Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[unbillievable]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

You said 'freedom allows me to decide what is the greater good' and that is true but only to an extent.  That decision can technically be made by the individual, but both of our actions will be dictated by our government's decisions on the greater good.  For example if our leaders decide to spend tax dollars on this issue, they will be our tax monies and if they spend on a wall or a new weapon system instead, they will be our tax dollars.

 

Ideally, to address societal problems governments wouldn't need to act on incomplete information, but the obvious reality is that they do.  Governments often act on these problems without complete knowledge of future events and without complete course agreement within the population - for instance, buying Greenland or going to war.  If the country declares war, the unconvinced go to war along with the convinced.

 

What were your thoughts on the Ebola scare in Africa a few years back?  Did you believe the dire predictions made by those experts?

 

We weren't asked to make individual sacrifice but were you in favor of spending US (say CDC) dollars in this fight against the virus spread?

 

Was that enough of a certain threat to you for you to want our government to act even though the deaths were occurring in Africa and not America?

 

Or, at the time of the Ebola outbreak did you think we shouldn't spend US tax dollars on this because China, Russia, and India were not putting in the same effort and money?

 

The difference is that the Ebola virus is a proven threat. 

 

...and preventing it doesn't involve implementing communist ideologies; which would kill more people than the disease.

 

[B-Man]

 

 

All kidding aside....................this tweet gives the game away.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

“Poor kid — she’s just a younger, more vulnerable Cindy Sheehan, and like Sheehan will be discarded as soon as she’s no longer of use.

In the meantime, her moral theatrics have grown tedious.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited September 24, 2019 by B-Man

[Bob in Mich]

1 hour ago, unbillievable said:

 

The difference is that the Ebola virus is a proven threat. 

 

...and preventing it doesn't involve implementing communist ideologies; which would kill more people than the disease.

 

 

So, just out of curiosity, what part of the climate change theory is invalid in your mind?  I think we can assume you buy that burning fossil fuels produce CO2.  I assume you trust that greenhouses can raise temperatures, right?  Do you believe that CO2 and methane gases can cause this greenhouse effect on the planet?   It seems our planet's CO2 concentrations are rising (ice cores if I recall), true or doubted? 

 

So, if we can assume you buy all of that science, where does the skepticism come from?

[/dev/null]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Can you give us a synopsis of that article?

#orangemanbad

[Rob's House]

22 hours ago, TH3 said:

I know how carbon footprints are calculated...Seems like you have the problem with math...Yes - have a bigger house, bigger car = more carbon....How is this stupid? 

 

Not sure where I broke out a kid to bolster any points I want to make....seems like your squad is posting the kid memes and links - not me....

 

Not sure why I advocated any tax solutions to anything....

 

I suggest you stop arguing about math....it has a way of making the ignorant look foolish......Just be a man and say you don't give a !@#$ about global warming - are you man enough? 

 

 

Take your own advice.

[ALF]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Can you give us a synopsis of that article? I would guess that most of us don't subscribe to the NYT. What kind of rules are they? What affect will their elimination have on our environment? Were they good rules in the first place?

 

I don't subscribe to the NYT either and was able to read it. Maybe clearing my history and cache gave me a free look.

[bbb]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

 

Well I get hydro power from Niagara Falls?

 

How did you do that?  I've been thinking of hooking something up there. 

[Koko78]

58 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

How did you do that?  I've been thinking of hooking something up there. 

 

Use a really long extension cord. The fools at the power plant don't police their outside outlets.

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

All kidding aside....................this tweet gives the game away.

 

 

 

Too expensive?  

 

What's the latest cost estimate for the Green New Deal again? 

[ALF]

1 hour ago, bbb said:

 

How did you do that?  I've been thinking of hooking something up there. 

 

Live 18 miles away 

[unbillievable]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

So, just out of curiosity, what part of the climate change theory is invalid in your mind?  I think we can assume you buy that burning fossil fuels produce CO2.  I assume you trust that greenhouses can raise temperatures, right?  Do you believe that CO2 and methane gases can cause this greenhouse effect on the planet?   It seems our planet's CO2 concentrations are rising (ice cores if I recall), true or doubted? 

 

So, if we can assume you buy all of that science, where does the skepticism come from?

 

I know pouring a cup of water on my head will get me wet. Doesn't mean I'm eager to build a boat.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by unbillievable

[unbillievable]

54 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Too expensive?  

 

What's the latest cost estimate for the Green New Deal again? 

 

It's Free. The government pays for it. ?

[IDBillzFan]

7 hours ago, Gary Busey said:

73 year old creep trolls a 16 year old girl and disciples of the 73 year old creep everywhere rejoice

 

Deplorable

 

 

I don't recall Clinton disciples rejoicing about his trips to Pedo Island with Epstein. Do you have a link to this?

