Trump

[Brookie1973]

The lefts own Bill Maher telling it like it is. Absolutely spot on.

 

[h27272727]

The lefts own Bill Maher telling it like it is. Absolutely spot on.

I agree most on the left (amongst US citizens) tend to be pro-Palestine. Not so much the politicians.

I suppose that besides political leaders - who themselves all tend to carry differing opinions on topics - there's no actual spokesperson for the left. Bill Maher has expressed similar views for a while now, so what I can take from that is that Bill Maher thinks wxy on topic z.

I must've touched on this a fair few times before but as fun as it may be politics is not sport. There should be no 'winning', 'losing', just as the thoughts or actions of one person should not be conflated with the thoughts of his 'team'. Like with same sex / trans / abortion, people have different views for a variety of reasons; religious (incl. rapture theory), cultural, political, social and even economical.

Economical is a huge factor in US politics (that text is hyperlinked to a page with full details). From the 2024 election cycle, the American Israel Public Affairs Cmte (AIPAC) was the 18th largest contributor (out of 40,455). They pay / contribute to 135 house democrats and 200 house republicans. $24 million was given to democrat house politicians (avg $178,000 each), while $18 million went to the republicans ($90,000 each). What's amazing is that back in 2016, the average AIPAC contribution to house members was $1160 and $500, respectively. Devil is in the details. Money aside the US has been aggressively pro-Israel since about the 1960's - politics aside.

In the 2024 cycle, I suspect the reason the 135 democrat house politicians received significantly more (on average) is because Israel likely feel it costs more to buy their opinions on this topic. It has been turned into a political issue with Trump aligning with Netenyahu and increasing US involvement/responsibility for the events taking place over there.

The large shift in US citizen perspectives on the Israel/Palestine conflict has only occurred recently in spite of Israel efforts to control the narrative. A big factor for this is that the genocide is essentially being 'livestreamed' by Palestinian reporters (many since murdered) and civilians.

The reason western countries such as Australia, the UK, France etc have begun standing against the carte blanche US position is because the US has lost almost all of its credibility and soft power under Trump. Without the same level of political influence and propaganda, non-US countries aren't so ideologically challenged when confronted with indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

As for Bill Maher's thoughts, well I think they're in poor taste.
First of all, Bill Maher's comments demonstrate a classic case of whataboutism to try discredit the situation in Palestine. Second of all, even if the conversation got defelcted onto the Nigerian case, the death rate and US culpability is substantially lower when compared to the genocide in Gaza.

As a starter, Israel isn't even letting foreign reporters into Gaza.

Without anyone being able to actually investigate the extent of destruction, people currently can only estimate the amount of civilian deaths in Gaza. The currently discussed count of direct deaths from bombing, shooting etc. is 66,000. One thing's for sure is that they aren't in a positiion to clear up the rubble and count every death. Famine will soon pay its toll as well.

From the Journal of the British Medical Association: "In recent conflicts, … indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths.". The below is from an article which documents the estimates of researchers that applied this rule of thumb to the current death count, as well as their own estimates of the death count:

Using that same very conservative multiple of four indirect deaths to every direct death, the current death toll now in Gaza would be at least 252,000.​

​

Ralph Nader estimated that by June last year the Palestinian death toll was at least 200,000. “The undercount is staggering,” said Nader, …. “The US and Israel want a low number. Instead of themselves estimating — which they don’t want to do — they cling to Hamas’ [figures], and Hamas doesn’t want a realistic number because they don’t want to be seen as unable to protect their own people. So, they developed these criteria: to be counted, the dead must first be certified by hospitals and morgues [which barely exist]. “ The whole thing is one death camp now. It’s easily 200,000 deaths in Gaza,” wrote Joshua Frank.​

​

Adam Rzepka, a researcher at Montclair State University and a co-founder of Montclair States Chapter of the Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine commented:​

​

“The minimum scientifically plausible number of traumatic deaths only — immediate deaths from bullets, bombs, and demolished buildings — in the Gaza genocide is currently more than 115,000.​

​

“The minimum scientifically plausible number of deaths attributable to the genocide overall is more than 460,000.​

 

[Brookie1973]

I agree most on the left (amongst US citizens) tend to be pro-Palestine. Not so much the politicians.

