[Newsbot]

Title: Alberta ministers booed as they discuss climate-change plan with rural leaders
Category: Provincial Politics
Posted By: Alta_redneck
Date: 2016-11-17 18:36:07
Canadian

[uwish]

"Hoffman said it�s necessary to address climate change because the science behind it is real and there are serious health concerns tied to burning coal."

There is no real science behind climate anything, when do we get to send these ass clowns packing? 2.8 years?

[Lemmy]

o

[BartSimpson]

uwish uwish:

"Hoffman said it�s necessary to address climate change because the science behind it is real..."

No, the 'science' is based upon polling the consensus opinions of scientists who all agree with global warming alarmism without ever testing the science behind it. The polling data that says that global warming is real also says that the UK stayed in the EU and that Hillary Clinton is the next President of the USA.

uwish uwish:

"...and there are serious health concerns tied to burning coal."

This much is true and I do not have any qualms with reasonable measures to improve air quality while still making energy affordable to as many people as practicable.

uwish uwish:

There is no real science behind climate anything, when do we get to send these ass clowns packing? 2.8 years?

It isn't about science, it's about political agendas.

I say that because the same 'solutions' to global warming are also the same solutions that the left trots out for every human condition:

* End Western Civilization
* End industrial enterprise in the Western countries (it's okay everywhere else)
* End individual freedom
* Eugenics
* Euthanasia
* Global socialist government

These are their solutions to EVERYTHING and it has NOTHING to do with science.

Nothing at all.

[PluggyRug]

Climate science applied to weather forecasting.....

[BartSimpson]

[andyt]

Climate Science of the deniers who don't understand the difference between weather and climate:
"I don't see no global warming."

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

uwish uwish:

There is no real science behind climate anything

Real scientists (people who are actual physicists, chemists and the like) disagree with you. So who should lay folks like me listen to? You or all of them?

I find it fascinating that somebody who claims to have a personal relationship with professor of economics and world renowned skeptic Ross McKitrick doesn't know a basic fact like there are all kinds of scientists of any description you can think of in the skeptic community. He's connected to them.

As to the whole "climate consensus" idea - that's deceptive. First of all the claim "97% of scientists agree" is a false claim. The Cook paper was disclaimed by multiple actual scientists, and even if it wasn't, it doesn't say what you would like to imply it does.

Basically the story goes like this. If the claim is "Climate changes" - of course it does and you get a better consensus than 97% on that one.

If the claim is humans have a significant impact the consensus lessens, but you still have a majority agreement although it can pare off even more depending on what you mean by "significant."

However, once you start talking about a fast approaching climate apocalypse caused by fossil fuel use any claim of majority agreement is over. At that point the claim of scientific consensus in particular is bogus nonsense. Show me the peer-reviewed paper that supports such a scientific consensus. You can't. It doesn't exist.

There does however seem to be consensus amongst the regressive left that globalist controls are necessary to prevent their imagined Warmageddon.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

Climate Science of the deniers who don't understand the difference between weather and climate:
"I don't see no global warming."

My God, you're dim. Go back and pay attention to what he actually said.

He showed a joke graphic and told you that was what weather forecasting would look like if they operated the way climate forecasters do.

How does your moronic comment make the joke irrelevant?

Weather forecasting is required to show a result that's noticeably more or less accurate more than not. Climate forecasts are nothing more than uncheckable guesses so broad they're irrelevant. That's the point. The point is how they differ, not that they don't.