Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 7/7/2019 at 1:28 AM, Thurmal34 said:

 

I agree. You seem to project my position based on a portion of what I posted. Up yours. I, based on volumes of information and data encourage you to challenge me. 

 

I’m not saying it’s our fault or natural weather change, I’m just saying it’s happening.

 

Your ilk is denying it altogether. Simpletons.

 

 

 

 

I think if you're not saying it's our fault, you're ilk-ish, ilk-like, or maybe even ilk-centric. You probably just don't know it. 

 

I voted for the orange messiah, and was asked to tell you that unlike the other group who call people deplorable and irredeemable and seem to want a good national cleansing,  all are welcome in

here.

 

We are Ilkclusive. 

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think if you're not saying it's our fault, you're ilk-ish, ilk-like, or maybe even ilk-centric. You probably just don't know it. 

 

I voted for the orange messiah, and was asked to tell you that unlike the other group who call people deplorable and irredeemable and seem to want a good national cleansing,  all are welcome in

here.

 

We are Ilkclusive. 

 

his anti-ilkite language has been somewhat offensive

[Azalin]

On a somewhat humorous note, I received a text this evening from NOAA weather radar. Verbatim: "We have a report about thunderstorm in your area. Can you please confirm?"

 

Forget for a moment about the bad grammar. This is one of the main organizations pushing MMGW and they need to ask me if there's a %$#@ing thunderstorm outside?!

 

(yes, I am aware that weather and climate are two separate things, but organizational stupidity is apparently running rampant in NOAA) 

[row_33]

5 minutes ago, Azalin said:

On a somewhat humorous note, I received a text this evening from NOAA weather radar. Verbatim: "We have a report about thunderstorm in your area. Can you please confirm?"

 

Forget for a moment about the bad grammar. This is one of the main organizations pushing MMGW and they need to ask me if there's a %$#@ing thunderstorm outside?!

 

(yes, I am aware that weather and climate are two separate things, but organizational stupidity is apparently running rampant in NOAA) 

 

So if you lied to them all the time their beloved stats would be tarnished ?

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by row_33

[DC Tom]

49 minutes ago, Azalin said:

On a somewhat humorous note, I received a text this evening from NOAA weather radar. Verbatim: "We have a report about thunderstorm in your area. Can you please confirm?"

 

Forget for a moment about the bad grammar. This is one of the main organizations pushing MMGW and they need to ask me if there's a %$#@ing thunderstorm outside?!

 

(yes, I am aware that weather and climate are two separate things, but organizational stupidity is apparently running rampant in NOAA) 

 

You should have replied: "Can confirm.  WeatherBug says there's a thunderstorm in my area."

[/dev/null]

5 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

You should have replied: "Can confirm.  WeatherBug says there's a thunderstorm in my area."

 

I would have asked for a million dollar research grant confirming the theory of a thunderstorm in my area

[DC Tom]

3 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

I would have asked for a million dollar research grant confirming the theory of a thunderstorm in my area

 

Dammit, how do I always miss that?  Money first, troll second.

[Tiberius]

States are making progress. Well, not the super red states, but many states are: 

 

South Carolina ends caps on net metering

The Energy Freedom Act, expected to be signed by South Carolina's governor, garnered strong support from not only both political parties, but also from utilities, as well as community members and solar advocates. The bill lifts caps on the number of homes that can install rooftop solar panels. It also enables new customers to lock in retail-rate net metering, which allows customers to get credits on their utility bills for excess electricity generated from solar installations on their property.

The policy also aims to help commercial and industrial consumers by allowing some large buyers to secure 10-year large-scale solar contracts (PDF) with utilities. Longer contracts provide buyers less financial risk and cut down on the frequency of permitting processes. And as the solar market grows in South Carolina, it likely will drive demand for solar installers, the fastest growing occupation in the United States.

Maine reengages on renewables

Maine's new governor, Janet Mills, was elected on a platform of putting Maine back on track towards a renewable future. Shortly after taking office, Mills abolished a moratorium on new onshore wind projects and has said she is eager to develop an offshore wind industry on the Maine coast, which has the highest offshore wind potential (PDF) in the American Northeast.

Mills also has replaced a gross net metering policy, a system that charged transmission and distribution fees on all electricity generated from rooftop solar panels, even if that power did not leave the building where it was generated. The new policy uses a standard net metering policy that incentivizes customers to install solar panels on their rooftops by compensating them for any unused electricity flowing into the grid.

 

These states are not alone in removing barriers and creating incentives for renewable energy development.

Just a few weeks ago, Mills put forward legislation to set goals of sourcing 80 percent of the state's energy from renewables by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050. While the bill has not yet been voted upon, it already has received bipartisan support and has a Republican lead sponsor in the state's senate. Maine already gets 75 percent of its energy from hydroelectric dams, wind turbines and biomass, and these new policies could enable the state to develop a wind and solar market large enough to export power to other states.

