Sure they are and even more as the paychecks at the research company will show
Ignore that the models have failed yet act like they are correct. Ignore the collusion that has occurred by the promoters. Ignore the predictions that have failed already. But give control to central bureaucracies with no accountability... yep sounds like a sane plan.
If you want to whine 'for the children' then consider that what you will not be leaving them is a free society.
Of course there is climate change that is a constant. The original term was global warming and prior to that it was global cooling. Yes the climate scare mongers claim that that was a single article and not hype but I remember the hype as a small kid so it was not a single passing article. The difference is that time it did not work.
As to the 'science' I have an easy test. Have the models contain no data nor assumptions prior to 1990. Then predict the weather of the 2000-2010 time with accuracy. They are claiming they can do that for the future with their models so they ought able to pass such a simple validation. Now do it for 2 other 10 year periods in during the 1900's
No way they pass because the models are not as good as they claim
Good question and while you might not like the answer:
If you live as the bible is preached (not as some preachers unfortunately do) you will wind up with a nice life. In other words it works.
If you live among a large percentage of people who practice biblical teaching then your neighbors will seldom cause you grief and frequently be helpful. In other words it works.
So for me if the theory fits reality then you accept it until something better comes along or it gets improved. Most of the 'man made' replacements (if not all) like communism have resulted in massive grief. Those that think government should be scientific frequently create centrally planned economies which are inefficient or deadly.
But like I said you probably won't like the answer.
When the first protest resulted in destruction of property you lose the ability to claim peaceful. Being forceful with the police and taunting them does nothing to change that perception or to create the perception that it was a tiny rogue minority. Sorry but these people came with the intent of being annoying and disruptive and then complain when they get treated like they are annoying and disruptive.
However, they must not be used to prosecute or investigate any crime or attempted crime other than serious assault, murder, and rape.
It should not be used to fine people for littering or even peeing.
Yet it WILL be used for that and a ton of other things. Self control and self regulation is not something the government does even moderately well.
If there is only one provider of the service, it does not matter if it is government or a private company. If you must use them or not fly it will always be "tough shit".
In a sense you are correct but in my town there are three cities of size within two hours. If one was significantly better that is not to far IMO. Guess what I am not alone. Two have Southwest flights so I know people willing to drive. I also know our airport lowered prices since they were so out of wack in comparison.
So if what was known to feel up little kids how many parents would not drive 2 hours? If one had lines an hour long that is immediately half the drive. Oh and unlike when the TSA runs things if the screener reaches in and molests you the government is a recourse not the cause.
When climate scientists say is often used to justify restricting in various ways things that most people either rely on or enjoy.
I challenge you to present me one published paper where a climate scientist tells me what I can and can't do. Or even where they merely suggest restrictions of what a person can do. All the papers I read say things to effect of "In X years, the northern ice cap could recede to Y size" or "Greenhouses gases have contributed to a rise in temperatures." What you want to do with that information is up to you. It's not the place of scientists to call for political or even international policy on carbon credits or cap and trade or whatever you want to do to control this problem. So why do the scientists get attacked? Attack the politicians and say "I'm okay with fucking up the Earth for my children because I want the freedom to buy a Hummer that gets 8 miles to the gallon." Use your voice and stand up for yourself, don't attack the scientists. They aren't setting the policies, they're just telling you what is happening. What's that? That sentence makes you sound like an idiot? Well, go ahead and attack the scientists then but be warned you've got an awful lot of targets.
So the un paper was calling for action was signed by unicorns? Oh wait nope, it was scientists calling for political action.
As to telling you what is happening that is also crap since anyone that disputes it is attacked (like this guy did) with innuendo rather than facts. That is the whole problem with Global Warming, there is no discussion or dispute allowed. Now they have even changed the name to Climate Change (when is it NOT changing) to avoid the fact the predictions have failed.
I can. The best way to honor your father would be to go and treat people like he recommended. Work hard and be someone he would have been proud of. And become and added honor to the family name. Of course this applies to all of us. Very few of his offspring have come close.
Wow that was rated informative. Based on what?
Fact is that we have a history of predictions on rising temperatures and sea levels that have been wrong. The fact is that the predictions are so poor that instead of Global Warming it is now called 'climate change' which could mean anything including cooling. And guess what the climate is ALWAYS changing and always has been.
So if you mean informative in that you trotted out demons that progressives fear then OK as long as you don't mean that some new information was conveyed.
Are you sure they are not our enemies? Why would it not be in the interest of North Korea or China to either fund or encourage these groups?
While I agree the intro did not reflect the article many responses act as if they have succeeded which is also not true. As of now they are burning investor and government money in search of profit. They might get there or they might not. But acting like they have failed is wrong but so is acting like they have succeeded based on an announced product and no history of profit is also wrong. There is a lot of 'green' technology that is cost effective and despite the desires of some the technologies that are not cost effective will fail no matter the 'green' factor. The only temporary exception is something that is mandated and even that will expire after causing damage to the economy.
As someone that lives in the south I can tell you that if it is to warm then there are no tornadoes here. It takes warm with a rapid drop in temperature among other things. While the one day was like nothing I have seen in 20+ years of living here the rest of the season was actually pretty light. If you read up on people that know most of the increase in tornadoes has been due to improved detection and yes more people since they are seen where as before it was in the middle of nowhere at times.
Global climate change has ALWAYS been happening thus the name change from global warming so they can prey on the gullible by screaming the sky is falling send me money or give me control.
The logic of that is stunning. Rather than the government do its job of regulating it will be in charge of disbursing funds. Cannot you not see the bureaucracy that will ensue. The added inefficiency that government inherently has will reduce author payment. The politics of who gets paid and when. And the list goes on.
Currently the market has multiple choices. I agree they vary and DRM sucks but you can choose and most systems allow you to inject other means such as PDF files (I currently add magazine subscriptions to my iPad that come as PDF) It is not perfect but why do you think the government monopoly will be? It seems to fail in most of its attempts.
Obviously since she is a conservative she is a moron unlike the genius that hunts Man Bear Pig. You could try to judge people based upon their actions rather than the group you place them in but that would mean you have to drop your bigotry. If you think she is dumb (as she came across in this instance) then you should tag HER for it rather than a whole group.