re: What are your reasons for believing climate change is "a hoax"

quote:

---

I'll say that's true. Read Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee.

---

But man causes climate change!

Powerman says so!!!!

quote:

---

2. The overwhelming majority of scientists that study agriculture tell me that genetically modified foods are safe to consume. However I reject that as a conspiracy because big agricultural businesses are evil according to my liberal views on politics.

Please tell me the fundamental difference in the 2 above view points. I'm trying really hard to give you the benefit of a doubt here.

---

Oh. By the way. While I think the people whining about GMOs are ridiculous........it would be VERY alarming to me if the govt started pouring billions into studying GMOs but only to people who supported the use of GMOs while specifically excluding anyone seeking to identify problems with GMOs.

Ya know. Because I actually LOVE science!

quote:

---

But man causes climate change!

Powerman says so!!!!

---

Or more accurately the overwhelming majority of scientists who study the issue say so

You really shouldn't care what I say on the matter. And you shouldn't care what anyone else here says on the matter.

You should be questioning why you're rejecting the conclusions of science because of your political leanings.

quote:

---

no

---

So fuel savings don't somewhat offset the cost?

How in the frick is your answer to that a hard no? Are you fricking stupid?

Simple question... what percentage of current climate change is caused by humans?

The US spent 8 billion dollars on climate change research in 2014, I would think that question should be pretty simple to answer?

Not when taxes on gas go up to make up for lost revenue due to less gas being bought. This is a real phenomenon.

quote:

---

How so? Is he not rejecting the conclusions of science largely because of his political leanings?

---

I can only speak for myself.

And, on that front, it's a false premise.

quote:

---

So what you are saying is that atmospheric Carbon levels have changed throughout Earth's history, and that CO2 levels have been as they are now. . .even without humans being here?

---

Yes. But....

It's not the total CO2 levels in the atmosphere that really matters. It's the rate of change that people should note. That's where I think the graphic does a disservice. I wish it showed the interpolated levels from 100, 200, 300 years ago. There is an exponential rate of increase in the past 100 years. That cannot be denied.

Look to the Carboniferous period for an example.

To me, as an (Environmental) scientist, it isn't IF or How the climate is going to change. That's a waste of time. As both sides have pointed out, that 1)The climate is changing now, and 2) it has always changed in the past. The impact of this change on our modern society and what we should do about it is what we need to be talking about. Who gives a crap about the CAUSATION if it? It's Happening and we need to figure out what if anything we need to do to mitigate the impacts.

quote:

---

Moreover, some of the people funded to do these experiments were people who BELIEVED EINSTEIN TO BE WRONG!!!

---

”Every scientific advancement begins as a f*ck you to authority”. I’m butchering a quote, but I can’t seem to locate it.

quote:

---

quote:
Maybe, but in this case, doesn't the consumer win by the means of having to spend less on fuel and vehicles that emit less CO2?



no.

---

Could you please explain your answer.

I think it deserves more than a simple "no" and after reading your posts, I think your more intelligent than a one word retort.

With nothing more, I have to assume that you think implementing the CAFE standard passes on an overall increased vehicle cost. But again, that's an assumption.

Edit: I didn't see your reply to Powerman. Thank you for a thought out response.