I suppose that besides political leaders - who themselves all tend to carry differing opinions on topics - there's no actual spokesperson for the left. Bill Maher has expressed similar views for a while now, so what I can take from that is that Bill Maher thinks wxy on topic z.

I must've touched on this a fair few times before but as fun as it may be politics is not sport. There should be no 'winning', 'losing', just as the thoughts or actions of one person should not be conflated with the thoughts of his 'team'. Like with same sex / trans / abortion, people have different views for a variety of reasons; religious, cultural, political, social and even economical.

Economical is a huge factor in US politics (that text is hyperlinked to a page with full details). From the 2024 election cycle, the American Israel Public Affairs Cmte (AIPAC) is the 18th largest contributor (out of 40,455). They pay / contribute to 135 house democrats and 200 house republicans. $24 million was given to democrat house politicians (avg $178,000 each), while $18 million went to the republicans ($90,000 each). What's amazing is that back in 2016, the average AIPAC contribution to house members was $1160 and $500, respectively. Devil is in the details. money aside the US has been aggressively pro-Israel since about the 1960's.

In the 2024 cycle, I suspect the reason the 135 democrat house politicians received significantly more (on average) is because Israel likely feel it costs more to buy their opinions on this topic.

The large shift in US citizen perspectives on the Israel/Palestine conflict has only occurred recently in spite of Israel efforts to control the narrative. A big factor for this is that the genocide is essentially being 'livestreamed' by Palestinian reporters (many since murdered) and civilians.

The reason western countries such as Australia, the UK, France etc have begun standing against the carte blanche US position is because the US has lost almost all of its credibility and soft power under Trump. Without the same level of political influence and propaganda, non-US countries aren't so ideologically challenged when confronted with indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

As for Bill Maher's thoughts, well I think they're in poor taste.
First of all, Bill Maher's comments demonstrate a classic case of whataboutism to try discredit the situation in Palestine. Second of all, even if the conversation got defelcted onto the Nigerian case, the death rate and US culpability is substantially lower when compared to the genocide in Gaza.

As a starter, Israel isn't even letting foreign reporters into Gaza.

Without anyone being able to actually investigate the extent of destruction, people currently can only estimate the amount of civilian deaths in Gaza. The currently discussed count of direct deaths from bombing, shooting etc. is 66,000. One thing's for sure is that they aren't in a positiion to clear up the rubble and count every death.

From the Journal of the British Medical Association: "In recent conflicts, … indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths.". The below is from an article which documents the estimates of researchers that applied this rule of thumb to the current death count, as well as their own estimates of the death count:

Using that same very conservative multiple of four indirect deaths to every direct death, the current death toll now in Gaza would be at least 252,000.​

​

Ralph Nader estimated that by June last year the Palestinian death toll was at least 200,000. “The undercount is staggering,” said Nader, …. “The US and Israel want a low number. Instead of themselves estimating — which they don’t want to do — they cling to Hamas’ [figures], and Hamas doesn’t want a realistic number because they don’t want to be seen as unable to protect their own people. So, they developed these criteria: to be counted, the dead must first be certified by hospitals and morgues [which barely exist]. “ The whole thing is one death camp now. It’s easily 200,000 deaths in Gaza,” wrote Joshua Frank.​

​

Adam Rzepka, a researcher at Montclair State University and a co-founder of Montclair States Chapter of the Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine commented:​

​

“The minimum scientifically plausible number of traumatic deaths only — immediate deaths from bullets, bombs, and demolished buildings — in the Gaza genocide is currently more than 115,000.​

​

“The minimum scientifically plausible number of deaths attributable to the genocide overall is more than 460,000.​

I think you missed the point. Maher is saying the democrats have been captured by the extremist of the far left, to the point where all democrats must agree with every loopy idea/position these people take. They have no moderate voice, hence no one in their right mind would vote them into government (unless of course you hate your country).

 

[h27272727]

I think you missed the point. Maher is saying the democrats have been captured by the extremist of the far left, to the point where all democrats must agree with every loopy idea/position these people take. They have no moderate voice, hence no one in their right mind would vote them into government (unless of course you hate your country).

Oh whoops. I literally just stumbled on a clip of Bill Maher before you posted that and thought that clip was the same.

Ironically, he still managed to peddle pro-Israeli content in both videos (despite yours not even being explicitly about Palestine). In my view that is fairly telling alone.

