climate change deniers is not really accurate. I am a skeptic.

I am made skeptical because I have read/hear from others with information that made me skeptical.

We are meant to swallow wholesale some things, such as evolution and vaccines, when the issue is more intricate than presented.

Vaccines, I believe the science works well (stimulate immune response). I also believe some ingredients in vaccines (adjuvants) can cause harm to certain people. Terrible, catastrophic harm. The adjuvants issue is also a separate issue from vaccine contamination. Both these two VERY SERIOUS issues are being brushed aside in the race to get people to choose whether vaccines are good or not, black and white. Therefore MANDATORY vaccination is TOTALLY a travesty and infringement on security of a person's own integrity.

If people want to get vaccinated, by all means inject yourself. No "herd immunity" nonsense. If the vaccines work, they should work to protect you. Period. Forcing others to be vaccinated is the same as forcing them to pay taxes to support other people's causes.

On evolution and creation, who really knows. The universe is huge. Evolution as a process makes sense (natural selection). But who's to say how the first creatures were created? There is no proof either way. So it is a theory. As a theory, it should be treated as a theory and not as absolute truth.

Another complicated topic but there are problems regarding your get vaccinated statement. Some people cannot get vaccinated due to various allergies or conditions. Their safety rests on enough of the rest of the population not being transmitters/carriers of the disease.

On your comment about solar activity, this is one of the alternative ideas about climate change that does seem to be a serious science. I too remain skeptical about climate change claims and look at alternatives but overall I think the left is on the right side of this issue with regards to the science (mostly).

people who are more than scientists at heart know that coincidence does not equal causation

People who are scientists don't ignore highly probably information in favor of fringe paid ideas of skeptics (thanks eye for reminding me about that).  I can see the ice caps melting, water rising, more weird weather occurring. Combined with the conclusive data that humans are adding greenhouse gas at pollutants to the air, I decided to make a logical conclusion based on those facts.  In the past large changes happened with volcanic activity or meteors or other events which don't apply in this time.  Many of those big climate swings have not been good for the species living on earth at that time. But hey who knows this is all theories maybe all this change will usher in a 100 years of prosperity like the oil companies are saying. 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

Plant more trees

Most of the conclusions do stand up to scrutiny but we have paid "skeptics" whose job it is to create doubt. They obfuscate, they misrepresent data, they make arguments that sound legit but are not scientific, they imply conspiracy, they do anything to create doubt in the science. They feed those who have a bias or don't like the consequences of the scientific conclusions.  You can see they don't have intentions on finding the truth.

There are objective people who look at and question the science. Sometimes they find flaws and sometimes they confirm the data, but they don't go screaming on TV about Obama, the left wing, solar companies, etc.

The climate change denial group's arguments essentially exist to disprove conclusions that suggest man is changing the climate. That is the first problem of why they really aren't scientific. They aren't doing their own science, they aren't trying to learn anything, they are only trying to disprove conclusions they do not like. That is junk science.

That's quite a string of libelous charges, all without presenting any evidence, scientific or otherwise, just pure totally subjective opinion (which, when other people do it you whine about). What is "the climate change denial group"? Please show us the evidence, which when viewed by any reasonable person having critical thinking skills, would lead to the conclusion that Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever, Will Happer, Judith Curry, Ian Plimer, and Kiminori Itoh are not "scientists" and "not doing science", but are "misrepresenting" and "obfuscating". And please don't divert and backtrack or use your typical excuses attempting to justify your fallacious claims. Just give us specific detailed information that substantiates your libelous claims.

Another complicated topic but there are problems regarding your get vaccinated statement. Some people cannot get vaccinated due to various allergies or conditions. Their safety rests on enough of the rest of the population not being transmitters/carriers of the disease.

On your comment about solar activity, this is one of the alternative ideas about climate change that does seem to be a serious science. I too remain skeptical about climate change claims and look at alternatives but overall I think the left is on the right side of this issue with regards to the science (mostly).

Since when is science a political issue?  Why would a party/side be more "on the right side" of science?

