Random Politics & Religion #24

When everyone is in agreement it makes me more skeptical. I really don't care either way. I"m just trying to point out how hypocritical scientists are.

That argument is superfluous. This has nothing to do with an attack on your free will. You could dismiss every argument and disagreement with that type of mentality.

That doesn't make sense, if some of the most skeptical people in the world are mostly in an agreement on a subject wouldn't you be more inclined to believe them? Especially if these skeptical people actually pursue their skepticism to the point where they can't be skeptical anymore? Also how are scientists as a whole hypocritical?

Except there aren't...

There are practically no "studies" or "research", it's just data modeling. They take statistics, run it against models they generate and if they don't like the output they adjust the data until they get the output they want.

That was the biggest part of ClimateGate emails, direct communications between various high level scientists on how to hide trends that didn't agree with their prejudiced opinions. The data they like to use is based on a handful of weather-stations and manipulated with the original data hidden away. Satellite data, which is publicly available, and far more accurate then land based stations, has disagreed with the results of all the models. The models say year 2016 is 2C higher, the Satellites read 0.5C colder, the AGW crowd pretends the Satellites don't exist and insist it's 2C higher and it's "the hottest year on record".

As of now there is exactly zero evidence for causation and weak evidence for correlation.

Interesting note about the Satellite data and why it's publicly available in all it's forms. Awhile back when NASA started using Satellite data for weather models, the leftists were worried a future Conservative government would bury the data and harm their green agenda pushed for the raw data to be made publicly available without question or administrative roadblocks, that request was granted. Now that same ruling is preventing them from "adjusting" the archived satellite data or restricting it's access. This has allowed a large community with access to their own computers to easily follow the trends and see what's really happening. This group is what's been fueling the anti-AGW movement, of which a significant number are scientists themselves.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You can support environmentally-friendly innovations without supporting this ridiculous world pact. You need the discussion to be black and white when it isn't, because it's the only structure that supports your argument. There are nuances in everything, so your whole premise is inherently flawed.

ISIS claims Philippines casino attack despite police denial
CNN

Next headline to look for: "President Trump stubs toe, ISIS takes credit."

And on another point, some cities and states are taking upon themselves the terms of the Paris agreement. I think that's fantastic. California, New York, etc. can do as they please and leave the rest of us to pursue more intelligent measures.

What, that they're backing the theory with more evidence? Seems like a pretty reasonable and not hypocritical thing for scientists to do.

Probably because they've had vastly more first hand issues with pollution most middle Americans have never experienced.

I don't know why you think tech innovation is being excluded. But now that the US has chosen to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, it's more likely these innovations will come out of some other country. China is doing a pretty good job seeing to that already.

So it makes sense for them to deal with their own crap instead of putting the expense on the rest of us. I'm down with that.

Okay, yay China then? I don't see why it matters where the innovations come from. If the innovations are market viable they'll spread.

It matters because it would be nice to have the US lead in things other than obesity rates.
This is already how it works.

Now if only they were innovative to the point they could survive in the market without taxpayer dollars attached to them...

I can't keep up with Zero's stellar argument skills.

It's a highly effective hybrid of styles pioneered by John McLauglin and Donald J Trump.

You know, Trump offered to renegotiate the accord, but clearly the other members aren't interested in that, I wonder why?

I'm wrong so much I don't even know what right is.

But what was he going to renegotiate? Like I've heard him say that but the accord was pretty much "Let's focus on lowering our emissions", "Let's report what our emissions are". The whole thing was about coming together as the world solve a world problem.

My only take away is that we don't WANT to report our emissions because we will not be actively trying to lower them.

We are going to cut carbon emissions and make china pay for it !

We can still cut carbon emission without the federal government. It can be done we have the technology !

Also...

The US's pledge to support other countries in their own initiatives.

I mean, the whole stated goal is for all of these countries to pay around $100 billion a year to a third "accord" party fund for initiatives towards combating global warming. Guess who is going to pay the lion's share of it? Or was, really.

Like I said before, China has yet to pay a dime on their own pledged amounts. Most countries haven't, but most of the funding would come from American taxpayers.