Bad news for Climate Change.

a reply to: neo96

It wasn´t directed at you, it was a general statement. I didn´t even know of the existance of your post as the thread was going on while I was distracted and did not hit reply

Tear down buildings, create green zones, and give tax incentives to do it.

Not going to happen but it´s a good idea.

a reply to: verschickter

For a group that created the organic movement, you'd think they'd want an organic solution.

Using the force of the state pushing people to their knees with a gun to the back of their heads isn't one.

a reply to: neo96

To a toddler maybe...

To anyone with any knowledge or intelligence it means “Co2 holds more heat and we are producing a ridiculous amount of Co2”.


Which is the kinda thing you can prove with a home experiment..

a reply to: network dude


Ummm...and a nice day was had by all...with the probable exception of the hard core Anthropogenic Global Warming fanatic...erm...proponent...

However...that geometrically regressive clique was soon reduced to an singular ManBearPig...last seen bobbing around the northern pacific on the last ice cube...







YouSir

a reply to: JoshuaCox

“Co2 holds more heat and we are producing a ridiculous amount of Co2”

No. Go to school.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JoshuaCox

So plant a snip load of trees.

Instead of using them for paper to write ridiculous laws.

a reply to: network dude

and I am confused by your reply. You seem to agree with TrueBrit that Americans are stoopid and know nothing of science, yet you are making excuses for the articles findings. Which is it?

truebrit doesn't think ALL americans are stupid just that some are and I agree. At least I hope he doesn't.

Some of the information in the article is accurate. It's the interpretation of that data that is the issue.

As always climate is so complex we are at the baby stages of understanding long term projections.

What we do know is pollution is a serious problem. As is contamination.


Since shareholders are both democrats and Republicans it's not as easy to expose some of the truly concerning habitat issues.

a reply to: network dude

Maybe you should learn not to get so offended.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Good God, man! There's this thing called a 'period' you know... lemme see if I can break this down...

I have no history of pandering to those suffering from a short attention span, and I am not about to start now. If you can't keep up, you know what you can do.

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

Wikipedia

That sounds more like what the present populist movement is fighting rather than what it is. Not sure what that has to do with the study, though... I guess it just sounded good?

Absolute bunkum. The day that a movement supported by white supremacists, Neo-Nazis and the actual American Nazi Party, can be called populist, rather than nationalist, is the day that language ceases to have any meaning. That day is not today, regardless of your protestations to the contrary. Your nations government is being run by a racist appeasing, corporatist collective, and as for authoritarian, I think you will find that bombing other nations for no reason other than to appease the warmongers, and organising propaganda to do anti-war activists damage in the media, is authoritarian. That is, assuming you care enough to look honestly, rather than through your particular, toxic, information resistant filters.

... which is why you guys on the little rock in the middle of the ocean have 'petrol' for your cars. I suppose anyone who studies science must live in a cave and do their studying by torchlight...

Actually, my country has petrol for its cars, because poorly educated idiots in our population keep voting for those who insist on continuing to rely on fossil fuels, despite the fact that our nation is surrounded by coastlines which could be tapped for their hydro electric potential, has high winds on its many moors and downs, which could be tapped for their wind power, and actually gets pretty decent sunlight during at least half of the year, meaning that solar is an option, one unexplored on an industrial scale. I will not thank the ignorant peons who KEEP buying more fuel to burn in powerstations and vehicles, for appeasing this unacceptable circumstance.

Please point out where a writer of this report used to run an oil firm?

Please point out where I said that the writer of this report used to run an oil firm. Actually, scratch that. Please learn to damned well read, before considering yourself fit to respond to any of my posts.

I think Trump does care for the environment... maybe not environmentalists though...

Not caring for environmentalists, but claiming to care about the environment, is like claiming to like physics, but disliking physicists. If you really like physics, you dig the hell out of hearing physicists talk about it, and the same goes for the environment. No one knows more about the environment, than the environmentalists do, and to dismiss them all but claim to love the thing they dedicate themselves to the protection of is disingenuous at the very least, and a blatant lie at the worst. Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable. It makes you look a fool.

Ah! I get it! Bureaucratic waste is good for the environment!

Probably not. Lets look into what the bureaucrats are wasting in travel expenses... or maybe we shouldn't since at least one has already been fired for over use of private jets, another under investigation for the same. And these aren't just employees of the state, they are advisers to the President himself on various matters.

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.


So all we have to do to stop fascism is suppress research that disagrees with the authoritarian power known as the IPCC?

It is functionally impossible for an international organisation to be both international, and engaged in authoritarian nationalism. I am sorry that what you think passes for an education, did not provide you with the right information on that front, but again, just because you cannot accept the truth, does not mean that it is anything other than the truth. It just means that you lack the tools to correctly perceive it. Again, go back to school, learn something about the world, then come and have a discussion. Until you do, you are just wasting my time, and of course your own. And yes, you should be concerned about that.