Your own statement shows how Climate Change has been created out of politics, not science.  The Left always uses the "you God-following dummies don't believe in science because you're too stupid" attitude to bully people into blind acceptance without question. 

That's a very dangerous way to push something that should be supported by evidence, not a group affiliated with the Democrat Party.

And if this election should have taught us anything, especially the Left, it's that the Democrats are a bunch of cheating, lying, racist phonies who can't be trusted.

Another complicated topic but there are problems regarding your get vaccinated statement. Some people cannot get vaccinated due to various allergies or conditions. Their safety rests on enough of the rest of the population not being transmitters/carriers of the disease.

You guys are discussing this while ignoring or overlooking my main points.

If some people cannot be vaccinated because there is a detrimental effect to their bodies, including paralysis or death, mandatory vaccination means they too must be vaccinated, causing them injury or death.

The only difference is that these people you mentioned have had the risk factor identified.

What about those who have risk that are not identified?

You are telling them to play Russian Roulette, and pointing a gun at their head if they won't pull the trigger themselves.

Because hidden injury is not easy to see, it is easy to overlook, in your arguments on this. That is typically liberal: simplistic. (Not being insulting, just pointing it out.) Liberal policies have numerous hidden and injurious unintentional consequences, yet most liberals (being retarded; again not insulting you guys, just pointing out the argument is not deep enough) overlook these deeper ramifications.

None of this mandatory stuff is libertarian or American.

On your comment about solar activity, this is one of the alternative ideas about climate change that does seem to be a serious science. I too remain skeptical about climate change claims and look at alternatives but overall I think the left is on the right side of this issue with regards to the science (mostly).

This statement of yours is illogical. You say you are a skeptic, but then you say you are not a skeptic (in a previous message you disparaged climate change "deniers" as following science they want and ignoring science they don't like).

You are either a skeptic or you are a true believer.

Being only 5% skeptical is not the same as being 0% skeptical.

If you are skeptic, that means there are ISSUES with climate change theory, and you yourself admit it now, that it is not an open and shut case.

I can't put a percentage of how much I believe in it. But it is not 100%. That is sufficient to be a skeptic.

By the way, it would help if this Climate Change business (pun intended) did not so happen to make some people super super rich.

But it does.

The whole carbon quota trading scheme is yet another way to earn big bucks by insiders who know how to game the system, because they made the rules.

So, this makes it all even more fishy.

I remember people were talking about Al Gore  preaching climate change and icebergs melting, etc and causing sea levels to rise, and then him going to purchase some fancy house right near the shore.

You guys are discussing this while ignoring or overlooking my main points.

If some people cannot be vaccinated because there is a detrimental effect to their bodies, including paralysis or death, mandatory vaccination means they too must be vaccinated, causing them injury or death.

The only difference is that these people you mentioned have had the risk factor identified.

What about those who have risk that are not identified?

You are telling them to play Russian Roulette, and pointing a gun at their head if they won't pull the trigger themselves.

Because hidden injury is not easy to see, it is easy to overlook, in your arguments on this. That is typically liberal: simplistic. (Not being insulting, just pointing it out.) Liberal policies have numerous hidden and injurious unintentional consequences, yet most liberals (being retarded; again not insulting you guys, just pointing out the argument is not deep enough) overlook these deeper ramifications.

None of this mandatory stuff is libertarian or American.

There are many things we do for the greater good as Americans.  If you got a spreadable disease its your duty to try and not spread it.  If you drink you shouldn't drive. You are a harm to the public. Take smoking,  you are free to smoke all you want but as soon as your smoke might effect the health of others its banned.  Similar to vaccines if you never leave the house and never go outside sure I support your decision to never get vaccinated. You probably have a greater chance of getting shot, hit by a car or some other accident.  I would wager you have a higher chance to get sick from not taking an vaccine vs taking one.  What you are doing is mostly fear mongering.  You can be drafted to protect this great nation from attacks abroad but you refuse to protect from diseases from within?

"Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). GBS is a rare medical condition where a person's immune system attacks the nerves. People who get GBS can sometimes become paralyzed. Most of the time it's temporary and the person gets better.
Scientists don't know exactly what causes GBS, but it can be brought on by infections and occasionally by vaccines. A few people have had GBS after the HPV vaccine. Experts don't know if the shots caused this or if the people would have had GBS anyway and just happened to get the vaccine around the same time."

