• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Day, another article about the climate collapsing!

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
38,870
Reaction score
13,414
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
IPCC: Window to avert catastrophic climate change is quickly closing
According to their findings, to meet the 1.5°C target, global greenhouse gas emissions have to start dropping in 2025
and go down 43% from current levels by 2030 — and 84% by 2050.
It seems the climate alarmist are the ones who are denying the science.
If the imagined 1.5°C target exists, then how sensitive the climate is to added CO2 is a large factor in when it would be reached.
Let's put some numbers on the articles percentages.
Perhaps the first question is what is the current level of emissions.
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Under Growth, we see that annual CO2 growth peaked at 3.03 ppm per year in 2016, and has been smaller every year since.
So is the current level of growth the peak at 3.03 ppm/yr, or 2021's value of 2.38 ppm/yr, because 2.38 ppm/year is already 21% lower than 3.03 ppm/yr.
A 43% decline from the peak growth of 3.03 ppm per year, would be growth of 2.03 ppm per year, and a 84% decline would be
an annual growth of 0.48 ppm per year.
One factor is the difference between actual emissions and the growth in the level of CO2.
Annually we emit about 9.6 GtC, which if all of it showed up in the growth would be an increase 4.50 ppm/year, ( based on 1 ppm =2.13GtC)
but the recorded increase for 2021 is 2.38 ppm/year 52% of the actual emission.
From an actual emissions standpoint, (9.6 GtC annually), we would hit zero annual growth at about 5.1 GtC.
So if they want to get emissions down to 84% it would be 84% of the difference between 5.1GtC and 9.6 GtC, or about 5.82 GtC.
This number is within reach if we start looking at our actual energy problem instead of thinking of this as a climate problem.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,151
Reaction score
46,597
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You call them alarmist and make absolutely no argument that contradicts what they say, lol
 

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
28,931
Reaction score
22,501
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
IPCC: Window to avert catastrophic climate change is quickly closing

It seems the climate alarmist are the ones who are denying the science.
If the imagined 1.5°C target exists, then how sensitive the climate is to added CO2 is a large factor in when it would be reached.
Let's put some numbers on the articles percentages.
Perhaps the first question is what is the current level of emissions.
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Under Growth, we see that annual CO2 growth peaked at 3.03 ppm per year in 2016, and has been smaller every year since.
So is the current level of growth the peak at 3.03 ppm/yr, or 2021's value of 2.38 ppm/yr, because 2.38 ppm/year is already 21% lower than 3.03 ppm/yr.
A 43% decline from the peak growth of 3.03 ppm per year, would be growth of 2.03 ppm per year, and a 84% decline would be
an annual growth of 0.48 ppm per year.
One factor is the difference between actual emissions and the growth in the level of CO2.
Annually we emit about 9.6 GtC, which if all of it showed up in the growth would be an increase 4.50 ppm/year, ( based on 1 ppm =2.13GtC)
but the recorded increase for 2021 is 2.38 ppm/year 52% of the actual emission.
From an actual emissions standpoint, (9.6 GtC annually), we would hit zero annual growth at about 5.1 GtC.
So if they want to get emissions down to 84% it would be 84% of the difference between 5.1GtC and 9.6 GtC, or about 5.82 GtC.
This number is within reach if we start looking at our actual energy problem instead of thinking of this as a climate problem.
Its pretty idiotic since the average temp of the world rises more than 1.5C during summertime, yet mass extinction events dont occur whenever it happens. Only idiots believe the IPCC, and there are plenty of them around.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
38,870
Reaction score
13,414
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You call them alarmist and make absolutely no argument that contradicts what they say, lol
So, go on, tell us how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, because that is a prerequisite
to saying what the future warming will be based on CO2 emissions?
 

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,803
Reaction score
24,862
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Its pretty idiotic since the average temp of the world rises more than 1.5C during summertime, yet mass extinction events dont occur whenever it happens. Only idiots believe the IPCC, and there are plenty of them around.
Yes, everyone knows the globe gets warmer in the summer.

And animals and plants haven’t evolved to handle seasons, obviously.