In my video he used whataboutism to try say Israel's genocide isn't relevant. In yours - despite trying to act like a middle-man / mediator - he still manages to describe the stance of opposing genocide as 'welcoming the intifada', associates it with 'crazy' and concludes that 'we're not doing it'.

And that's the bottom line, because Bill Maher said so.

In all of Bill Maher's commentary there, he basically just says that 'crazy' is when people aren't being cancelled when they disagree with Bill Maher's views. My point still stands. Republican politicians and aligned media saying 'far left extremist' time and time again does not make it true. Given his pattern of trying to undermine pro-Palestine momentum, I imagine he happily aligns with right wing media's 'radical left extremist' rhetoric that they've been peddling for years. Im all for peaceful methods, but the problem is that the perception of extremism is all motivated rhetoric being pushed 24/7 in online right-wing communities, through plenty of US media.

My last post I feel is still on a more important topic and is worth a watch (I just skipped the parts of the guy's commentary, so can just skim through to see the actual Bill Maher parts).

Edit* didn't find the original video i was referencing, but it's at the end of this knob's video. In the interests of your sanity i'd skip past his racist, hate-fueled, problematic commentary. He is a symbol of everything that's wrong with online right-wing influencers during this MAGA period.

Also, another video emphasising how heavily Maher is driven by pro-Israel motives.

 

[47MVEagle]

 

[Brookie1973]

Oh whoops. I literally just stumbled on a clip of Bill Maher before you posted that and thought that clip was the same.

Ironically, he still managed to peddle pro-Israeli content in both videos (despite yours not even being explicitly about Palestine). In my view that is fairly telling alone.

In my video he used whataboutism to try say Israel's genocide isn't relevant. In yours - despite trying to act like a middle-man / mediator - he still manages to describe the stance of opposing genocide as 'welcoming the intifada', associates it with 'crazy' and concludes that 'we're not doing it'.

And that's the bottom line, because Bill Maher said so.

In all of Bill Maher's commentary there, he basically just says that 'crazy' is when people aren't being cancelled when they disagree with Bill Maher's views. My point still stands. Republican politicians and aligned media saying 'far left extremist' time and time again does not make it true. Given his pattern of trying to undermine pro-Palestine momentum, I imagine he happily aligns with right wing media's 'radical left extremist' rhetoric that they've been peddling for years. Im all for peaceful methods, but the problem is that the perception of extremism is all motivated rhetoric being pushed 24/7 in online right-wing communities, through plenty of US media.

My last post I feel is still on a more important topic and is worth a watch (I just skipped the parts of the guy's commentary, so can just skim through to see the actual Bill Maher parts).

Edit* didn't find the original video i was referencing, but it's at the end of this knob's video. In the interests of your sanity i'd skip past his racist, hate-fueled, problematic commentary. He is a symbol of everything that's wrong with online right-wing influencers during this MAGA period.

Also, another video emphasising how heavily Maher is driven by pro-Israel motives.

Instead of cherry-picking, why don’t you list which of the examples quoted by Bill you do not consider extreme?
And FYI, the “intifada” line was a direct reference to a banner being held up at a pro Palestine rally in the clip, so any association between those two causes is entirely of the left’s making.

 

[h27272727]

Interesting

Science used to be about constantly questioning things. Now questioning is discouraged. Tells you all you need to know. Here is a top geologist saying;

1. Climate change (recent CO2 increase) is real, but not man made.
2. History indicates a natural cycle of CO2 rises and falls
3. Historical evidence indicates warming precedes CO2 increases, not the cause of it.
4. Current levels of CO2 nowhere near historical peaks.
5. The planet flourished under historical CO2 peaks.
6. Reducing CO2 may actually be more harmful than increasing it.

I’m not a geologist, so I can’t say whether he is right or wrong. But the problem today is that we are told we must accept the science, yet here is a scientist not willing to accept it. Debate should be encouraged, not prohibited.

OK, but lets first assess the most important aspect here: 'top geologist says"

It's in the video's title, sure, but who is this guy? Gregg Braden

Qualifications: Degree in computer science from Missouri University
University rank amongst US national universities: #102

Trump voting in Missouri: approx 60% in last three elections (possible political motives)

Self proclaimed as someone who wants to 'bridge science and religion' (despite a dichotomous relationship), Other theories of Gregg Braden include:

1. evolution theory not real
2. human emotions affect DNA
3. collective prayer can heal the body
4. 2012 Mayan calendar apocalypse theory with the mechanism being a magnetic pole reversal (real phenomena, but has happened 183 times in 83 million years (NASA))
5. free energy devices (fundamental laws of thermodynamics already suggest otherwise...)