I give up.

You do not see the precedent this sets.

It hacks away at our libertarian foundations one axe stroke at a time.

That's quite a string of libelous charges, all without presenting any evidence, scientific or otherwise, just pure totally subjective opinion (which, when other people do it you whine about). What is "the climate change denial group"? Please show us the evidence, which when viewed by any reasonable person having critical thinking skills, would lead to the conclusion that Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever, Will Happer, Judith Curry, Ian Plimer, and Kiminori Itoh are not "scientists" and "not doing science", but are "misrepresenting" and "obfuscating". And please don't divert and backtrack or use your typical excuses attempting to justify your fallacious claims. Just give us specific detailed information that substantiates your libelous claims.

Case in point, Patrick Moore, who has his feet in the beginnings of green peace later became a paid spokesperson for a number of companies being accused of environmental damage. On a TV interview he was defending glyphosate (round up) saying you could drink a whole quart of if with no adverse effects. When offered a glass to drink he refused and left the interview.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

There was a documentary about people employed in these types of positions and they basically admitted in their own interviews that they were not scientists and could easily mislead people. It as called "Merchants of Doubt."

Since when is science a political issue?  Why would a party/side be more "on the right side" of science?

I am not saying science is a political issue. What I am saying is that the left seems to be on the right side of science.

Granted it is impossible to fit all beliefs neatly into either left or right politics but in general, those on the left side of the political spectrum seem to be more inline with what the science shows. Republicans rarely seem to pass anything aimed at preserving the environment. The science isn't political, the politicians are when they take sides that go against what the science shows.

I am not saying science is a political issue. What I am saying is that the left seems to be on the right side of science.

Granted it is impossible to fit all beliefs neatly into either left or right politics but in general, those on the left side of the political spectrum seem to be more inline with what the science shows. Republicans rarely seem to pass anything aimed at preserving the environment. The science isn't political, the politicians are when they take sides that go against what the science shows.

That's one way to say it.  Another way would be to say Liberals are more likely to accept "science" that validates their world view, which includes chaining themselves to trees, saving a species of delta smelt in CA while the humans go without enough water to grow food, and paying money to "offset" their carbon use as if that's better than actually REDUCING their carbon use!

It's one thing to be environmentally responsible.  It's something else entirely to expend the resources we need toward a theory that IS NOT PROVEN and MAY NOT BE SOLVED by mere mortals, no matter how much we sacrifice.

You guys are discussing this while ignoring or overlooking my main points.

If some people cannot be vaccinated because there is a detrimental effect to their bodies, including paralysis or death, mandatory vaccination means they too must be vaccinated, causing them injury or death.
The only difference is that these people you mentioned have had the risk factor identified.
What about those who have risk that are not identified?
You are telling them to play Russian Roulette, and pointing a gun at their head if they won't pull the trigger themselves.
Because hidden injury is not easy to see, it is easy to overlook, in your arguments on this. That is typically liberal: simplistic. (Not being insulting, just pointing it out.) Liberal policies have numerous hidden and injurious unintentional consequences, yet most liberals (being retarded; again not insulting you guys, just pointing out the argument is not deep enough) overlook these deeper ramifications.
None of this mandatory stuff is libertarian or American.

I don't think there is any state in this union that has a mandatory vaccination law. I do believe that every state that has a vaccine requirement also has a clause for people to opt out. I am not advocating mandatory vaccination butI am advocating education. My main point in replying was that to point out the fact that there are those who cannot get vaccinated but benefit from others being vaccinated.

This statement of yours is illogical. You say you are a skeptic, but then you say you are not a skeptic (in a previous message you disparaged climate change "deniers" as following science they want and ignoring science they don't like).
You are either a skeptic or you are a true believer.
Being only 5% skeptical is not the same as being 0% skeptical.
If you are skeptic, that means there are ISSUES with climate change theory, and you yourself admit it now, that it is not an open and shut case.
I can't put a percentage of how much I believe in it. But it is not 100%. That is sufficient to be a skeptic.