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Rob's House]

8 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

All kidding aside....................this tweet gives the game away.

 

 

This is how you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the whole thing's a hoax. If they really believed that man-made global warming was an existential crisis they'd be tripping over their own feet to switch to nuclear energy ASAFP.

 

The fact that they oppose it is proof positive that they're full of *****.

[John Adams]

56 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

This is how you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the whole thing's a hoax. If they really believed that man-made global warming was an existential crisis they'd be tripping over their own feet to switch to nuclear energy ASAFP.

 

The fact that they oppose it is proof positive that they're full of *****.

 

The Dems are against nuclear because they think it's too dangerous. That's idiotic given how clean and safe it is relative to almost every other power source, but that's the reason. 

 

It has nothing to do with "If they really believed that man-made global warming was an existential crisis they'd be tripping over their own feet to switch to nuclear energy ASAFP," which I think you know, but I don't want to give you too much credit. 

[B-Man]

 

 

SCIENCE, UNSETTLED: 

 

Is theory on earth’s climate in the last 15 million years wrong?

by Rutgers University

 

 

A key theory that attributes the climate evolution of the Earth to the breakdown of Himalayan rocks may not explain the cooling over the past 15 million years, according to a Rutgers-led study.

 

The study in the journal Nature Geoscience could shed more light on the causes of long-term climate change. It centers on the long-term cooling that occurred before the recent global warming tied to greenhouse gas emissions from humanity.

 

"The findings of our study, if substantiated, raise more questions than they answered," said senior author Yair Rosenthal, a distinguished professor in the Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences at Rutgers University-New Brunswick. "If the cooling is not due to enhanced Himalayan rock weathering, then what processes have been overlooked?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rob's House]

32 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

The Dems are against nuclear because they think it's too dangerous. That's idiotic given how clean and safe it is relative to almost every other power source, but that's the reason. 

 

It has nothing to do with "If they really believed that man-made global warming was an existential crisis they'd be tripping over their own feet to switch to nuclear energy ASAFP," which I think you know, but I don't want to give you too much credit. 

If they honestly believed the Earth was in danger of bursting into flames and we could avert it by reducing our carbon emissions, the dangers they fear from nuclear energy wouldn't amount to a speed bump.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Rob's House

[DC Tom]

35 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

The Dems are against nuclear because they think it's too dangerous. That's idiotic given how clean and safe it is relative to almost every other power source, but that's the reason. 

 

 

Which is why it's proof positive they're full of *****.  They pose themselves as the experts on climate change, but if they had even a half-assed level of knowledge of the subject, they'd support nuclear energy.

[3rdnlng]

7 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Too expensive?  

 

What's the latest cost estimate for the Green New Deal again? 

Don't obfuscate with facts!

[DC Tom]

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

The Bee is the best, especially since they've been slapping that fool at Snopes around.

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

So wrong, and yet I laughed out loud.

I denounce myself.  
 

[SoCal Deek]

I just want to know if we ever got that pesky hole in the ozone layer plugged! ?

[bdutton]

[B-Man]

?

 

Satire ?

 

 Experts Agree Restructuring World Economy Best Way to Treat Child’s Anxiety.

 

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by B-Man

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...AOC said we're doomed and she NEVER misses...like LaCanfora.......just ordered my tombstone.........

[billsfan89]

23 hours ago, John Adams said:

 

The Dems are against nuclear because they think it's too dangerous. That's idiotic given how clean and safe it is relative to almost every other power source, but that's the reason. 

 

It has nothing to do with "If they really believed that man-made global warming was an existential crisis they'd be tripping over their own feet to switch to nuclear energy ASAFP," which I think you know, but I don't want to give you too much credit. 

 

Nuclear also has some environmental risks given that it produces toxic waste that you have to find a waste to store. However I agree that newer forms of nuclear such as Thorium based nuclear energy that are both safer and produce less waste should be a big part of fighting climate change. But the aversion to nuclear from some people looking to fight climate change is not an admission that the whole thing is a scam.It's more so an over estimated fears of the risks and environmental impact it has. 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Nuclear also has some environmental risks given that it produces toxic waste that you have to find a waste to store. However I agree that newer forms of nuclear such as Thorium based nuclear energy that are both safer and produce less waste should be a big part of fighting climate change. But the aversion to nuclear from some people looking to fight climate change is not an admission that the whole thing is a scam.It's more so an over estimated fears of the risks and environmental impact it has. 

 

That was you?  I was just thinking about liquid salt thorium reactors this weekend, and was asking myself "Who was that moron on PPP that thought liquid salt thorium reactors were a magic elixir?"