Do I need to go further...?
If I was ordering through the drive-thru window i'd order a scientific establishment over a crackpot.

If someone wants to discredit the scientific establishment, the first step is reading mainstream research papers and textbooks. Then establishing their own hypothesis and determining an infalliable testing procedure (ie. one that will reliably disprove or prove their prediction regardless of potential bias). IF the findings are substantial then the verification stages can begin to prove the findings.

And that's been occurring since science began. Ideas change when the evidence is there. Unlike most, the scientific establishment knows perfect understanding isn't possible.

Until the scientific process is attempted, 'alternate' ideas fall under the category of being conspiracy theories and rightfully so. Gregg Braden hasn't broken the code, nor do I think he even really cares to try. Collects $ anyways without having to do the work.

 

[Brookie1973]

OK, but lets first assess the most important aspect here: 'top geologist says"

It's in the video's title, sure, but who is this guy? Gregg Braden

Qualifications: Degree in computer science from Missouri University
University rank amongst US national universities: #102

Trump voting in Missouri: approx 60% in last three elections

Self proclaimed he wants 'bridge science and religion' (despite a dichotomous relationship), Other theories of Gregg Braden include:

1. evolution theory not real
2. human emotions affect DNA
3. collective prayer can heal the body
4. 2012 Mayan calendar apocalypse theory with the mechanism being a magnetic pole reversal (real phenomena, but has happened 183 times in 83 million years (NASA))
5. free energy devices (fundamental laws of thermodynamics already suggest otherwise...)

Do I need to go further...?
If I was ordering through the drive-thru window i'd order a scientific establishment over a crackpot.

If you want to discredit the scientific establishment, the first step is reading mainstream research papers and textbooks. Then establishing your own hypothesis and determining an infalliable testing procedure (ie. one that will reliably disprove or prove your prediction regardless of potential bias). IF the findings are substantial then the verification stages can begin to prove phenomena. Until that process is attempted, 'alternate' ideas fall under the category of being conspiracy theories.

I thought that would be the approach you would take. Does he need to live in a Democrat state to have any validity?

 

[h27272727]

I thought that would be the approach you would take. Does he need to live in a Democrat state to have any validity?

I just finished editing my post but clarified at the end. He hasn't actually engaged in the scientific process. He has an idea (hypothesis), looks at some data (computer science) and ends up circling back to the same hypothesis.

Forming a hypothesis is step one in the scientific process. But the only important parts are the testing methodology, results and subsequent conclusions.

 

[h27272727]

Instead of cherry-picking, why don’t you list which of the examples quoted by Bill you do not consider extreme?
And FYI, the “intifada” line was a direct reference to a banner being held up at a pro Palestine rally in the clip, so any association between those two causes is entirely of the left’s making.

Correct my wording was poor on the intifada comment.

definition for context: "Globalize the intifada is an anti-Zionist slogan used by some pro-Palestinian activists to advocate for international support for Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation"

I was meant to point out that he was associating 'globalise the intifada' with being some invasive force in the US (i.e. "not on my lawn!" vibes).

I don't feel I cherry picked, nor did I say his opinions were extreme.

The part I found extreme was that he was labelling people as 'crazy' / discrediting them for simply not agreeing with him. He may view those topics as black and white, but others don't. Hence why Bill Maher isn't a voice for anyone.

 

[Brookie1973]

I just finished editing my post but clarified at the end. He hasn't actually engaged in the scientific process. He has an idea (hypothesis), looks at some data (computer science) and ends up circling back to the same hypothesis.

Forming a hypothesis is step one in the scientific process. But the only important parts are the testing methodology, results and subsequent conclusions.

Which proves my point. We are continually told the “science is settled” which sounds like a disincentive for anyone to question it. On the contrary, there are massive incentives the other way.

 

[Eagle 1]

I agree most on the left (amongst US citizens) tend to be pro-Palestine. Not so much the politicians.

I suppose that besides political leaders - who themselves all tend to carry differing opinions on topics - there's no actual spokesperson for the left. Bill Maher has expressed similar views for a while now, so what I can take from that is that Bill Maher thinks wxy on topic z.