Fight fascism with fascism? Even though the fascism you're fighting with fascism is the opposite of fascism?

That's just the first paragraph... and I think I've made my point. That point, by the way, is that your points are nothing more than wild accusations made in some sort of hysteria-fueled rage at what you don't understand being debated against your religious views. I call that...


Hubristic bloody nonsense.


Well, whadaya know? You managed to get three words right out of all that after all. Good show, old chap!

TheRedneck

Against my religious views?

I am a Christian, and as such I cannot see where my religion is playing into this situation, my stance on it, or my arguments regarding it.

As for your frankly childlike argument about the nature of fascism, I have only this to say:

The fascism you THINK exists doesn't. The one you advocate for does.

There is no such thing as a fascism which insists that homosexual people have the same rights as heterosexual people, when it comes to child rearing, marriage, and official recognition of their status as a couple by the state and federal governments. There is no such thing as a fascism which seeks to prevent discrimination against people based on their sex, gender identity, religious belief, nation of origin or the colour of their skin. There is no such thing as a fascism which seeks to prevent the destruction of the natural world, by insisting that everyone take responsibility for the consequences of their lifestyles somewhat, by limiting the use of fossil fuels, and seeking alternatives to the same. This "fascism" is a unicorn, in that tales are told all over of it, and yet it does not exist in the slightest.

But there is such a thing as a fascism which denies equality to homosexual persons, and persons from elsewhere on the LGBT spectrum. There is such a thing as a fascism which wishes to deny equal rights to people of different genders, religions, ethnic backgrounds and skin tones, and there most certainly is a fascism which seeks the power to do as it sees fit without consequence to itself, when it comes to use of resources, and has actively had people under the command of Scott Pruitt, remove information from the EPA website, that made the Trump era information look stupid (because it was). You advocate for the propagandist, information resistant latter, and I the relatively accurate, and exceptionally well informed, advanced, higher reasoning friendly former.

You can either accept that, or continue to wear the blindfold, even as you look in the mirror.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Get off your damn high horse. The world goes ga ga over the UK not burning coal for a few days, ignoring that reliance on imported energy rises back up to 1970 levels.

Your reliance on renewables totals about 10-12%.

And why? Because of backward, greedy "conservative" individuals, who consider their stocks worth more than our future ability to live on the planet we were born on. If not for that, we would be running a great deal more renewables.

Also, your own nation is normally running about the same percentage of renewables... but of course, your nation is using far more quantity than mine, so I will remain upon whatever quadruped I can wrangle, thank you very much.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

According to IPCC computer models

Yes

If anything, I would think that it's our realization that pollution actually is bad and often has immediate effects on our daily lives and health and environment, and we're willing to do our individual part at the individual or community levels to help counter these effects.

So you agree that pollution is a man made problem and that we should be doing something about it.

I'm a firm believe that if we all do our small part as individuals, it will make a dramatic difference overall--not some government bureaucracy coupled with taxation.

But isn't your argument that climate change isn't real? Don't you think that all that pollution causes a change in climate here on earth?

There it is: "Because Trump

There what is? The things I said about trump and pollution are true. He is allowing more pollution to enter our environment. It sounded like you thought pollution is a problem....just not if trump says it's ok? But if trump is your god let me help you feel better by saying trumps tax bill is great. And so is his efforts to cut back our bloated bureaucracy. But on the epa he is very wrong. And I have no problem calling him out on that .

Do you have proof that, since he relaxed or nixed some EPA regs and turned a national park over to the state that this has increased our pollution

Well of course factories arn't going to increase their profits by polluting now that some of the regulations have gone. Why would they do that? Businesses have ALWAYS cared more about the environment more than their bottom dollar. I don't know what I was thinking.


denier was not used by me as an attack. I am sorry if you felt attack. That is the last time I will apologies for it. Your just going to have to get over it.

a reply to: Mach2

We can't force other countries to do what is right. But that doesn't mean that we should ourselves turn away from the right path just so we don't fall behind financially.

I am very willing to have less money in my pocket if it means I have a clean stream to drink from, clean air to breath and a clean place for my children to grow up in.

It's not about the money.
It's not about what other countries choose to do.

a reply to: pteridine

Water vapor is the largest contributor to any greenhouse effect.

Are you saying that carbon dioxide has no effect on the temperature in a greenhouse?

During the era of the Vikings, they colonized Greenland; not white land or snow land.

Greenland was covered in ice when the vikings where around.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: network dude

Those numbers while smaller still mean big problems for the human race.

Also are you taking in to account that much has been done to slow down climate change and that those higher numbers reflected an reality where nothing would have been done?

If anything I would think that it's our acceptance of man made climate change that has caused us to change our ways and limit the speed at which we pollute the earth.

Or at least we did limit our pollution until trump showed up.

I am not a trump hater but I do think changing environmental laws just so your rich friends can make even more money is real dick move. It's the main reason I will not be voting for him in 2020.

No.

