We don't have 12 years to stop climate change, we have 12 years to be

[Scrubber_steve]

Not me. I just mentioned the $4.7 billion dollars invested in climate change research. I know the academics don't get a blank check but they do get grants for research. Not sure where all the money goes but their seems to be a lot of it floating around.

Hundreds of billions of dollars flow through the global warming campaign and they are greedy for more.
Yet the warming crowd has the temerity to attack the comparatively minuscule funding available to those who labor to correct the record on climate. They do this to avoid dealing with us on substance where they are weakest.

Who are determined to shut down debate and impose their wind, solar and biofuel policies on the world. Where do they get their money, and how much do they get?."

The numbers are shocking:

Billionaire and potential presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg gave the Sierra Club $110 million in a six-year period to fund its campaign against coal-generated electricity. Chesapeake Energy gave the Club $26 million in three years to promote natural gas and attack coal. Ten wealthy liberal foundations gave another $51 million over eight years to the Club and other environmentalist groups to battle coal.

Over a 12-year period, the Environmental Protection Agency gave its 15 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members $181 million in grants – and in exchange received quick rubberstamp approvals of various air quality rules. It paid the American Lung Association $20 million to support its regulations.

During the Obama years, the EPA, Interior Department and other federal agencies paid environmental pressure groups tens of millions in collusive, secretive sue-and-settle lawsuit payoffs on dozens of issues.

Then we get to the really big money: taxpayer funds that government agencies hand out to scientists, computer modelers and pressure groups – to promote global warming and climate change alarmism.

* Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

* The Feds spent an estimated $150 billion on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.

* That didn’t include the 30% tax credits/subsidies for wind and solar power: $8 billion to $10 billion a year – plus billions more from state programs that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.

Overall hundreds of billions are routinely spent, with the UN demanding we ramp up climate spending to $3.5 trillion per year!

People are becoming insanely rich off all this and they don't take kindly to those of us who threaten their take.

The warming crowd blew their credibility on distortions, personal attacks and outright lies long ago.

 

[Hermie]

What is a climate change denier (besides a derogatory term to describe someone who disagrees with the most alarmist baseless projections put forward by ignorant people)?

https://ncse.com/library-resource/why-is-it-called-denial

Recognizing that no terminological choice is entirely unproblematic, NCSE — in common with a number of scholarly and journalistic observers of the social controversies surrounding climate change — opts to use the terms “climate changer deniers” and “climate change denial” (where “denial” encompasses unwarranted doubt as well as outright rejection). The terms are intended descriptively, not in any pejorative sense, and are used for the sake of brevity and consistency with a well-established usage in the scholarly and journalistic literature.

Climate change denial is most conspicuous when it is explicit, as it is in controversies over climate education. The idea of implicit (or “implicatory”) denial, however, is increasingly discussed among those who study the controversies over climate change. Implicit denial occurs when people who accept the scientific community’s consensus on the answers to the central questions of climate change on the intellectual level fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action. Such people are in denial, so to speak, about climate change.

Implicit denial in a rural community in western Norway in economic crisis due to climate change is the topic of the sociologist Kari Marie Norgaard’s book Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life (MIT Press 2011). “[D]espite clear social and economic impacts on the community,” she writes, “no social action was taken at the beginning of this century. … What perplexed me was the fact that despite the fact that people clearly were aware of global warming as a phenomenon, everyday life in Bygdaby went on as though it did not exist” (p. xvi).

 

[Jacked Reefer]

Very few people deny climate change the only question is the actual scientific cause and are you willing to spend money on someones bad computer models. It has become more like a late night infomercial than settled science. Just send us $39 billion more dollars and we might be able to find some kind of possible solution...maybe.

They won’t say they can fix it. The scientists will say the consumers can fix it and make money of off the everyday joe’s dumb attempts to do something.

 

[Brian1f1]

Based upon the heaps and heaps of denier drivel that the mods are letting stand tonight, and having the comment of mine that correctly compared said verbal refuse to other equally ridiculous conspiracy theories deleted, I’m afraid they might be deniers themselves.