 

Nevada to add solar capacity and jobs

Passed unanimously, across party lines on Earth Day, Nevada's new energy bill mandates that the state generate 50 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2030 and signals that the Silver State isn't content with its existing Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) (PDF), which had called for 25 percent of the state's energy portfolio come from renewable sources by 2025. Although its prior RPS helped Nevada foster the fourth largest solar market in the United States, the new requirement means the state will need to develop additional renewable energy facilities, which the Nevada's government believes could add up to 11,170 full-time jobs and $1.5 billion in economic activity.

2019 and beyond: A clean energy future for the United States

These states are not alone in removing barriers and creating incentives for renewable energy development this year. Legislators in Michigan, Illinois and Pennsylvania, all among the top 10 U.S. emitters, are discussing policies that could make renewable energy options more competitive in their regional energy markets. By creating enabling environments at the state level, these policies empower cities, utilities, businesses and individuals to drive forward the clean energy revolution across the United States.

 

 

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/four-us-states-scoring-under-radar-clean-energy-wins

[Gary M]

On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 9:12 AM, DC Tom said:

 

Dammit, how do I always miss that?  Money first, troll second.

 

A Troll has to troll

[Tiberius]

Hot hot hot!! Record heat again! 

[Koko78]

24 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Hot hot hot!! Record heat again! 

 

Eh, only 11 more summers until we're all dead of global warming or whatever.

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

Eh, only 11 more summers until we're all dead of global warming or whatever.

Yup, f the younger generations, pass the peas please. 

[Koko78]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Yup, f the younger generations, pass the peas please. 

 

Of course, the sole answer to saving the 'younger generations' is clearly a radical redistribution of wealth and the destruction of the global economy.

 

It will be rainbow-farting unicorns from there!

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

Of course, the sole answer to saving the 'younger generations' is clearly a radical redistribution of wealth and the destruction of the global economy.

 

It will be rainbow-farting unicorns from there!

Lol, a cap and trade system and a little higher gas tax is all, but to you guys that would be radicalism to the extreme! 

 

You guys are the pollution is good crowd 

[Koko78]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Lol, a cap and trade system and a little higher gas tax is all, but to you guys that would be radicalism to the extreme! 

 

You guys are the pollution is good crowd 

 

Except that's not what the 'experts' are advocating...

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

Except that's not what the 'experts' are advocating...

There's plenty of opinions from many different experts. Just look at how successful many of the states have been. California is exporting green energy, Nevada is moving towards a solar energy solution and the move to carbon sequestrion is something we can all get behind. 

 

Denying the the truth is just willful ignorance and is costing us a ton on money. Insurance companies, our government, state governments are spending billions cleaning up the destructive costs, and it's only getting worse. 

[row_33]

Tibs and everyone else knows he is lying about this, he thinks he can give 2 percent of the story and we’ll buy it

 

 

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Lol, a cap and trade system and a little higher gas tax is all, but to you guys that would be radicalism to the extreme! 

 

You guys are the pollution is good crowd 

Maybe if we all checked under the cushions in our couches and chairs we'll find that 93 trillion dollars we need to implement the crazy Left's programs.

[Gary M]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

There's plenty of opinions from many different experts. Just look at how successful many of the states have been. California is exporting green energy, Nevada is moving towards a solar energy solution and the move to carbon sequestrion is something we can all get behind. 

 

Denying the the truth is just willful ignorance and is costing us a ton on money. Insurance companies, our government, state governments are spending billions cleaning up the destructive costs, and it's only getting worse. 

 

And China/India/Russia?

 

What have they done besides offset or offsets?

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Lol, a cap and trade system and a little higher gas tax is all, but to you guys that would be radicalism to the extreme! 

 

You guys are the pollution is good crowd 

 

I'm all for going back to an agrarian lifestyle, sure would weed out all the SJWs in a hurry

[DC Tom]

44 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

And China/India/Russia?

 

What have they done besides offset or offsets?

 

I'm all for going back to an agrarian lifestyle, sure would weed out all the SJWs in a hurry

 

Cap and trade wouldn't cause a reversion to agrarianism.

 

Rather, it would do what every such policy in history has done: consolidate industries into larger conglomerates at the expense of small business.  Small companies won't have the capital to "trade" their way into compliance with the caps, and will either be driven out of business or acquired by large companies who have that capital.

[Gary M]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

Cap and trade wouldn't cause a reversion to agrarianism.

 

Rather, it would do what every such policy in history has done: consolidate industries into larger conglomerates at the expense of small business.  Small companies won't have the capital to "trade" their way into compliance with the caps, and will either be driven out of business or acquired by large companies who have that capital.