🙄
 

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
1,330
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
IPCC: Window to avert catastrophic climate change is quickly closing

It seems the climate alarmist are the ones who are denying the science.
If the imagined 1.5°C target exists, then how sensitive the climate is to added CO2 is a large factor in when it would be reached.
Let's put some numbers on the articles percentages.
Perhaps the first question is what is the current level of emissions.
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Under Growth, we see that annual CO2 growth peaked at 3.03 ppm per year in 2016, and has been smaller every year since.
So is the current level of growth the peak at 3.03 ppm/yr, or 2021's value of 2.38 ppm/yr, because 2.38 ppm/year is already 21% lower than 3.03 ppm/yr.
A 43% decline from the peak growth of 3.03 ppm per year, would be growth of 2.03 ppm per year, and a 84% decline would be
an annual growth of 0.48 ppm per year.
One factor is the difference between actual emissions and the growth in the level of CO2.
Annually we emit about 9.6 GtC, which if all of it showed up in the growth would be an increase 4.50 ppm/year, ( based on 1 ppm =2.13GtC)
but the recorded increase for 2021 is 2.38 ppm/year 52% of the actual emission.
From an actual emissions standpoint, (9.6 GtC annually), we would hit zero annual growth at about 5.1 GtC.
So if they want to get emissions down to 84% it would be 84% of the difference between 5.1GtC and 9.6 GtC, or about 5.82 GtC.
This number is within reach if we start looking at our actual energy problem instead of thinking of this as a climate problem.
Under Growth, we see that annual CO2 growth peaked at
.03 ppm per year in 2016, and has been smaller every year since.

Do you really want to hang your hat on a 5 year time span?
Have you looked at the entire Mauna Loa record?
And if you did, did you notice that there's quite a lot of variability?
To wit, spikes in the rate in 1973, 1988, 1998 and 2016.

If you plot out the annual Mauna Loa data and extrapolate the
2nd order polynomial (Quadradic) out to 2100 you get just short
of 700 ppm CO2.

If you extrapolate the rate it comes to a little over 5 ppm per year
The acceleration is ~0.025 ppm/year²

My favorite James Hansen quote says that all things remaining
equal, doubling CO2 should run up global temperature by ~1.2K
Reasonable people agree with that.

Jesus of Nazareth said among other things:
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and unto God the things that are God's"


In other words, if the climate alarmists say something factual
then they say something factual. Don't try to knock it down
with bullshit.

A reasonable response to 700 ppm CO2 by 2100 is, "So What?"

There are all kinds of studies that show that it's been higher
than that before by a wide margin - and we are still here!

H20 + CO2 and Sunshine = Oxygen and simple sugar. = Life on Earth
And ask the farmers and they will say warmer weather with more rain
is a good thing.

I agree that we have an energy issue and not a climate issue.
But abundant fossil fuel will not end on some Tuesday afternoon
without notice. Fossil fuels will slowly increase in cost before
that happens, but, yes, by all means vigorously pursue alternatives.

But capping the gas wells and sealing them with concrete is
monumentally stupid. LINK
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
3,083
Reaction score
3,314
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
IPCC: Window to avert catastrophic climate change is quickly closing

It seems the climate alarmist are the ones who are denying the science.
If the imagined 1.5°C target exists, then how sensitive the climate is to added CO2 is a large factor in when it would be reached.
Let's put some numbers on the articles percentages.
Perhaps the first question is what is the current level of emissions.
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Under Growth, we see that annual CO2 growth peaked at 3.03 ppm per year in 2016, and has been smaller every year since.
So is the current level of growth the peak at 3.03 ppm/yr, or 2021's value of 2.38 ppm/yr, because 2.38 ppm/year is already 21% lower than 3.03 ppm/yr.
A 43% decline from the peak growth of 3.03 ppm per year, would be growth of 2.03 ppm per year, and a 84% decline would be
an annual growth of 0.48 ppm per year.
One factor is the difference between actual emissions and the growth in the level of CO2.
Annually we emit about 9.6 GtC, which if all of it showed up in the growth would be an increase 4.50 ppm/year, ( based on 1 ppm =2.13GtC)
but the recorded increase for 2021 is 2.38 ppm/year 52% of the actual emission.
From an actual emissions standpoint, (9.6 GtC annually), we would hit zero annual growth at about 5.1 GtC.
So if they want to get emissions down to 84% it would be 84% of the difference between 5.1GtC and 9.6 GtC, or about 5.82 GtC.
This number is within reach if we start looking at our actual energy problem instead of thinking of this as a climate problem.
Another day, another moronic trolling lie from a conservatives, and not even unique. Same stupid shit over and over
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
38,870
Reaction score
13,414
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Under Growth, we see that annual CO2 growth peaked at
.03 ppm per year in 2016, and has been smaller every year since.

