• In 1989, the UN warned that we only had ten years to save the Earth from global warming. What happened?

    Best answer: Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. • Adolf Hitler “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” • William Casey... show more
    Best answer: Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions.

    Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
    • Adolf Hitler


    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
    • William Casey  CIA Director 1981


    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
    • H. L. Mencken
    26 answers · 2 days ago
  • Climate Change Hoax. Trumps says it is a Hoax . is climate change a Hoax?
  • Why do Republicans act like the leading council of Krypton and ignore Scientific consensus on global Warming acting as if it's unimportant?

    I don't want to die due to their foolishness. Like Jor-El the scientific community of Earth is very sure that digging up resources from the Earth's core and then burning it causes tremendous harm to the planet's ecosystem and the atmosphere, the Climate is getting hotter and weather is in extreme flux,... show more
    I don't want to die due to their foolishness. Like Jor-El the scientific community of Earth is very sure that digging up resources from the Earth's core and then burning it causes tremendous harm to the planet's ecosystem and the atmosphere, the Climate is getting hotter and weather is in extreme flux, becoming more dangerous, with higher likely hoods of floods, storms, hurricanes and earthquakes(due to fracking) Yet non-educated politicians ignore their warnings, label them alarmist and stick their heads in the sand. If superman's Origin story is not a prediction of why it is BAD to put politics over the populace, I don't know what it is. Republicans are also full of right wing nuts who believe that the Earth is flat, and hence NASA and space research is a waste. I have never seen such strong parallels between reality and fiction. Learn from Krypton, don't blow up Earth, it won't be you who gets to be superman.
    14 answers · 23 hours ago
  • Is North Korea really going to nuke Australia?

    NK just threaten to strike Australia here's the news link, http://www.mygc.com.au/north-korea-threa...
    NK just threaten to strike Australia here's the news link, http://www.mygc.com.au/north-korea-threa...
    8 answers · 2 hours ago
  • If liberal Ideas are so great , Why are colleges so scared to let conservative speakers speak ?

    What are you worried about ?
    What are you worried about ?
    22 answers · 3 days ago
  • Should MBA schools teach students to focus on global warming and not profits?

    Surely students can figure out for themselves that profits = revenue minus expenses? http://theconversation.com/us-business-s...
    Surely students can figure out for themselves that profits = revenue minus expenses? http://theconversation.com/us-business-s...
    11 answers · 1 day ago
  • I think I have the best solution for solving global warming. What do you think?

    I am thinking of running for president because I feel like I have the best solution. I am quite surprised how nobody suggested this, but bare with me. Let's think about science first. When a person exhales, they exhale CO2. Clearly this is problematic because we have too much CO2. Furthermore, we have too much... show more
    I am thinking of running for president because I feel like I have the best solution. I am quite surprised how nobody suggested this, but bare with me. Let's think about science first. When a person exhales, they exhale CO2. Clearly this is problematic because we have too much CO2. Furthermore, we have too much useless people in section 8 housing that are breeding like rabbits. Not only that, but they consume more resources and how do resources get to their local stores? Consumption of natural resources. The rate of that increases. Therefore, and I am sorry if this sounds inhumane, but I honestly believe the best solution is rounding up these useless people who are uneducated, problematic, and burdening to society to be rounded up in death camps and killed. I believe this is the optimal solution to climate change and I really want to run for president to end climate change. I do not deny climate change because it is a fact and I truly believe we need to use my method to solve it ASAP. True, we can always use alternative resources, but these useless beings are still exhaling CO2, thus contributing unnecessary CO2. So killing them off will be the optimal solution and that is what all scientists in the world agree with. What are your thoughts on my policies?
    7 answers · 5 hours ago
  • March for "science" or march for lefty causes?

    The march was supposed to be “nonpartisan,” but it was sponsored by lefty Tom Steyer' NextGen Climate America http://www.latimes.com/science/scienceno...
    The march was supposed to be “nonpartisan,” but it was sponsored by lefty Tom Steyer' NextGen Climate America http://www.latimes.com/science/scienceno...
    7 answers · 5 hours ago
  • Is the Ozone still healing?

    11 answers · 2 days ago
  • Is Trump behind the scam?

    Best answer: No. Science funding doesn't actually work in the way some skeptics here seem to think it does. Science is highly specialised. So, let's suppose I'm a climatologist. My specific area of research, let's imagine, is in examining carbon isotope ratios in fossilized leaves which, I hope, will give me a... show more
    Best answer: No.

    Science funding doesn't actually work in the way some skeptics here seem to think it does. Science is highly specialised. So, let's suppose I'm a climatologist. My specific area of research, let's imagine, is in examining carbon isotope ratios in fossilized leaves which, I hope, will give me a proxy measurement of CO2 levels over the past 400 million years. I write a funding proposal where I outline what I want to study, why I want to study it, what it might add to the scientific understanding, how much cash I'll need, and what I'm going to spend the money on. A funding agency reads the proposal and then decides how much to give me or whether to fund me at all. Nowhere in the funding proposal do I state my conclusions *before* I've done the research.

    So, the point is, this idea that people are being funded to study 'global warming' is clap-trap. It's much more specific than that. Also, since nowhere do I have to conclude anything before doing the research, there's nothing to stop me drawing a conclusion that the funding agency may not like. The fact that I draw a conclusion they don't like doesn't impact my future funding because funding agencies bring on academics to examine the proposals, and there's no guarantee I'll get the same academics next time. The funding I do get doesn't go to me personally. It goes to the institution I work for and doesn't top up my personal salary. If I work in a university, I get paid irrespective of the funding so there's no financial benefit to me personally. This is part of the reason we invented tenure - it meant that academics could study whatever they wanted and would be paid irrespective of whether governments or outside parties disagreed with their conclusions and wanted them silenced.

    There's also the small matter of the fact that scientists are taxpayers too. Why would scientists deliberately want to raise their taxes to combat global warming if, as some skeptics claim, that would be the outcome? Thousands of people lying to us so they can take home LESS pay? I find that hard to believe.

    The simple fact is that most US citizens accept global warming is caused by humans. The figure is 52%. About 48% of US citizens agree that the planet is warming, but question how much is human-related. Only a tiny minority think global warming isn't happening, and a minority think humans have absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Trump simply represents the view of that minority but he'll flip-flop on the issue like he has done on just about everything else so far. He's done a complete u-turn on Syria. He's doing a complete u-turn on North Korea. He's backed off from the 'wall' saying it's not just a physical wall. He's completely u-turned on the security services and praises them after berating them previously.

    What he thinks on climate change is anyone's guess.
    29 answers · 6 days ago
  • Why do scientists say after 25 it's all down hill?

    Another's question. My comment was all scientists do is take temperatures so why would you take them serious. My answer was refused as being posted twice & 2nd. time it said I answered it, yet Yahoo refused to post my answer. Mike
    Another's question. My comment was all scientists do is take temperatures so why would you take them serious. My answer was refused as being posted twice & 2nd. time it said I answered it, yet Yahoo refused to post my answer. Mike
    7 answers · 3 days ago
  • Hmm..how is it climate change denier heads the EPA?

    Best answer: Unfortunately, politics, not science, determines who leads the EPA.
    Best answer: Unfortunately, politics, not science, determines who leads the EPA.
    7 answers · 1 day ago