 

Yeah I was think GND, because that is what they really want.

[jrober38]

The Global Warming debate is one that I find very interesting.

 

One side, if wrong, would be leading the world down a path that will likely lead to world war, and possibly nuclear war. 

 

The other, if wrong, will have spent an astronomical amount of money, but there's no outcome that results in mass warfare. 

 

The world is getting hotter. I was in Italy last summer and went on a couple wine tours. Each tour guide essentially said they won't be able to make wine in 25-50 years because the summers are too hot, and there's not enough rain. They expect it to keep getting worse. 

 

No one seems to notice that the reason there's a mass migration going on from Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala is because the farms have dried up and there's no food. People can't make a living in the country side because there's a massive drought, and as a result they've moved into the cities which have some of the highest murder rates in the world. Instead of staying and probably dying, they're leaving and risking their lives to head north, because the alternative is literally death and starvation.

 

In India, their 5th largest city, Chennai, which has a population of over 7 million people, just ran out of water. 

 

If things continue, tens of millions of people are going to start leaving the places they live in search of water. If things continue, countries will eventually go to war as water becomes so scarce around the equator. 

 

I don't know what the solution is. I understand it's impossible to expect people and the global economy to completely change in a short amount of time.

 

However, if climate change is real, and the earth continues warming and food and water that nourish the billions of people living along the equator becomes more scarce, the world as we know it probably won't exist in 100 years. As a father of two small kids that scares me.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

The Global Warming debate is one that I find very interesting.

 

One side, if wrong, would be leading the world down a path that will likely lead to world war, and possibly nuclear war. 

 

The other, if wrong, will have spent an astronomical amount of money, but there's no outcome that results in mass warfare. 

 

There is though -- you're forgetting what happens when people vote socialism in and then want out. They can't vote their way out, only shoot. 

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

No one seems to notice that the reason there's a mass migration going on from Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala is because the farms have dried up and there's no food. People can't make a living in the country side because there's a massive drought, and as a result they've moved into the cities which have some of the highest murder rates in the world. Instead of staying and probably dying, they're leaving and risking their lives to head north, because the alternative is literally death and starvation.

 

You're overlooking another cause: US backed coups in Honduras under SecState Clinton's regime.

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

However, if climate change is real, and the earth continues warming and food and water that nourish the billions of people living along the equator becomes more scarce, the world as we know it probably won't exist in 100 years. As a father of two small kids that scares me.

 

You're underestimating (imo) our ability to invent new ways (or release old ways) to mitigate climate damage. It's all about the technology -- which has been suppressed for a long, long time. Want to fix the planet, release the tech.

[jrober38]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

There is though -- you're forgetting what happens when people vote socialism in and then want out. They can't vote their way out, only shoot. 

 

You're overlooking another cause: US backed coups in Honduras under SecState Clinton's regime.

 

You're underestimating (imo) our ability to invent new ways (or release old ways) to mitigate climate damage. It's all about the technology -- which has been suppressed for a long, long time. Want to fix the planet, release the tech.

 

You guys have no idea what socialism is. It's just a trendy buzzword that Republicans like to use to scare people.

 

By your standards, the entire Western Developed World is socialist. High taxes, socialized medicine, lower drug costs, etc, yet no major wars for 70+ years. 

 

Sure. US foreign policy has been a disaster for 50 years. There's a reason a huge chunk of the world dislikes you. They meddled in too many elections, overthrew too many duly elected politicians and dropped too many bombs on civilians. 

 

But the fact remains. There's a reason almost everyone who shows up at the Southern Border now is coming from the Norther Triangle whereas 20 years ago they came from Mexico mostly. There's a mass drought there, the farms have dried up and the livestock has died. People are literally starving to death and instead of staying and accepting that, those people are willing to travel hundreds of miles north, risking their lives to try and survive. 

 

Hopefully you're right.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

You guys have no idea what socialism is. It's just a trendy buzzword that Republicans like to use to scare people.

 

I'm not a republican. I'm a liberal. 

 

And I know very well what socialism is and what its goal is. Climate Change is a way to backdoor it into our system -- and our system is incompatible with socialism on a basic, fundamental level. Socialism requires the forfeiture of personal liberty for the benefit of the greater good. That runs counter to everything this nation was found for, and everything that made this nation the most charitable in all of history. 

 

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

By your standards, the entire Western Developed World is socialist. High taxes, socialized medicine, lower drug costs, etc, yet no major wars for 70+ years. 

 

Not even Scandinavia is socialist, as we often hear. They have a market economy, and are backed and supported by two of the largest capitalistic powers the planet has ever seen. Socialism does not mean high taxes -- it means surrendering individual liberties to the state in favor of protecting the group. 

