Top Environmentalist Confesses: Global Warming Was a HOAX All Along

[Dexter]

So what do we do about the countries that aren't going to try?

I'm not sure. Sanctions? For now it seems like most of the big countries are at least on board with the idea that we should try to reduce our emissions.

[truth_seeker]

Question for you, @Dexter :   I don't disagree that there's a scientific consensus that the climate may be changing.  But have you seen credible evidence that American efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will reverse that change?   

It is one thing to track climate patterns,  and quite another to suggest we must trade our prosperity for reduced CO2 emissions.  It makes far more sense to me to continue on the path we're on  - that is, economic growth - and spend our money instead on ameliorating the impact of climate change,  if and when such impact should occur.   Better to build a prosperous economy with the capacity to ameliorate climate change,  than ruin the economy in a vain effort to reverse it.   

Twomore options:

1. Use technology to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. Clean safe Nuclear.

[Jazzhead]

We don't really have a way of knowing for sure to what extent humanity is capable of mitigating the problem. It's possible that it'll all be in vain, or maybe humanity will surprise itself with its own ingenuity as it often does when things get complicated.

I have no doubt that humanity can find a way to mitigate the problem,  but it's not going to be by Americans sacrificing their lifestyles to try to change back the weather.    That's where the climate activists want the big bucks to be spent -  to actually reverse the perceived trajectory of the earth's climate.

That's a fool's errand,  especially since it will come at the cost of our prosperity.   If the changes in the climate disrupt certain communities,  then help them.  And if we maintain the status quo of inexpensive energy, then the economic growth thereby made possible can pay for that help.   

[verga]

He's an educated man with an opinion that deserves to be considered. This isn't breaking news or a bombshell though is my point. Like you say he's been saying this stuff for more than 10 years. Why is this article playing it up to be something it's not?

Well, he has been getting quite a bit more press and air time lately. He has been on Crowder several times and I think he was recently on Hannity.

[GrouchoTex]

It was a Ménage à trois.

That was funny.
I came this close to a Shamu moment with a mouth full of coffee and the keyboard..

[IsailedawayfromFR]

We don't really have a way of knowing for sure to what extent humanity is capable of mitigating the problem. It's possible that it'll all be in vain, or maybe humanity will surprise itself with its own ingenuity as it often does when things get complicated.

I think there is a lot that can be done to advance green energy in a healthy way without damaging ourselves. I've said before that subsidizing inferior solar panels so they can "compete" is insanity. We need to be funding research that will give us better panels that can compete with fossil fuels without government subsidies. I think it's only a matter of time until getting energy from direct sunlight outpaces getting it from fossil fuels. Research and development!

AOC is an idealist that doesn't understand the issue and all of the challenges involved in overcoming that issue as well as she should for how much she runs her mouth about it.

What problem?  CO2?

So you believe it is a problem for having CO2 available for plants?

If it is, stop breathing.

[Wingnut]

That was funny.
I came this close to a Shamu moment with a mouth full of coffee and the keyboard..

They are birds of a feather.     Can't you just see them spooning for the C02

LOL

[LegalAmerican]

What problem?  CO2?

So you believe it is a problem for having CO2 available for plants?

If it is, stop breathing.

Correct.  This is a hoax & that people think they can, control the earth is really arrogant!  4 billion year old earth!  DID WE CAUSE THE ICE AGE?  NO.  Things change.   Co2 is used by plants who emit oxygen for our use.  SYNERGY.   I wish people, would stop thinking They are so omnipotent as to control Mother Nature.     

Wish we could drop this issue in it's entirety forever. It is a phony LEFTIST issue.   Earth is fine.  We will die.

NO.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Correct.  This is a hoax & that people think they can, control the earth is really arrogant!  4 billion year old earth!  DID WE CAUSE THE ICE AGE?  NO.  Things change.   Co2 is used by plants who emit oxygen for our use.  SYNERGY.   I wish people, would stop thinking They are so omnipotent as to control Mother Nature.     

Wish we could drop this issue in it's entirety forever. It is a phony LEFTIST issue.   Earth is fine.  We will die.

NO.

"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Rules For Radicals #9 Saul Alinsky

[Jazzhead]

Correct.  This is a hoax & that people think they can, control the earth is really arrogant!  4 billion year old earth!  DID WE CAUSE THE ICE AGE?  NO.  Things change.   Co2 is used by plants who emit oxygen for our use.  SYNERGY.   I wish people, would stop thinking They are so omnipotent as to control Mother Nature.     

Wish we could drop this issue in it's entirety forever. It is a phony LEFTIST issue.   Earth is fine.  We will die.

NO.

No,  climate change is not a hoax.   But we have a choice to make -  encourage prosperity to permit us the resources to adapt, or sacrifice prosperity in a vain effort to reverse it.   

I have no problem with reducing CO2 emissions as part of a broader effort to reduce air and water pollution, and curb the waste of resources.   These are environmental causes I can support,  and where the United States has helped lead the way.    Folks don't wear surgical masks in American cities as they do on the streets of Shanghai

But radical steps intended solely to reduce CO2 emissions, to replace inexpensive and abundant fossil fuels with expensive and unreliable renewables?    No, those efforts I oppose, because there is simply no scientific proof that our economic self-sacrifice would be efficacious in affecting the climate.   

[jpsb]

I have no problem with reducing CO2 emissions as part of a broader effort to reduce air and water pollution

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. The climate has not warmed in over 17 years.

[Jazzhead]

CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

I understand.   To clarify - I support clean air.  If efforts to clean the air as a by-product reduce CO2 emissions, then fine.  What I oppose are deliberate efforts to reduce CO2 emissions by denying ordinary Americans the inexpensive, reliable energy they have come to depend on to sustain their prosperity.

It is no coincidence that support for crap like the Green New Deal highly correlates with wealth.   It is a rich person's conceit; they can afford their Teslas.   The poor will be most affected by the forced demise of the internal combustion engine.   

[jpsb]

The poor will be most affected by the forced demise of the internal combustion engine.   

A modern internal combustion engine is far more environmentally friendly then an electric motor. One
caviout nuke power plants might change the equation.

[Wingnut]

No,  climate change is not a hoax.   But we have a choice to make -  encourage prosperity to permit us the resources to adapt, or sacrifice prosperity in a vain effort to reverse it.   

You are the epitome of an educated idiot.  A joker.  A toker and a midnight hoaxer. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh