Posted on 08/25/2020 6:41:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Why won't journalists ask scientists, educators, entertainers, and other Democrats serious queries based on their policy proposals connected to climate change, since those people describe themselves as smart and want to get rid of oil as an energy source based on so-called scientific data?
I would love to see Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Al Gore, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joe Biden, and Dick Durbin attempt to answer this one question: can you provide any scientific data that show a direct correlation between oil use and temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity for the last 150 years? Hint: There is none.
Oil use has risen exponentially from almost zero to around 100 million barrels per day since the late 1800s.
Meanwhile, temperatures may have risen one to two degrees and that would be normal after a little ice age ended around 1850. Temperatures have also declined for lengthy periods during the 150 years, so much so that the "smart" people of science predicted a coming ice age in the 1970s.
Sea levels have risen a minuscule estimate of less than one foot, out of an average depth of around 30,000 feet, as if you could measure it that close. Sea levels have also risen and fallen throughout billions of years of history.
Storm activity is also cyclical and natural, as it always has been. We have had massive droughts and severe floods throughout billions of years, long before oil and humans. That is why we have deserts and oceans covering so much of the Earth not because of oil or humans.
The reason supposed journalists declare that the science is settled and refuse to ask questions is because the "smart" people would get their clock cleaned in a debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
This question will never be asked by the Press. They are not looking for truth; they are complicit in subverting the United States of America. They will tell any lie, distort any truth, smear ANYONE— they will do ANYTHING that will help their cause.
there is no such a thing as a fossil fuel
The party of science, are they? They hardly care about the reality of biology.
If you can tell me which end of the snake is the DNC and which is the MSM, I’ll be sure to ask the right end.
Correct. The earth produces oil.
YOU PUMPED IT OUT OF THE GROUND!!!
Joe, how many square feet of solar cells and of windmill blades will we need to replace carbon containing fuels?
I accept their premise and demand to know how decaying plant and animal material is not completely organic.(?)
RE: Why is it bad to spill crude oil on the ground?
Because it is insightly and dirty/greasy to us humans?
I’m totally in favor of eliminating carbon fuel consumption inside the Washington Beltway.
“there is no such a thing as a fossil fuel”
Might be exploitable depending on how “fossil fuel” is defined in U.S Code.
And when will SOMEONE point out that there are just as many SCIENTISTS who agree with our point of view on everything? Whenever a Lefty says ‘I go with Science’ I want to puke. There are probably MORE scientists who disagree with the Dems, but don’t want to lose their jobs or be cancelled.
Up is down. Black is White, Right is wrong.
Just like bee keeping. Its a dirty job. You cant get the honey unless you get a little sticky. And maybe even stung a few times.
Every spring, one can drive up I-95 and see trees turning green around Richmond, bare trees around Fredericksburg and trees turning green as you speed towards DC.
The effect of CO2 production is mainly local.
Both the press and the “party of science” are almost totally illiterate when it comes to the REAL interactions that control things like climate, the effects of carbon dioxide on all other life processes, and the very real wealth that is created by conversion of these “fossil fuels” to useful energy on a huge and widespread scale.
But even greater than this selective and willful ignorance on fossil fuels, the unyielding resistance to the application of known principles of nuclear energy to produce plentiful and incredibly CHEAP electrical energy, through Thorium fueled Molten Salt reactors, which is of an entirely different order than older Uranium fueled Light Water reactors, is part and parcel of their drive to push the world back into pre-Industrial Revolution levels, before the harnessing of water power to run mills and looms caused an explosion of economic growth.
If they’re so scientific, ask them how is it humans can be anything other than male or female?
We used to drill for oil on my Dad’s farm in NW PA. We’d hit salt water, use a bulldozer to dig a hole in the ground. We’d pump the salt water out, into the hole. Years later, I’d hunt the hole and get 30-40 frogs out for family picnic use. Now days you have to contract with a tanker company to haul off the saltwater so they dump it in the Allegheny river.
From the excerpt: “Sea levels have risen ... less than one foot, out of an average depth of around 30,000 feet.”
The most recent estimate of the average ocean depth, calculated in 2010, is 3.6km (12,080 feet), according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
If the writer can’t get such an elementary fact right, how reliable is the rest of the piece?
Science says High Rise structures or cities in general are more dangerous in a pandemic. So is mass transit. I know I worship science, what should be the result?
DK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.