 

To quote Tocqueville: 

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude" (to the state). 

 

5 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

Sure. US foreign policy has been a disaster for 50 years. There's a reason a huge chunk of the world dislikes you. They meddled in too many elections, overthrew too many duly elected politicians and dropped too many bombs on civilians. 

 

But the fact remains. There's a reason almost everyone who shows up at the Southern Border now is coming from the Norther Triangle whereas 20 years ago they came from Mexico mostly. There's a mass drought there, the farms have dried up and the livestock has died. People are literally starving to death and instead of staying and accepting that, those people are willing to travel hundreds of miles north, risking their lives to try and survive. 

 

What I'm suggesting is there are multiple reasons for the mass migration of peoples -- chief among them is not climate, but war. Look at Europe -- what triggered that mass migration? The same SecState's war in Libya was the kickoff, followed by the civil war in Syria. 

 

The same with the northern triangle countries. 

 

War -- waged by globalists (serving an agenda not of the people or their nation, but their pocketbooks) served multiple purposes, chief among them is to destabilize western Europe and the US, to make them more amenable to accepting drastic social and government reforms which benefit the globalist cause, not the people's. 

 

[DC Tom]

15 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

You guys have no idea what socialism is. It's just a trendy buzzword that Republicans like to use to scare people.

 

 

Kind-of like you guys have no idea what Naziism is.  

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Kind-of like you guys have no idea what Naziism is.  

....who the hell woke him up from his BBMB days of nothingness?....YAWN.............

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

38 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

.

Sorta like my avatar.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

.

 

I fail to see a downside here

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Gavin in Va Beach said:

 

I fail to see a downside here

 

I do: Those nooses are sloppy and have not been tightened sufficiently.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

31 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

I do: Those nooses are sloppy and have not been tightened sufficiently.

 

...don't seem too concerned....Al Gore cometh shortly.......has some minor Internet tweaking to do first.............

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

These lying SOB's just told us we would die in 12 years.

 

Why we worried about people being hungry in 2050?

 

Eat your damn burgers people,  they are crazy.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Another summer brings with it a fresh opportunity to use the accompanying heat to sound the alarm about global warming. However, ThinkProgress has added a twist to this year’s heatwave and given it a name (it might be a good idea to put on oven mitts before handling a take this hot):

 

 

 

 

 

Or... just hear me out... we just call it 'July'

 

 

 

.

[KRC]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Another summer brings with it a fresh opportunity to use the accompanying heat to sound the alarm about global warming. However, ThinkProgress has added a twist to this year’s heatwave and given it a name (it might be a good idea to put on oven mitts before handling a take this hot):

 

 

 

 

 

Or... just hear me out... we just call it 'July'

 

 

 

.

 

Wait 'til they see what Trump has in store for August.

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Another summer brings with it a fresh opportunity to use the accompanying heat to sound the alarm about global warming. However, ThinkProgress has added a twist to this year’s heatwave and given it a name (it might be a good idea to put on oven mitts before handling a take this hot):

 

 

 

 

 

Or... just hear me out... we just call it 'July'

 

 

 

.

 

Seriously...every year since I've moved here, DC gets at least one heat wave that's a week long with temperatures of 95+ and heat indexes of 105+.  Usually two.  

 

So that's 20 years, maybe 30 heat waves...but I'm sure this time it's global warming's fault.

[jrober38]

11 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Another summer brings with it a fresh opportunity to use the accompanying heat to sound the alarm about global warming. However, ThinkProgress has added a twist to this year’s heatwave and given it a name (it might be a good idea to put on oven mitts before handling a take this hot):

 

 

 

 

 

Or... just hear me out... we just call it 'July'

 

 

 

.

 

I don't understand the purpose of joking about this.

 

Making light of a changing climate, and the consequences it might bring doesn't make any sense to me.

[B-Man]

4 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I don't understand the purpose of joking about this.

 

Making light of a changing climate, and the consequences it might bring doesn't make any sense to me.

 

 

The climate is changing .....................and always has.

 

When I respond,  it is to laugh in the face of those who are using climate to influence "the masses" ..........in this case Think Progress

 

It is the warming cultists, that have earned and deserve our derision.

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

10 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I don't understand the purpose of joking about this.

 

Making light of a changing climate, and the consequences it might bring doesn't make any sense to me.

 

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

 

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

 

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."

https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf

 

 

It's the manufactured hysteria about the topic, designed to push political reform (some would say revolution) as the cure which is what draws people's laughter and jokes. Is the climate changing? Sure. Is mankind to blame? Perhaps. Is it an imminent catastrophe destined to destroy civilization within the decade? Not a chance.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Deranged Rhino
punctuation