Do you really want to hang your hat on a 5 year time span?
Have you looked at the entire Mauna Loa record?
And if you did, did you notice that there's quite a lot of variability?
To wit, spikes in the rate in 1973, 1988, 1998 and 2016.

If you plot out the annual Mauna Loa data and extrapolate the
2nd order polynomial (Quadradic) out to 2100 you get just short
of 700 ppm CO2.

If you extrapolate the rate it comes to a little over 5 ppm per year
The acceleration is ~0.025 ppm/year²

My favorite James Hansen quote says that all things remaining
equal, doubling CO2 should run up global temperature by ~1.2K
Reasonable people agree with that.

Jesus of Nazareth said among other things:
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and unto God the things that are God's"


In other words, if the climate alarmists say something factual
then they say something factual. Don't try to knock it down
with bullshit.

A reasonable response to 700 ppm CO2 by 2100 is, "So What?"

There are all kinds of studies that show that it's been higher
than that before by a wide margin - and we are still here!

H20 + CO2 and Sunshine = Oxygen and simple sugar. = Life on Earth
And ask the farmers and they will say warmer weather with more rain
is a good thing.

I agree that we have an energy issue and not a climate issue.
But abundant fossil fuel will not end on some Tuesday afternoon
without notice. Fossil fuels will slowly increase in cost before
that happens, but, yes, by all means vigorously pursue alternatives.

But capping the gas wells and sealing them with concrete is
monumentally stupid. LINK
I am saying that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is by no means certain.
Also the environment is picking up about half of all the carbon we emit.
We have an almost perfect solution to our energy problem, solar energy stored as transport fuels,
yet there seems to be great resistance to even suggesting the idea.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
38,870
Reaction score
13,414
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Another day, another moronic trolling lie from a conservatives, and not even unique. Same stupid shit over and over
So can you point out anything I said that is factually incorrect?
 

Schism

Destroyer of Propaganda
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
14,232
Reaction score
7,573
Location
Eugene, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm hoping that dinosaurs and monsters from the deep are unfrozen and attack Tokyo.
 

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
28,931
Reaction score
22,501
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, everyone knows the globe gets warmer in the summer.

And animals and plants haven’t evolved to handle seasons, obviously.


🙄
And yet the climate cultists insist that a 2 degree change in temperatures means we're all gonna die LMAO! :ROFLMAO:
 

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,466
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Its pretty idiotic since the average temp of the world rises more than 1.5C during summertime, yet mass extinction events dont occur whenever it happens. Only idiots believe the IPCC, and there are plenty of them around.

Additionally, if that temperature rise did NOT occur, there would be worldwide famine fallowed by pestilence and plagues of all descriptions.

So... There's that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,803
Reaction score
24,862
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And yet the climate cultists insist that a 2 degree change in temperatures means we're all gonna die LMAO! :ROFLMAO:
The real thing that makes me LMAO is that you think the globe gets warmer in the summer.

Thats one of the more impressive self owns in this section of DP, and thats saying something.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,769
Reaction score
10,795
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
28,931
Reaction score
22,501
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The real thing that makes me LMAO is that you think the globe gets warmer in the summer.

Thats one of the more impressive self owns in this section of DP, and thats saying something.
LOL what it proves is that you and your ilk thinks that any kind of temp change means global warming, even during summer. Keep up the silly logic. :ROFLMAO:


Contrary to popular belief, scientists are not, in fact, idiots.

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/why-15-degrees-danger-line-global-warming
LOL what a moronic blog that proves nothing. Well done on showing just how stupid climate alarmists are. 😅
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,769
Reaction score
10,795
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
LOL what it proves is that you and your ilk thinks that any kind of temp change means global warming, even during summer. Keep up the silly logic. :ROFLMAO:

LOL what a moronic blog that proves nothing. Well done on showing just how stupid climate alarmists are. 😅
Refuted by LOLs and emoticons. Nicely done.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
38,870
Reaction score
13,414
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Contrary to popular belief, scientists are not, in fact, idiots.

