Watch this video, it's Bill Nye arguing with a meteorologist about climate change. I love how the meteorologist against climate change is allowed graphics to pop up on screen (some of which dont make sense) and Bill Nye is allowed cardboard slides like a fifth grade book report.
I'm mostly glad that Bill Nye makes the point that I've been thinking for awhile. The world is warming, that's fairly established, whose best interest is in mind by disproving it?
Are global warming skeptics proposing it is not a good thing to limit carbon emissions? Or to do our best to create green energy? I mean whether there is global warming or not, I don't think anyone out there thinks wasteful energy and carbon emissions are a GOOD thing. Do they?
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/29170397/bill-nye-in-no-spin-zone.htm#q=bill+nye
3 comments:
Nope, no one would disagree. So why is there a big rush to get it done? Why are there so many scare stories? Why do we need cap&trade? Why must we give away trillions of dollars to underdeveloped nations and stablish new UN IPCC offices in each country to control it? What will we want from these countries in exchange for the free cash? Will they use the money for solar panels or for guns? The list of questions goes on and on. And the questions are far beyond the mere science of climate. They have to do with controlling less developed nations in exchnage for billions of free cash. Do we really want to go there, well the UN IPCC says we do, to save the world.
This is why the skeptics are vocal. This is what is really at stake. So we ask, if this is really where we want to go, controlling underdeveloped nations in exchange for money, then prove your theory; And this is where the science gets all wishy-washy.
And besides, the skeptics are not doing anything to disprove AGW. Remember, it's the climate alarmists who are making all of the claims of future disaster. It is up to the alarmists to support the claims thay are making. So far they have done a poor job of it. The skeptics are not making any claims so they have nothing to prove. It is easier to be a skeptic than a Believer.
So in whose best interest is it? OURS and YOURS.
Ahhhh yes, I'd have to agree with you that just throwing money at people is not the solution, and that the global warming skeptics have been far louder than the advocates.
Global Warming believers need to be more vocal and persuasive.
I would say though, that if the skeptics are really worried about wasteful, poorly monitored spending, I would address that rather than trying to disprove the theory all together.
I do tend to be somewhat of an idealist, and do like everyone working together towards a cause, addressing the concerns along the way. I just tend to think that debating whether there really is a car speeding directly towards you isn't as beneficial as debating what the proper actions are to get out of the way.
Post a Comment