 

[kschweer]

Based upon the heaps and heaps of denier drivel that the mods are letting stand tonight, and having the comment of mine that correctly compared said verbal refuse to other equally ridiculous conspiracy theories deleted, I’m afraid they might be deniers themselves.

I don’t have a dog in this fight but the post that was removed along with this one violate the tos. My job is to make sure posts stay within the rules. Please take a minute to familiarize yourself.

https://www.reef2reef.com/help/terms

 

[Jacked Reefer]

That

Based upon the heaps and heaps of denier drivel that the mods are letting stand tonight, and having the comment of mine that correctly compared said verbal refuse to other equally ridiculous conspiracy theories deleted, I’m afraid they might be deniers themselves.

Thats the chaos of it. We fight like it will matter

 

[Scrubber_steve]

https://ncse.com/library-resource/why-is-it-called-denial

OK spammer dude, I don’t deny that climate changes.

I don't deny that humans are increasing atmospheric CO2.

I don't deny that this can potentially warm the atmosphere.

So that puts me in the only credible category represented by a 97% consensus.

Based on the mainstream science for radiative forcing, & data collected, the warming I believe we’ll see produced by a doubling of CO2 even falls within the IPCC’s own climate model projections.

So how can someone describe me as a climate change denier?


I’ll tell you.


If someone believes all this, as I do, but disagrees with 1. the worst case scenarios for projected warming, or 2. dares to disagree with any of even the most outlandish exaggerations made, or 3. points out how terribly incorrect previous projections/ predictions were, you become a denier sceptic nutter.


LOL, who are the real deniers?

 

[4FordFamily]

OK everyone — keep politics out of this discussion. If we cannot play nice and have a constructive discussion this thread will be locked.

Personal attacks will also not be tolerated.

 

[User1]

"$4.7 billion dollars is a lot of Cheddar for climate change research would you not agree? So there is money attached to the research in the United States alone. Just saying I may have to stop working for a living and develop a computer model. Where is my old math book?"

I'm liking your post because you went back and grabbed the quote. Fair enough. I don't want to nit pick but that isn't saying going to researchers or scientist pockets (wealthy, rich, driving exotic cars, etc). It is saying literally "research". That is why I was also thinking you meant grants. Be that as it may I read what Lemon said differently and in fact to research. I could be wrong and it isn't a big deal

 

[User1]

Based upon the heaps and heaps of denier drivel that the mods are letting stand tonight, and having the comment of mine that correctly compared said verbal refuse to other equally ridiculous conspiracy theories deleted, I’m afraid they might be deniers themselves.

That isn't true. The mods are usually pretty good staying within the limits. Look at the general thread with regards to the other way to QT - forget the exact title. And for the most part the thread has been ok and friendly. It gets a bit precarious when people start throwing denier about like skittles falling from the sky when most have stated they clearly believe people have an impact on Mother Nature (i.e. planet). However, there is a lot of disagreement on how it should be managed, who should manage it, what the heck management even means as we all wade through the political BS and scientific hyperbole.

People are not strange or deniers or anything else when they have a different opinion. That is probably the largest problem facing people today regardless if it is climate or any other discussion. People are not ready to have that discussion because they can't argue or fight fair.

 

[Brian1f1]

That isn't true. The mods are usually pretty good staying within the limits. Look at the general thread with regards to the other way to QT - forget the exact title. And for the most part the thread has been ok and friendly. It gets a bit precarious when people start throwing denier about like skittles falling from the sky when most have stated they clearly believe people have an impact on Mother Nature (i.e. planet). However, there is a lot of disagreement on how it should be managed, who should manage it, what the heck management even means as we all wade through the political crap and scientific hyperbole.

People are not strange or deniers or anything else when they have a different opinion. That is probably the largest problem facing people today regardless if it is climate or any other discussion. People are not ready to have that discussion because they can't argue or fight fair.