I must've touched on this a fair few times before but as fun as it may be politics is not sport. There should be no 'winning', 'losing', just as the thoughts or actions of one person should not be conflated with the thoughts of his 'team'. Like with same sex / trans / abortion, people have different views for a variety of reasons; religious (incl. rapture theory), cultural, political, social and even economical.

Economical is a huge factor in US politics (that text is hyperlinked to a page with full details). From the 2024 election cycle, the American Israel Public Affairs Cmte (AIPAC) was the 18th largest contributor (out of 40,455). They pay / contribute to 135 house democrats and 200 house republicans. $24 million was given to democrat house politicians (avg $178,000 each), while $18 million went to the republicans ($90,000 each). What's amazing is that back in 2016, the average AIPAC contribution to house members was $1160 and $500, respectively. Devil is in the details. Money aside the US has been aggressively pro-Israel since about the 1960's - politics aside.

In the 2024 cycle, I suspect the reason the 135 democrat house politicians received significantly more (on average) is because Israel likely feel it costs more to buy their opinions on this topic. It has been turned into a political issue with Trump aligning with Netenyahu and increasing US involvement/responsibility for the events taking place over there.

The large shift in US citizen perspectives on the Israel/Palestine conflict has only occurred recently in spite of Israel efforts to control the narrative. A big factor for this is that the genocide is essentially being 'livestreamed' by Palestinian reporters (many since murdered) and civilians.

The reason western countries such as Australia, the UK, France etc have begun standing against the carte blanche US position is because the US has lost almost all of its credibility and soft power under Trump. Without the same level of political influence and propaganda, non-US countries aren't so ideologically challenged when confronted with indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

As for Bill Maher's thoughts, well I think they're in poor taste.
First of all, Bill Maher's comments demonstrate a classic case of whataboutism to try discredit the situation in Palestine. Second of all, even if the conversation got defelcted onto the Nigerian case, the death rate and US culpability is substantially lower when compared to the genocide in Gaza.

As a starter, Israel isn't even letting foreign reporters into Gaza.

Without anyone being able to actually investigate the extent of destruction, people currently can only estimate the amount of civilian deaths in Gaza. The currently discussed count of direct deaths from bombing, shooting etc. is 66,000. One thing's for sure is that they aren't in a positiion to clear up the rubble and count every death. Famine will soon pay its toll as well.

From the Journal of the British Medical Association: "In recent conflicts, … indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths.". The below is from an article which documents the estimates of researchers that applied this rule of thumb to the current death count, as well as their own estimates of the death count:

Using that same very conservative multiple of four indirect deaths to every direct death, the current death toll now in Gaza would be at least 252,000.​

​

Ralph Nader estimated that by June last year the Palestinian death toll was at least 200,000. “The undercount is staggering,” said Nader, …. “The US and Israel want a low number. Instead of themselves estimating — which they don’t want to do — they cling to Hamas’ [figures], and Hamas doesn’t want a realistic number because they don’t want to be seen as unable to protect their own hopeople. So, they developed these criteria: to be counted, the dead must first be certified by hospitals and morgues [which barely exist]. “ The whole thing is one death camp now. It’s easily 200,000 deaths in Gaza,” wrote Joshua Frank.​

​

Adam Rzepka, a researcher at Montclair State University and a co-founder of Montclair States Chapter of the Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine commented:​

​

“The minimum scientifically plausible number of traumatic deaths only — immediate deaths from bullets, bombs, and demolished buildings — in the Gaza genocide is currently more than 115,000.​

​

“The minimum scientifically plausible number of deaths attributable to the genocide overall is more than 460,000.​

Holy moly, reading your posts is like reading War and Peace. I've literally forgotten what the first 2 paragraphs are all about. Maybe just compartmentalise the topics, as it's way to much to answer in one go

 

[Brookie1973]

Correct my wording was poor on the intifada comment.

definition for context: "Globalize the intifada is an anti-Zionist slogan used by some pro-Palestinian activists to advocate for international support for Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation"

I was meant to point out that he was associating 'globalise the intifada' with being some invasive force in the US (i.e. "not on my lawn!" vibes).

I don't feel I cherry picked, nor did I say his opinions were extreme.

The part I found extreme was that he was labelling people as 'crazy' / discrediting them for simply not agreeing with him. He may view those topics as black and white, but others don't. Hence why Bill Maher isn't a voice for anyone.