Those higher numbers were grossly negligent over exaggerations. As evidenced by total failure of everything in Al Gore's movie to actually happen.

And what exactly has China or India done to reduce pollution? Any reduction in pollution by the US and Europe is far outweighed by the planet's biggest contributors there.

Global warming is big wealth redistribution scam.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You seem to be having some problem with the English language... ironic...

I have no history of pandering to those suffering from a short attention span, and I am not about to start now.

Translation: "I can't writes so very goodly, and I's doesn't wants to."

OK, got it. Your prerogative.

The day that a movement supported by white supremacists, Neo-Nazis and the actual American Nazi Party, can be called populist, rather than nationalist, is the day that language ceases to have any meaning.

Translation: "If there's one orange in a bushel of apples, that means there's no apples in the bushel."

OK...

Please point out where I said that the writer of this report used to run an oil firm.

I did, in the quote I made taken directly from your original post.

Not caring for environmentalists, but claiming to care about the environment, is like claiming to like physics, but disliking physicists. If you really like physics, you dig the hell out of hearing physicists talk about it

I do love physics, and yet I don't always agree with every physicist I hear.

I think you're confusing my point with the "fan-boy" concept. So does that mean you're a "fan-boy" of environmentalists?

I'm not going to point out that the post by you I replied to was degrading a group of environmentalists, who you seem to believe are infallible and must be believed at all costs... don't think you could handle that.

Probably not. Lets look into what the bureaucrats are wasting in travel expenses... or maybe we shouldn't since at least one has already been fired for over use of private jets, another under investigation for the same. And these aren't just employees of the state, they are advisers to the President himself on various matters.

Well, we agree on something! Not to mention the freakin' estate that Al Gore owns, which uses as much energy as some small towns. Or his private jet.

So why are you so in favor of the Paris Accord, when it was a plan that carried no requirements for anyone to do anything except that the US was required to spend trillions of dollars on bureaucrats who are wasting energy flying around in private jets and living in massive mansions?

It is functionally impossible for an international organisation to be both international, and engaged in authoritarian nationalism.

The typical Asian diet primarily consists of rice.

Now, exactly what does either statement have to do with what I wrote?

I am a Christian, and as such I cannot see where my religion is playing into this situation, my stance on it, or my arguments regarding it.

Multi-religious, eh? Impressive.

I was referring to your apparent membership in the Church of Global Warming. You know, the one where you fall down and worship Jim Hansen and the mighty infallible IPCC, and pray in the direction of the UN headquarters three times a day? The one where Al Gore is a bishop. The one where faith in computer models as they wage the spiritual war against carbon dioxide is unshakable with those pesky facts people keep repeating?

I'm a Christian too, but I'm just not smart enough to be a member of two religions, I guess.

The fascism you THINK exists doesn't. The one you advocate for does.

Ah, I see now! You redefined the word! Must be nice to be able to do that.

Tell me, how exactly do you ever read what someone intended to write? After all, words apparently mean different things to you than to the rest of the English-speaking world. No matter... it perfectly explains why you post nonsensical answers to sensible explanations.

If I wanted to learn your language, is there a TrueBrit dictionary I can get? It would make responses so much easier.

TheRedneck

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Not just that , but what decides a countries economic viability is inferstructure.. well once your country is too polluted to be considered “a place you want to live”. Your economy is screwed...

Anyone who cares about their countries economy should be the first people in line for reforms..

Our problem is that our world is on a quarterly time frame, not a civilization time frame..

Did you make a profit this quarter is the only factor that matters, not “can you continue to make a profit for the next century”.

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: network dude

Those numbers while smaller still mean big problems for the human race.

Also are you taking in to account that much has been done to slow down climate change and that those higher numbers reflected an reality where nothing would have been done?

If anything I would think that it's our acceptance of man made climate change that has caused us to change our ways and limit the speed at which we pollute the earth.

Or at least we did limit our pollution until trump showed up.

I am not a trump hater but I do think changing environmental laws just so your rich friends can make even more money is real dick move. It's the main reason I will not be voting for him in 2020.

No.

Those higher numbers were grossly negligent over exaggerations. As evidenced by total failure of everything in Al Gore's movie to actually happen.

And what exactly has China or India done to reduce pollution? Any reduction in pollution by the US and Europe is far outweighed by the planet's biggest contributors there.

Global warming is big wealth redistribution scam.

While I don't disagree with much of what you said.

The pollution habitat problem is real.

The solutions are also real and technology based.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

The things I said about trump and pollution are true. He is allowing more pollution to enter our environment.

It shouldn't be hard to give us all an example of a specific regulation that has been removed to allow for more pollution then, would it?

Please do so.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: scraedtosleep

The things I said about trump and pollution are true. He is allowing more pollution to enter our environment.

It shouldn't be hard to give us all an example of a specific regulation that has been removed to allow for more pollution then, would it?

Please do so.

TheRedneck

Off the top of my head the OIAI.