I wouldn't equate being a denier and being a skeptic, I hope that clears up some confusion.

I try to look at things as objectively as possible irregardless of whether they support my opinions on political issues. True science always allows for any known information to be questioned and potentially disproven. Maybe skeptic has a different nuance to it? Because there is politics in this issue and money I do look at things skeptically. Not because I think them to be conspiracies but because I want to see through biases.

I don't think there is any state in this union that has a mandatory vaccination law. I do believe that every state that has a vaccine requirement also has a clause for people to opt out. I am not advocating mandatory vaccination butI am advocating education. My main point in replying was that to point out the fact that there are those who cannot get vaccinated but benefit from others being vaccinated.

I wouldn't equate being a denier and being a skeptic, I hope that clears up some confusion.

I try to look at things as objectively as possible irregardless of whether they support my opinions on political issues. True science always allows for any known information to be questioned and potentially disproven. Maybe skeptic has a different nuance to it? Because there is politics in this issue and money I do look at things skeptically. Not because I think them to be conspiracies but because I want to see through biases.

Wrong.

http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx

For one example .... Hawaii ....



Children may be exempt from immunization requirements for medical or religious reasons,
if the appropriate documentation is presented to the school. A religious exemption form may
be obtained and completed at the school that your child will attend. Medical exemptions must
be obtained from your child’s doctor (a U.S. licensed physician). No other exemptions are allowed
by the State.


There is no clause for people to opt out simply by choosing not to have their kids vaccinated in Hawaii.  It must be a medical or religious decision with documented evidence.  Some states (CA is one) recently passed laws to do away with these limited exemptions. 

By the way, it would help if this Climate Change business (pun intended) did not so happen to make some people super super rich.

But it does.

The whole carbon quota trading scheme is yet another way to earn big bucks by insiders who know how to game the system, because they made the rules.

So, this makes it all even more fishy.

I remember people were talking about Al Gore  preaching climate change and icebergs melting, etc and causing sea levels to rise, and then him going to purchase some fancy house right near the shore.

That is where things get a little muddy and deniers exploit this.

For starters, there is money on both sides. If "green" businesses (solar, wind, etc) stand to make money by tricking us then you can absolutely expect "dirty" businesses (coal, oil, etc) to trick us as well. Furthermore, if we are to look at the money, I think logic would dictate that the "dirty" businesses have more to gain and more to lose by tricking us. A gigantic industry revolves around these resources and both regulations and reputations stand to make the difference between huge profits and huge losses. So while they both have incentives to lie, I think the oil and coal companies have more.

Second issue I wanted to touch on was that of green businesses getting rich. Consider that some people invest in green business ventures because that is a passion for them. It is a non sequitur to say that they are just doing it to get rich. I started a small business to make and sell woodwork and knives (among other things). I didn't do it because I saw some gold mine waiting to be tapped, I did it because I like those types of crafts. Sure, I make some money but that doesn't mean I am just tricking you all.

The carbon quota was not meant to be a scheme, it was a real attempt at addressing CO2 pollution.Yes it was flawed and could be exploited by those who knew the system but that doesn't mean it was all just some conspiracy to start with. Again, there are people who pushed this because they genuinely believed it, not just because someone could make money doing it.

Wrong.

http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx

For one example .... Hawaii ....

Wrong.
http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements/hawaii.aspx

Quote from the top of the Hawaii page of the website you provided.

Quick Fact: “A religious exemption shall be granted to a student whose parent, custodian, guardian, or other person in loco parentis certifies that the person's religious beliefs prohibit the practice of immunization.  Requests for religious exemptions based on objections to specific immunizing agents will not be granted. Students who have reached the age of majority shall apply on their own behalf.  The certification shall be retained in the student's health record.  Reports of such exemptions shall be submitted to the department by each school.”  Medical exemptions are also allowed.

That's one way to say it.  Another way would be to say Liberals are more likely to accept "science" that validates their world view,...

Maybe it is their world view because that is what science told them?

Is it my world view that the earth is not flat?
Is it my world view that the earth revolves around the sun?