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/why-15-degrees-danger-line-global-warming
There has to be some distinction between what is published in scientific peer reviewed literature,
and what is published in unregulated blogs.
The facts are that in the last 122 years the average temperature has increased.
The IPCC says 1.07C, but of that ~.25 C is considered from natural causes, and perhaps another .18 is from
the reduction is aerosols in the Northern Hemisphere. leaving roughly 0.64C from the increase in greenhouse gasses(mostly CO2).
What this means is that the contribution from added CO2 is right in line with the expected forcing, and the feedbacks
that exists mostly cancel each other out.
Additional research into the lag between emission and maximum warming, show that maximum
warming from any emission happens in about a decade.
If all we can expect from a doubling of the CO2 level is 1.1C of warming,
then the 1.5C threshold is much further away than is thought.
Consider the raw equations, If 2XCO2 would produce 3C of final warming, then the multiplier would be
3C/ln(2) = 4.33, but if the actual 2XCO2 warming is 1.1 C, then the multiplier becomes 1.1/ln(2)=1.59.
so what CO2 level would we have to reach to increase 0.43C above the current level.
If the 2XCO2 sensitivity is 3C then CO2 levels would need to be at about 458 ppm for us to cross the 1.5C threshold.
But if the 2XCO2 sensitivity is only 1.1C then the CO2 level would need to be about 820 ppm.
Herein lies the problem, the only thing that says the sensitivities are high (3C) are computer simulations,
the actual instrument data that shows how much we have warmed, also shows a much lower sensitivity.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,806
Reaction score
14,963
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Another day, another moronic trolling lie from a conservatives, and not even unique. Same stupid shit over and over
Did you understand a word he said or is this your typical all-purpose conservative-slam?
 

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,803
Reaction score
24,862
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LOL what it proves is that you and your ilk thinks that any kind of temp change means global warming, even during summer. Keep up the silly logic. :ROFLMAO:
Yes, somehow the guy who thinks the globe isnt in summer all at the same time is the one with the silly logic.

Man. What an epic self own.
 

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
1,330
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There has to be some distinction between what is published in scientific peer reviewed literature,
and what is published in unregulated blogs.
The facts are that in the last 122 years the average temperature has increased.
The IPCC says 1.07C, but of that ~.25 C is considered from natural causes, and perhaps another .18 is from
the reduction is aerosols in the Northern Hemisphere. leaving roughly 0.64C from the increase in greenhouse gasses(mostly CO2).
What this means is that the contribution from added CO2 is right in line with the expected forcing, and the feedbacks
that exists mostly cancel each other out.
Additional research into the lag between emission and maximum warming, show that maximum
warming from any emission happens in about a decade.
If all we can expect from a doubling of the CO2 level is 1.1C of warming,
then the 1.5C threshold is much further away than is thought.
Consider the raw equations, If 2XCO2 would produce 3C of final warming, then the multiplier would be
3C/ln(2) = 4.33, but if the actual 2XCO2 warming is 1.1 C, then the multiplier becomes 1.1/ln(2)=1.59.
so what CO2 level would we have to reach to increase 0.43C above the current level.
If the 2XCO2 sensitivity is 3C then CO2 levels would need to be at about 458 ppm for us to cross the 1.5C threshold.
But if the 2XCO2 sensitivity is only 1.1C then the CO2 level would need to be about 820 ppm.
Herein lies the problem, the only thing that says the sensitivities are high (3C) are computer simulations,
the actual instrument data that shows how much we have warmed, also shows a much lower sensitivity.
You wrote:

"If all we can expect from a doubling of the CO2 level is 1.1C of warming,
then the 1.5C threshold is much further away than is thought."

"If the 2XCO2 sensitivity is 3C then CO2 levels would need to be at about
458 ppm for us to cross the 1.5C threshold
."

A quick search on "1.5C threshold" turns up:

"The 2015 Paris Agreement commits countries to limit the global average
temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to
aim for 1.5°C. Scientists have said crossing the 1.5°C threshold risks
unleashing far more severe climate change effects on people, wildlife
and ecosystems."


From your post it sounds like you have bought into the notion that crossing
the so-called "1.5°C threshold" will actually unleash "severe climate change
effects on people, wildlife and ecosystems
."

The IPCC pulled the "1.5°C threshold" out of their ass.

I wrote earlier in an earlier post:

"In other words, if the climate alarmists say something factual then
they say something factual. Don't try to knock it down with bullshit."

I should have added:

If the climate alarmists say something that is not factual then vigorously
point out that it's bullshit and why.

Kissing up to the climate crusade is not a winning strategy.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
38,870
Reaction score
13,414
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You wrote:

"If all we can expect from a doubling of the CO2 level is 1.1C of warming,
then the 1.5C threshold is much further away than is thought."

