View Single Post
Old 12-26-2018, 12:37 PM   #4303 (permalink)
aerohead
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 12,946
Thanks: 20,748
Thanked 6,331 Times in 3,928 Posts
haven't/even mentioning

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
So we can't believe IPCC then, since they have a biased opinion.

It sounds like if someone agrees with the held belief, then it's unbiased and credible, and if they disagree with the held belief, then they are biased and uncredible.

Research that results in data saying everything is fine gets no funding. Proclaiming apocalypse gets all the funding and results in a belief system.

Some research claims that global warming has been a net benefit at least until now, and possibly until 2080. Certainly it's been a net benefit since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, and since the little ice age 500 years ago.

Even mentioning this is heresy in the AGW religion.

It's absolutely pointless to propose a course of action regarding climate change without also considering the benefits of warming. Most people who are fearful of GW have never even Googled "benefits of global warming" because they aren't interested in a narrative that goes against the one they have decided to believe.

Acknowledging the benefits of global warming and also acknowledging the negatives are not mutually exclusive, but people treat them as such. Knowing about one without the other is to only have half the story. 50% is a failing grade.
I continue to look at it nearly every day,and so far,there is very little good to be said for global climate change.Nothing on the planet evolved for it.Nothing can adapt at the speed it is moving.If the mob votes that we go off the cliff,then I must accept that I'll be dragged along with it.There's no escape capsule.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
 
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (12-27-2018)