Repair-It

Some inflammatory counterpoints:

Ok, global warming is fake, so free pass to pollute? That is what will happen because being clean costs money. What is the point of arguing global warming? By winning the argument, you are saying, go ahead companies, pollute without any regulation because the planet isn't getting warmer. How did that become the only factor anybody is concerned about? Have you seen China, they had to shut down for weeks just to host the Olympics. Is the what we want? Even if there is no global warming, looking for alternative fuels and polluting less doesn't seem like the worst bullshit story scheme ever created.

Other benefits of the fake global warming conspiracy: Research in how the planet works and hopefully innovation.
I don't think that research in energy and efficiency is a waste of money. I do see the argument that maybe the amount being allocated is a lot.


Here is another point nobody wants to admit:
Want to reduce pollution, food shortages, fresh water shortages, waste - reduce the planets population.

At the end of the day, since this is a political issue, facts will never actually surface, and money will be wasted on pet projects, but in my opinion, that isn't a good reason to not do research to understand our environment and try to do what we can do to sustain human life on it in the future.

Of course it's not the only factor. IMO it's not even an important factor, nor do I think CO2 should be classified as a pollutant by the EPA. I do think that the US solved a very real smog problem by regulating NOx emissions from over the road vehicles. It's not that I don't believe in pollution, or the environment. I'm just not buying this CO2 BS.

I am not saying that you think it is the only factor.

I am saying that it is totally political now because of the media and congress.

Left/Democrats - Global warming is real and you are going to die so fund our green energy companies
Right/Republicans - Global Warming is fake and the regulations are crippling companies from making money so reject global warming so our constituents can pollute and make more money.


I blame both sides for the stupid argument but I would almost rather fund pet projects(at way less than what they are getting unless something awesome comes out of it) than give companies a free pass. That is what it seems like our options are. Not that the news tells us what is going on. (accurately or unbiased anyway)

I was always annoyed by the use of "consensus." Now it's been articulated.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/09/h ... eputation/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/18/w ... -insanity/

This is why I never took any of these doomsday scenarios seriously. And speaking of doomsday scenarios, remember a few years ago when everyone was talking about $10/gal gas? Or, worse, running completely out of oil? Well guess what, industry and policy (slowly) responds, and gas is cheap, domestic production and exports are way up, natural gas is a huge player. And we haven't even figured out what we're going to do with nuclear.

Science/Truthiness + Alarmism + Government = research/Money/grant

What's worse is not just when scientists do this, but even government organizations. That's right, government organizations (like NASA, FBI, EPA, etc.) all jump on some bandwagon with some alarmist rhetoric, citing some flawed study, and demand more money.