Actually, after being presented with and reading the TOS, I seriously could make good arguments for why much of this thread is in direct violation of the rules. Albeit, It seems likely a discussion of that topic would also violate the TOS, and this comment itself may indeed be walking along that same line, as it appears big and broad with suitably blurred edges. Anyway, I love R2R, and as frustrating as this thread has been, at least it’s made me realize that I’d selfishly rather insure that I get to keep my account than risk burning it in effigy, and so I’m thankful that it existed. Night.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Actually, after being presented with and reading the TOS, I seriously could make good arguments for why much of this thread is in direct violation of the rules. Albeit, It seems likely a discussion of that topic would also violate the TOS, and this comment itself may indeed be walking along that same line, as it appears big and broad with suitably blurred edges. Anyway, I love R2R, and as frustrating as this thread has been, at least it’s made me realize that I’d selfishly rather insure that I get to keep my account than risk burning it in effigy, and so I’m thankful that it existed. Night.

Glad to hear this Brian.
I'm not a mod, & I know it's not my place to say this, but I would close threads like this before they begin, because I don't believe they have a place on an aquarium forum.
In any case, enjoy the inter-glacial

 

[ZipAdeeZoa]

I was pretty surprised to see this topic get so heated on here. I figured that a reef aquarium forum would have a fairly uniform stance on this issue. Everyones here because they are passionate about the ocean and the incredible diversity and beauty with in it. My concern for the worlds oceans is one of the main reasons I decided to get saltwater tank. Its hard to protect something if you don't understand it and despite my time on and in the water as a fishermen and a freediver I still want to know more. I also hope that when people see my tank they'll want to know more, about the coral, the fish, the ocean and possibly inspire them to learn about it and how they can make a difference.

That isn't true. The mods are usually pretty good staying within the limits. Look at the general thread with regards to the other way to QT - forget the exact title. And for the most part the thread has been ok and friendly. It gets a bit precarious when people start throwing denier about like skittles falling from the sky when most have stated they clearly believe people have an impact on Mother Nature (i.e. planet). However, there is a lot of disagreement on how it should be managed, who should manage it, what the heck management even means as we all wade through the political crap and scientific hyperbole.

People are not strange or deniers or anything else when they have a different opinion. That is probably the largest problem facing people today regardless if it is climate or any other discussion. People are not ready to have that discussion because they can't argue or fight fair.

I like the direction your going but within what you said I found the last part particularly intriguing- Argue or fight fair already almost has a tone to it (at least in my mind, hard to tell over keyboards). Why do we need to argue as opposed to discuss and debate. Fight for what and why fight about it when a polite conversation will be me most productive and insightful. I'm not trying to poke fun at your grammar nor am I trying to disagree with you, I just think its fascinating how quick our minds interpret things and how those interpretations are received by others- Hopefully I'm not the only one.

The hardest part about threads like this to me is just seeing how angry everyone is. At one another, at whats happening in the world and what people are or aren't doing about it. Grey areas are seemingly extinct, you'r one of us or you'r one of them and no matter what you are a lot of people are going to hate you for you it.

I believe civility and polite productive conversation will propel us into a much brighter future then toxicity and divisive noise ever could. I sincerely hope I'm not alone in that.

Glad to hear this Brian.
I'm not a mod, & I know it's not my place to say this, but I would close threads like this before they begin, because I don't believe they have a place on an aquarium forum.
In any case, enjoy the inter-glacial

But if this thread never happened then not only would Brian not have made that realization but the many people who were in the heat of this thread would never have come to the same realization that has manifested on this page- at the end of the day we're here to talk about fish and spending to much money on coral, no amount of differences will change the amount of things we have in common;Happy

 

[revhtree]

Hello friends. While we want to be able to allow as much debate as possible to continue we feel like some discussions degrade to a point that it is no longer in the best interest of the forum or participants to allow it to continue. That being said we’re going to put this one to rest and we hope you understand. Have a good night.