"If the 2XCO2 sensitivity is 3C then CO2 levels would need to be at about
458 ppm for us to cross the 1.5C threshold
."

A quick search on "1.5C threshold" turns up:

"The 2015 Paris Agreement commits countries to limit the global average
temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to
aim for 1.5°C. Scientists have said crossing the 1.5°C threshold risks
unleashing far more severe climate change effects on people, wildlife
and ecosystems."


From your post it sounds like you have bought into the notion that crossing
the so-called "1.5°C threshold" will actually unleash "severe climate change
effects on people, wildlife and ecosystems
."

The IPCC pulled the "1.5°C threshold" out of their ass.

I wrote earlier in an earlier post:

"In other words, if the climate alarmists say something factual then
they say something factual. Don't try to knock it down with bullshit."

I should have added:

If the climate alarmists say something that is not factual then vigorously
point out that it's bullshit and why.

Kissing up to the climate crusade is not a winning strategy.
I know the 1.5°C is a made up number, but even that number is unlikely when the observed sensitivity is considered.
The IPCC's temperature of 1.07°C was the 2020 single year temperature for Hadcrut4, 2021 was at .96°C,
and the decade average was 0.97°C. It all adds up to hype stacked on more hype, without a foundation to rest on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,466
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Contrary to popular belief, scientists are not, in fact, idiots.

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/why-15-degrees-danger-line-global-warming

Probably true in general. I am pretty sure though, that there are some scientists who are, in various areas of of consideration, idiots. It seems to be true of any other general group of people.

That's not the question, though, is it.

Taking the most famous scientific debate of our age, we can examine science and how it is/was used.

In the debate on whether or not smoking tobacco contributed to respiratory ills and to people dying from lung cancer, scientists were arguing on BOTH sides of the debate.

Politicians and proponents were producing propaganda supporting BOTH sides of the debate.

When the debate was decided in favor of those that argued that smoking cigarettes was both addictive and hurtful to people, what were the outcome results IN THE REAL WORLD?

Cigarettes were not outlawed. They are still sold in the US, still cause addiction among people and still cause, or at the least play a role in causing, sickness and death.

But they create and maintain a revenue stream from which the lying thieves steal.

Political debates use science, but the debates themselves avoid science unless it leads to money that can be stolen by the lying thieves.
 

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
28,931
Reaction score
22,501
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, somehow the guy who thinks the globe isnt in summer all at the same time is the one with the silly logic.

Man. What an epic self own.
Yup, youre the guy who thinks a 1.5C change in temp means everyone dies! You definitely pwned yourself. :ROFLMAO:

Refuted by LOLs and emoticons. Nicely done.

Emoticons > your blog links
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,769
Reaction score
10,795
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Probably true in general. I am pretty sure though, that there are some scientists who are, in various areas of of consideration, idiots. It seems to be true of any other general group of people.

That's not the question, though, is it.

Taking the most famous scientific debate of our age, we can examine science and how it is/was used.

In the debate on whether or not smoking tobacco contributed to respiratory ills and to people dying from lung cancer, scientists were arguing on BOTH sides of the debate.

Politicians and proponents were producing propaganda supporting BOTH sides of the debate.

When the debate was decided in favor of those that argued that smoking cigarettes was both addictive and hurtful to people, what were the outcome results IN THE REAL WORLD?

Cigarettes were not outlawed. They are still sold in the US, still cause addiction among people and still cause, or at the least play a role in causing, sickness and death.

But they create and maintain a revenue stream from which the lying thieves steal.

Political debates use science, but the debates themselves avoid science unless it leads to money that can be stolen by the lying thieves.
Science is not opinion. It doesn't have "sides" that people take. It is evidence based, peer-reviewed, testable theories. When two scientists disagree about what the evidence is showing them, one or both of them are wrong. When most scientists agree and a few disagree, those who disagree are the most likely to be wrong. The notion that human caused climate change is in question is not an opinion. It is a theory that is all but a proven fact. A small minority of self-professed scientists who disagree are examples of statistical outliers. For a layman to assume that the vast majority of professional scientists are idiots who are all in on a giant conspiracy to defraud humanity, and that the tiny minority who come to the same conclusion that they do are the only smart scientists out there, that layman is inadvertently showing who the real idiot is.
 
Top Bottom