Whitehood

I'm beginning to get it! Someone in the CC affecrtionados group in perhaps 2006 decided several things:
1) CC is getting worse on the temperature rise side; 2) It is biased to take money from sources that want to stop the CC Movement, but we can take money from many other leftist sources; 3) We must silence the Deniers by whatever means is handy; and, 4) It is ok to fudge the data to make AGW look like a huge menace, because we want the world government to take over and run all nations to prevent CO2 from making things even worse. The trick is to scare the heck out of anyone that will listen, especially vulnerable youngsters, in order to secure their support of AGW as they grow up and vote to establish a new world order that will solve the AGW problem. Even the Willie Soons of the world must be silenced because they are a threat to the program. So we must attack them at every turn no matter how compelling their side of the story becomes. Character assassinations are a simple way to head off their impact. 5) We must maneuver so that any scientist that wants to study aspects of the environment must conform to the AGW movement or be denied research funds. 6) Every weather event should be looked at as if its cause is AGW. 7) the AGW Pseudoscientific Priesthood must be given money to further their role in promoting the ideas of AGW, and finding ways to throttle scientists that just won't follow the AGW line.
A.N. Whitehead famously said to the effect that when most scientists agree on some findings, they will ultimately be proven dead wrong.

The people who should be taxed are the very same who produced a product and are collecting the revenue for it, it only needs to be part of the cost involved, why should it be ours, though inevitably it winds up being so anyway, the dog chasing its tail. The outcome would be different if they didn't have such a monopoly on transportation, and also why they block the competition. We can have cars running almost pollution-free at this point in time, but we don't, just like we don't use trains as much as we should and we all know why don't we. With towns putting traffic lights in sync to get every single light traveling on through, using as much possible fuel as possible, serving our oil Kings, sorry, hit a pet peeve there, LOL

The people who should be taxed are the very same who produced a product and are collecting the revenue for it, it only needs to be part of the cost involved, why should it be ours, though inevitably it winds up being so anyway, the dog chasing its tail. The outcome would be different if they didn't have such a monopoly on transportation, and also why they block the competition. We can have cars running almost pollution-free at this point in time, but we don't, just like we don't use trains as much as we should and we all know why don't we. With towns putting traffic lights in sync to get every single light traveling on through, using as much possible fuel as possible, serving our oil Kings, sorry, hit a pet peeve there, LOL

I see, tell me, does this correlate that the earth is then really flat? Sigh LOL

The Willie Soon's don't have to be silenced, but the truth should follow them up, you seem to think they are doing us a service to mislead people.
Do you feel the same about people trying to protect the environment to then have a paid stooge come in and undo all the advances? What if this was done during the ozone crisis, acid rain, or phosphorus in the water, all these things would have been much worse at this point if we had not made our changes, and it wasn't any real great sacrifice was it, did anyone of us get inconvenienced?

Under Trump he has now deregulated car emissions, for our environment, good job, we can now increase man's co2 impact and speed things up for our grandchildren. More fires, drought, floods, tornadoes and hurricanes.

Tell me one thing, who's responsible if not us? Not the industrialists?

Obviously, there are air pollutants that need to be reduced, just as we need to work on our rivers. lakes and oceans, and the land where contaminants are found. The problem is, we must be aware that we cannot rush to judgement and entertain the idea of a massive and costly undertaking, together with some sort of super government to see it along, until we have far better scientific evidence for what is needed that is fully validated and the targets are well understood.

In my opinion, the one thing to take away from Soon's work is that he shows compelling evidence that CO2 is not the culprit the AGW affecrtionados believe it is, and radiation from the sun is the fundamental culprit. If this is true and if it is verified by proper science, two things are so: 1) we don't need to spend billions or even trillions to reduce CO2 to near zero, and, 2) we definitely don't need some kind of super authority to enforce the CO2 issue and make everyone on earth toe the line to a ridiculous extent. Note the IF's!

Obviously, there are air pollutants that need to be reduced, just as we need to work on our rivers. lakes and oceans, and the land where contaminants are found. The problem is, we must be aware that we cannot rush to judgement and entertain the idea of a massive and costly undertaking, together with some sort of super government to see it along, until we have far better scientific evidence for what is needed that is fully validated and the targets are well understood.

In my opinion, the one thing to take away from Soon's work is that he shows compelling evidence that CO2 is not the culprit the AGW affecrtionados believe it is, and radiation from the sun is the fundamental culprit. If this is true and if it is verified by proper science, two things are so: 1) we don't need to spend billions or even trillions to reduce CO2 to near zero, and, 2) we definitely don't need some kind of super authority to enforce the CO2 issue and make everyone on earth toe the line to a ridiculous extent. Note the IF's!