farmland and forest into urban concrete, the Gulf Stream, ocean currents, the overall albedo of the earth with the changing surface of the earth and on and on... Billions of data points feed into what is really happening. This issue is so complicated that if someone tells you they know for sure it is or is not happening , they are delusional, a fool, or are trying to further an agenda with no regard for the truth.

 

[kmott]

This is a pretty common myth. but the reality is there is far more money to be made in denying climate change, than to get a grant that covers the costs of your scientific work.

pshuaw. there is plenty being made on both sides.

 

[BigHornRam]

Money and climate change.

These Powerful Organizations Could Solve The Climate Crisis. If Only They Wanted To.

To save the world, we must follow the money, climate campaigners say.

www.huffpost.com