Forest fires are a hoax because lightning causes fires, and fire fighters live off government funding, and drive on taxpayer funded public highways, and they have a vested interest in pretending that the so-called science endorsed by every so-called science academy and supported by nearly every so-called Nobel laureate, and every so-called academically free so-called university, and every so-called science textbook, shows that the planet is warming. Which it isn't because it is cooling because it snows in winter and Al Gore is overweight and flies a Leerjet contributing 0.00002% to CO2 emissions which contribute to .02% of global warming which is fake because temperatures drove CO2 during the ice ages which are a myth because the bible doesn't mention them and JimZ doesn't understand them, and jello is anathema to Vegans and Pagans and Reagan.
As a true scientist, I hate politics of any type. Politics is counterproductive to advancement, in most cases. I can honestly say that if I would have buckled down to politics, your life would not be as well off as it is in many aspects.
Linny, "And yet, it's politics that decides whether, and what, we do, or do not do, about global warming."
Yes and that is unfortunate. In the political world, the science is settled. In the real world of science there is no proof of Global Warming and never will be.
In politics there is nothing but empty promises, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor," or, "This plan won't cost you one dime more, " or, "Just give up your light bulb and we can solve Global Warming."
Whereas the Wright Bros., neither who had a high school diploma, did what was considered by many scientists and politicians as folly. Who was right, the exact scientists Wilbur and Orville or the politicians? Think about it Linny.
Politicians love scares. If the populous is scared they look to their leaders for help. If the people never look to their leaders then eventually they would work out that they were redundant.
Communism was a big scare in the US. We heard of "Reds under the bed". Senator McCarthy made himself quite famous. How many American lives were lost fighting the Communists in far off lands?
A climate scare story was just as useful to them. It is also useful to the media and the insurance companies. Entrepreneurs have also found it beneficial: wind turbines, solar energy, bio-fuels etc.
If the scare does prove to be not a scare the current beneficiaries will just change tack and follow the new bandwagon (he said mixing his metaphors). Everyone will blame the scientists. The scientists will just say look very carefully at what we actually said. It is not our fault if you misinterpreted it. The people, on the other hand, will wonder how they lost so much money trying to avert a non-existent problem.
I am always surprised how in the US people's views are so heavily biased by their politics. It is as if when Americans sign up to a particular party they get given a set of beliefs to which they must adhere.
Since I do not hold to any one political party, not that much.
Generally speaking, I most identify with the libertarian party. Their view is dependent upon the libertarian. The best view I heard suggested that damages caused by CO2 be identified in court and that the amount paid for damages be relative to the amount of CO2 produced.
Their stance was simply that the oil companies have done no research on the long-term effects of CO2 in the environment and would thus be liable for any damages. Further, they contend that the US-based companies is only responsible for 25% of the damage, so the other 75% be collected by tariffs based upon CO2-production.
I agree with their assessment. This really speaks to the burden of proof that is upon the AGW crowd. Skepticism about AGW being catastrophic is supposed to be the default position, yet warmers are more than happy to pretend that a little (0.8 degree over 100 year) warming necessarily means the end of the world as they belittle skeptics with the label "denier".
BTW,
This is how the US system was designed. Further, it would institute the very carbon tax that you warmers want to see. BUT, unlike the idiocy of your plans, the amount paid would actually go to the victims, IF you can actually identify victims.
Also, It should be noted that I do not believe you need to be a US citizen to have a redress of greivances. The Constitution did NOT place the limitation of citizenship. So I would think that other people of other countries would have the ability to sue US-based corporations for wrongs. In which case the US companies would be liable for 25% of the damages determined in court.
Edit:
Note that in this, politic does not influence science and science does not inluence politics. Whether or not I believe in AGW, makes no difference. IFFF AGW has a case in which they are able to meet the burden of proof, then my view is unimportant.
As a result of my participation here, I do seem to be moving towards the left; as a group, the right are clearly not interested in science. Many seem to believe the free market can overcome everything, even the laws of physics! It's no wonder that there are no "young earth creationist" AGW proponents!
With apologies to the genuine conservatives who do understand and accept the scientific basis for AGW. It's not you I have in mind.
You could argue that your understanding of sciences may influence your vote, as some parties are more inclined to follow science than others (e.g. in Australia the current government is quite anti-environment, has axed the minister for science role, and more. So personally I couldn't vote for them because of my understanding of the importance of the environment and science for the well-being of Australia). However, next election depending on their policies and those of the opposition I may vote differently.
Science came first, then politics grabbed it as a way to make money for either side. I didn't vote for either osama or the other guy.
Man came before woman ... so maybe the chicken came before the egg ??
science / politics are animals of a driffent color , if you mix them the color comes out gray. You can not take out from a man what he is , but he can fool others to think that he's what he can never be.
Neither. I vote personally. I hate Labour that much I will never vote for them no matter what either party says.
Neither I am greatly interested in science, and check for science news daily.
I hate politics, I cannot see any sense or reason in any of the political ideaologies, politics is full of lying, corruption, propaganda, deceit and totally devoid of commonsense and critical thinking.
Or neither.
Jello "If you believe, (in global warming) there's a better chance you voted for Obama.."
So which can first, the chic... I mean, the science or the politics?