I think you are still missing the point. You have cherry picked Palestine as the sole issue he was talking about, when in fact he provided a laundry list of extreme leftist positions that conservatives have rejected, whilst no so-called moderate democrats have done likewise.

The fact you are trying to smear an actual leftist for daring to question any part of the extreme leftist ideology is telling in and of itself.

 

[h27272727]

Which proves my point. We are continually told the “science is settled” which sounds like a disincentive for anyone to question it. On the contrary, there are massive incentives the other way.

God dammit I keep editing my posts and your response beats me to it!! Added a bit to my last one too...

Anyways, what I mean by 'follow the scientific process' is that if you have an idea then the onus is on you to prove it. Otherwise it lives and dies as an idea.

The Tacoma narrows suspension bridge collapsed in 1940 despite having only moderate winds. Stiffness theories at the time suggested the bridge was safe, although it was - and still is - one of the most slender bridges constructed.

After its collapse, people had their own theories - which really meant nothing until being tested (i.e.. they couldn't guarantee all future bridge designs would be safe from failing by the same mechanism).

Testing began. Finally, testing through the use of wind tunnels on a 1:200 scale model indicated that the bridge collapsed due to aerodynamic effects. Further research and testing ensued, concluding that the slender suspension bridge failed due to phenomena now known as aeroelastic flutter.

Previously, aerodynamic effects were seldom considered in engineering design calculations or testing of static structures.

Due to scientific testing and validation, aerodynamic effects are now accounted for in standards governing the design of bridges and buildings to prevent a repeat of the 1940 collapse.

While climate change is a different topic; the moral is the same. If you have a theory that goes against current knowledge, then you have a chance to further scientific understanding and put your name in the history books. But you also need to prove it via a repeatable, verifiable testing procedure, otherwise it's just an opinion piece.

 

[h27272727]

Holy moly, reading your posts is like reading War and Peace. I've literally forgotten what the first 2 paragraphs are all about. Maybe just compartmentalise the topics, as it's way to much to answer in one go

Definitely need to cut it back. I'm essentially spamming out mini blog posts in a social media era. People probably go 'oh god here's that guy again' when I resurface...

The pattern is that I tend to get all my ideas out in one go then burn out and stop thinking about it for a week or two

That comment in particular would've been hard to follow because I was replying to him thinking that he included a completely different video of Bill Maher.

 

[Brookie1973]

God dammit I keep editing my posts and your response beats me to it!! Added a bit to my last one too...

Anyways, what I mean by 'follow the scientific process' is that if you have an idea then the onus is on you to prove it. Otherwise it lives and dies as an idea.

The Tacoma narrows suspension bridge collapsed in 1940 despite having only moderate winds. Stiffness theories at the time suggested the bridge was safe, although it was - and still is - one of the most slender bridges constructed.

After its collapse, people had their own theories - which really meant nothing until being tested (i.e.. they couldn't guarantee all future bridge designs would be safe from failing by the same mechanism).

Testing began. Finally, testing through the use of wind tunnels on a 1:200 scale model indicated that the bridge collapsed due to aerodynamic effects. Further research and testing ensued, concluding that the slender suspension bridge failed due to phenomena now known as aeroelastic flutter.

Previously, aerodynamic effects were seldom considered in engineering design calculations or testing of static structures.

Due to scientific testing and validation, aerodynamic effects are now accounted for in standards governing the design of bridges and buildings to prevent a repeat of the 1940 collapse.

While climate change is a different topic; the moral is the same. If you have a theory that goes against current knowledge, then you have a chance to further scientific understanding and put your name in the history books. But you also need to prove it via a repeatable, verifiable testing procedure, otherwise it's just an opinion piece.

Yes, but my point is that anyone who dares question “the science” these days is treated like a 13th century heretic. Do you seriously believe any scientific or educational body would happily provide a grant to someone looking to test the veracity of the accepted climate science? Science has become close minded, captured by mega dollars and political orthodoxy.

It’s lucky the science about the impending ice age wasn’t settled in the 1970s, otherwise we would have spent the past 50 years pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we could. Come to think of it, maybe that’s why China is still opening two new coal fired power stations every week.

If science wasn’t so close minded, perhaps there would be more questioning as to why every climate Armageddon scenario has not come to pass.