[billsfan89]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

That was you?  I was just thinking about liquid salt thorium reactors this weekend, and was asking myself "Who was that moron on PPP that thought liquid salt thorium reactors were a magic elixir?"

 

There are serious engineering challenges that come with LST Reactors, it isn't as close to being a proven concept as many of it's ardent proponents would lead on. I don't think I have ever promoted it as a cure all so maybe someone else was a really ardent supporter. My position on the matter is that more R&D dollars should got into developing the technology as the possible benefits of it would be tremendous. 

[Hedge]

 

 

Proving, yet again, that it means nothing.

[bbb]

4 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Nuclear also has some environmental risks given that it produces toxic waste that you have to find a waste to store. However I agree that newer forms of nuclear such as Thorium based nuclear energy that are both safer and produce less waste should be a big part of fighting climate change. But the aversion to nuclear from some people looking to fight climate change is not an admission that the whole thing is a scam.It's more so an over estimated fears of the risks and environmental impact it has. 

 

They should probably look into it then.  

[John Adams]

On 9/24/2019 at 9:37 PM, Rob's House said:

If they honestly believed the Earth was in danger of bursting into flames and we could avert it by reducing our carbon emissions, the dangers they fear from nuclear energy wouldn't amount to a speed bump.

 

Your hyperbole aside, the climate change people see the many negative effects humans have on the planet and lump nuclear in with the rest. It's simple thinking, kind of like thinking, "If we keep burning fossil fuels, what's the big deal? I need my H3 to take the kids to soccer!" 

 

 

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, John Adams said:

 

Your hyperbole aside, the climate change people see the many negative effects humans have on the planet and lump nuclear in with the rest. It's simple thinking, kind of like thinking, "If we keep burning fossil fuels, what's the big deal? I need my H3 to take the kids to soccer!" 

 

 

So your defense of them is that they're not full of *****, they're just dumb as *****?

[John Adams]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

So your defense of them is that they're not full of *****, they're just dumb as *****?

 

My observation is not a defense. Many in the environmentalist movement are unwilling to accept any planetary "badness" even when its net benefit would be so high, in this case specifically on the topic of nuclear power. 

 

In some ways it doesn't matter. Nuclear is the way of the future barring leaps in other technology. But the bad news is we are far behind in building reactors. 

 

[Rob's House]

8 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

My observation is not a defense. Many in the environmentalist movement are unwilling to accept any planetary "badness" even when its net benefit would be so high, in this case specifically on the topic of nuclear power. 

 

In some ways it doesn't matter. Nuclear is the way of the future barring leaps in other technology. But the bad news is we are far behind in building reactors. 

 

I see. I still think if they really believed that global destruction was imminent and that reducing carbon emissions would avert it they would at the very least be open to learning more about the one and only carbon neutral energy source known to man that can produce a significant amount of energy.

 

To be clear, I don't think many of these people are consciously lying about it. I think they believe that they believe, but on a subconscious level they know it's bunk, otherwise they'd be serious about addressing the problem.

 

Everyone knows solar panels, wind mills, hybrid cars, and symbolic treaties aren't going to put a dent in global carbon emissions. Not even a small one.

[John Adams]

10 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

I see. I still think if they really believed that global destruction was imminent and that reducing carbon emissions would avert it they would at the very least be open to learning more about the one and only carbon neutral energy source known to man that can produce a significant amount of energy.

 

To be clear, I don't think many of these people are consciously lying about it. I think they believe that they believe, but on a subconscious level they know it's bunk, otherwise they'd be serious about addressing the problem.

 

I disagree. Very few environmentalists think the evidence for man-made effect on global warming is bunk. 

 

 

[Rob's House]

9 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

I disagree. Very few environmentalists think the evidence for man-made effect on global warming is bunk. 

 

 

Perhaps this depends on how you define "environmentalist" and what exactly you mean by man-made global warming. 

 

If you're saying that the fringe extremists believe it to their core I may buy that.

 

Or if you're saying the average left-winger believes in an abstract sense that man's aggregate carbon emissions may have some effect on climate that might possibly have some negative implications for the planet at some undetermined point down the road, I may buy that too.

 

What I'm referring to is the mainstream left-wing doctrine that claims man-made carbon emissions are rapidly creating a global warming effect that will lead to doomsday scenarios in the coming decades (or 12 years according to some elected Dems in Congress), and to those who claim to believe it. I think their approach to the issue betrays their proclaimed conviction, and I have yet to hear a persuasive argument to the contrary.

 

To your credit, even if it was not your intent, I think you provided them as solid a defense as one could, given the fact pattern.