I don't adhere to these beliefs because of some world view, I adhere to them because that is what the science shows.

Wrong.
http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements/hawaii.aspx

Quote from the top of the Hawaii page of the website you provided.

Those are narrow, limited exemptions that require proof of religious or medical reasons.  Simply opting out because you don't want to risk side effects is NOT an option.

Those are narrow, limited exemptions that require proof of religious or medical reasons.  Simply opting out because you don't want to risk side effects is NOT an option.

You can literally say you believe in any religion, you can make one up to get an exemption.  You can write you belong to the religion of xodia5oftheplanetyzar and not get vaccinated.

Maybe it is their world view because that is what science told them?

Is it my world view that the earth is not flat?
Is it my world view that the earth revolves around the sun?

I don't adhere to these beliefs because of some world view, I adhere to them because that is what the science shows.

Basically this.  My perfect political party would be republican for gun control, immigration, military and freemarket.  And democrat for science, NASA, environment, abortion rights, less wars.   Stuff that belong to neither side is taxes,  I believe they should be low but don't let the rich get away with murder.  Freedom,  this is a weird one but republicans believe in too much surveillance state and democrats limit free speech cause "muh feelings"

That is where things get a little muddy and deniers exploit this.

For starters, there is money on both sides. If "green" businesses (solar, wind, etc) stand to make money by tricking us then you can absolutely expect "dirty" businesses (coal, oil, etc) to trick us as well. Furthermore, if we are to look at the money, I think logic would dictate that the "dirty" businesses have more to gain and more to lose by tricking us. A gigantic industry revolves around these resources and both regulations and reputations stand to make the difference between huge profits and huge losses. So while they both have incentives to lie, I think the oil and coal companies have more.

Second issue I wanted to touch on was that of green businesses getting rich. Consider that some people invest in green business ventures because that is a passion for them. It is a non sequitur to say that they are just doing it to get rich. I started a small business to make and sell woodwork and knives (among other things). I didn't do it because I saw some gold mine waiting to be tapped, I did it because I like those types of crafts. Sure, I make some money but that doesn't mean I am just tricking you all.

The carbon quota was not meant to be a scheme, it was a real attempt at addressing CO2 pollution.Yes it was flawed and could be exploited by those who knew the system but that doesn't mean it was all just some conspiracy to start with. Again, there are people who pushed this because they genuinely believed it, not just because someone could make money doing it.

Yup we live in a free market state everyone wants to make money.  It does appear the co2 polluting companies are desperate to deny climate change.  Its why they are in the minority of credible scientists backing them up.

To me, it seems like there are good ideas that are manipulated for personal/corporation/etc gains. 

One that I personal experience is sustainable design for buildings.  Many states have regulations that required certification that new buildings are designed and constructed to sustainable building practices.  Up until a few years ago, the only widely recognized standard for that was LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design).  It was a TOTAL racket!

BLUF: the group(s) behind LEED got support of key people and groups to endorse that it was a good idea, which in general it is.  Then it slowly got written into state laws and eventually even federal laws. 

The thing is, that you need to be certified to state that your design meets LEED to even get projects to get reviewed by the certifying group.  They update the manuals often and with that, you need to buy the manuals, take continuing education to maintain your credentials, so on and so on.  For my former job, as a senior manager that had LEED projects, I had to become LEED certified and that's what opened my eyes to all of this. 

Yes, it is a really good program in general.  However, like any national standard, it doesn't work well in reality EVERYWHERE, and Hawaii is one of those.  We don't have much opportunity for materials produced locally.  We don't have that much opportunity to depend on "natural" methods of ventilation and cooling.  Try having an office in Ewa that doesn't have A/C. . .   Anyways, it's when the corporations behind the LEED program got their hands into everything.  The companies that produced products that are "green" and conform to their standards.  Lobbying to get local, state and then federal laws to require the certification, where it would take years to feel the effects of that requirement. 

It wasn't until a few years ago that the federal government recognized an alternate certification system and revised the code to be less of a monopoly.  That will certainly help the system.  The point again is it was a good system in general, that got twisted into a racket.