Shared publicly  - 
Fred Horein's profile photoRajesh Gopi's profile photoScott Munro's profile photoElizabeth Delgado's profile photo
Because free market forces would make corporations want to spend profits to be less polluting and wasteful? I'm not trying to be snarky, but what would be the incentive when a majority of the market's consumers would rather not think about their impact on the environment if it means they can't have their 3-ton SUV with 22"ers? I just don't see how your purely theoretical and idealistic logic translates to the real world.
+Jordan William Johnson
" We need SUVs. Because there are highways, those exist because the government built them."......"climate change has always existed, we call it seasons."

+Jordan William Johnson This is not a natural cycle. Scientists are virtually unanimous on this, and spouting fake statistics will not change the facts. There is no controversy on this. The 'controversy', such as it is, exists only in the imagination of big oil companies, their fake scientists, and the ignorant media that's being paid to rely fake findings and suppress real data. tells a piece of that story.

Again, human caused climate change is real, and denying it causes problems for everybody.
+Mike Kershner we're talking about the virtually unanimous opinions of learned scientists who have studied climate change, and not uneducated masses and politicians that do not have the same level of expertise on the matter. I find it horribly ironic that people are using computers and the internet, aka two of science's greatest achievements, as a medium to express doubt about the nature of science.

And again, man made climate change is real. Listing that as one of your counter examples is simply unacceptable when A) virtually every scientist who's studied the problem is convinced it's real, and B) it's the debate in question. You're acting like you already won the battle, when the truth is you are at the edge of defeat.
+Scott Munro this is a man who also denies that smoking causes cancer. Calling him a 'learned scientist' is bullshit.
+Fred Horein I thought ALL scientists agreed???? Can you argue with anything that Dr. Lindzen said?
BTW is there anything more silly then politicians controlling the temperature of earth? HAHAHA!
+Scott Munro I did not say all scientists. I said VIRTUALLY all scientists. And you're still apparently listing Richard Lindzen as a credible scientist, when I've already said I refuted that claim. And as for the so-called global cooling 'consensus', I direct you to and it's leading summary: "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then." Next time, do some actual research, instead of getting your 'facts' from YouTube.
+Mike Kershner Richard Lindzen is one scientist who is regularly criticized by his peers. Calling him a learned scientist is disputed by better men than me. I am comfortable with my statements and see no fallacy, as any credible research into Richard Lindzin's character would reveal the same facts that I have acquired. YouTube videos are also not a credible source of information, and must be dismissed in favor of more appropriate data, which I presented. Also, you're hardly one to talk about logical fallacies when you listed man-made climate change debate as an 'proven example' of a failure of consensus when in fact it is far from unproven. That combination of recursion and premature declaration of victory was simply unacceptable.

+Scott Munro It is said that any fool in error can find a quote in the bible, and you are doing your best to prove that statement right. Your links refers to the post-Climategate era, where there was a record level of climate change politicization that affected even learned scientists. It is sad but true: scientists are human, and they make errors. Even so, since then the scientists involved in the so-called 'scandal' were exonerated, and life in the scientific community returned to normal. has some of the details. You are taking incomplete snapshots of this debate and presenting them as a consistent trend. This is unacceptable.

But I am sick of repeating myself, and am growing tired of this. I'm muting this post, much to Armando Lioss's relief I imagine.
What about if we all stop arguing and decided stop polluting and create a better world just by accident... Who is with me?
Add a comment...