Not “right now.” The US been globalist since at least Dec 7, 1941, since we started invading and overthrowing governments before then, since we helped create the UN, etc.
Even the data back to 1880 is not considered that reliable, which is why NASA GISS includes a very large margin for error. There are entire months of missing data, and no data at all north of latitude 50° prior to 1910.
The tobacco companies had a motive. What’s the motive behind the massive fraud that has the whole world fooled? Is it the all-powerful wind lobby? Egyptian sun worshippers? “Chevron supports the Paris Agreement and is committed to helping to address climate change while continuing to deliver energy that supports society. Climate policy should achieve emissions reductions as efficiently and effectively as possible, at the least cost to economies.” —Chevron.com “We are committed to providing affordable energy to support human progress while advancing effective solutions to address climate change.” —Exxonmobile.com
Science is science. Opinions about science don't make science fact. We call that science fiction.
So true.
Well, I believe that it must be a conspiracy to destroy the United States, particularly since we have no way of turning off even one volcano which emits more CO2 in four days than ALL of humanity has controlled in five years. (Ian Plimer). I can think of no other reason, since CO2 is a vital compound that every plant uses to grow and synthesize into O2, which we all require to breathe.
I'm not aware of any reliable source saying one volcano emits that much in a day. I've seen people bring this up repeatedly in the past, unsourced. Do you have a source? It would disagree with this:
Sooo, can I take it you accept the accepted science on climate and human activity affecting it, and reject the skeptics opinions?
What are you trying to do? Confuse people, or are you confused? I inferred no such thing. I am only saying that opinion about science is not science fact.
I think it is more likely that Camel was very popular among the WWII vets, and a lot of Vets used the GI Bill to go to medical school.
You would first have to define what the accepted science is, before you could make a determination if someone was rejecting it.
Yes indeed, all the nations of the world, plus companies like Exxon and Chevron, out to destroy the US. No doubt Soros and the Illuminati are behind it. They tried first and failed with fluoridation, as brilliantly outlined by Gen. Jack D Ripper in “Dr. Strangelove.”
Not sure, but besides the possibility of cancer, breathing that much carbon monoxide, is rough on your red blood cells ability to carry oxygen.
And I am stating what I believe: that the majority of scientists have looked at scientific evidence and expressed their fact-based conclusions that human activity has affected the climate, that this is problematic, and that we can and should take helpful steps to address it. This scientific evidence has convinced all the nations of the world, and one major US political party and a portion of the other to take action, albeit with different approaches reflecting their respective different philosophies. This is apparently in competition with research by a minority of scientists, plus US political forces that resist the likely government regulation required to address the problem. All of these, including my musings, are opinions about the science and politics as I understand them. What’s yours?
That's not what globalism is.
yaleclimateconnections.org
Excuse me for not buying the narrative, or seeing the same information from them as you think there is.Do you believe that Trump and Republican in Congress also was part of the conspiracy to spread a "false pro-global warming narrative"? Because this report was published by federal agencies under the control of those Republicans in 2018.
"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."
Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings
This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.nca2018.globalchange.gov
There the real reason that the federal report was not stopped was because the evidence for the urgent need for action was overwhelming. Also those who have the most cash are the fossil fuel companies and that is a big reason for why action on climate change have been delayed for so many decades.
"During the 2017-2018 midterm election cycle, corporations, individuals, and trade groups in the fossil fuel industry spent $265,773,915 in lobbying and $93,392,002 in contributions to national-level candidates, parties, and outside groups, bringing the total spending by the industry to more than $359 million in two years. That’s nearly $500,000 per day.
During the same period, renewable energy companies spent $26 million. So for every dollar spent on behalf of wind, solar, or hydroelectric energy interests, approximately $13.70 was spent by fossil fuel interests on energy and climate-related issues.
Those figures do not include all lobbying spending because of complex rules, and the Open Secrets database reflects only money circulating at the federal level, but the same things are at work in state-level offices. For instance, on recent statewide ballot initiatives the oil, gas, and coal industries spent $31 million in Arizona and $30 million in Washington to defeat clean energy measures. And at the same time, fossil fuel companies spend to directly influence the public via the airwaves, mailings, astroturf organizations, and social media campaigns."
Fossil fuel political giving outdistances renewables 13 to one » Yale Climate Connections
During the latest midterm election cycle, the fossil fuel industry paid at least $359 million for federal campaign donations and lobbying.
Which companies would do that and can they compete with the deep pockets of oil companies?
Ok, I’m game. What izzit?
Are you losing your memory? I told you six months ago.
debatepolitics.com