The Man-Made-Climate-Change-Lie

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: toolgal462
Public knowledge. mostly rolling back any initiatives to protect the environment that Obama put in place, and then some.
Goddamn paywall on at least one link(sorry)
www.independent.co.uk...

www.nytimes.com... ssetType=REGIWALL

www.nationalgeographic.com...

www.brookings.edu...

Hmmmm, well....nothing wrong with rolling back or removing redundant, useless, costly Obama era laws especially since they obviously DID NOT WORK.

ie: Didn't Obama's EPA poison a major river, which was a source for farming and drinking for many NA?
Obama era regulations didn't seem to do anything to protect the people of Flint, Michigan either.

I hope you do realize, that more regulation does not equal better protections. The only thing more regulations equals is more money for some crappy politicians friends and family. And a loss of money and freedom for the rest of us.

People still get hurt and killed in car accidents therefore traffic laws don't work.

People should just drive at any speed they want on whatever side of the road they like best.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: toolgal462
We will have to agree to disagree, some protection is better than letting industry police itself..IMHO

And I could agree the EPA has not always lived up to their mandate.

I would not agree to no protections. There are still protections in place.

But I'm all for rolling back redundant and useless regulations.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: toolgal462
Public knowledge. mostly rolling back any initiatives to protect the environment that Obama put in place, and then some.
Goddamn paywall on at least one link(sorry)
www.independent.co.uk...

www.nytimes.com... ssetType=REGIWALL

www.nationalgeographic.com...

www.brookings.edu...

Hmmmm, well....nothing wrong with rolling back or removing redundant, useless, costly Obama era laws especially since they obviously DID NOT WORK.

ie: Didn't Obama's EPA poison a major river, which was a source for farming and drinking for many NA?
Obama era regulations didn't seem to do anything to protect the people of Flint, Michigan either.

I hope you do realize, that more regulation does not equal better protections. The only thing more regulations equals is more money for some crappy politicians friends and family. And a loss of money and freedom for the rest of us.

People still get hurt and killed in car accidents therefore traffic laws don't work.

People should just drive at any speed they want on whatever side of the road they like best.

Who said anything about removing all laws/regulations? Not me.
And Trump hasn't done any such thing either.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: toolgal462
Public knowledge. mostly rolling back any initiatives to protect the environment that Obama put in place, and then some.
Goddamn paywall on at least one link(sorry)
www.independent.co.uk...

www.nytimes.com... ssetType=REGIWALL

www.nationalgeographic.com...

www.brookings.edu...

Hmmmm, well....nothing wrong with rolling back or removing redundant, useless, costly Obama era laws especially since they obviously DID NOT WORK.

ie: Didn't Obama's EPA poison a major river, which was a source for farming and drinking for many NA?
Obama era regulations didn't seem to do anything to protect the people of Flint, Michigan either.

I hope you do realize, that more regulation does not equal better protections. The only thing more regulations equals is more money for some crappy politicians friends and family. And a loss of money and freedom for the rest of us.

People still get hurt and killed in car accidents therefore traffic laws don't work.

People should just drive at any speed they want on whatever side of the road they like best.

Who said anything about removing all laws/regulations? Not me.
And Trump hasn't done any such thing either.

You said they 'obviously ' weren't working and gave examples of failures of rules not protecting the environment.

I can give plenty of examples of traffic accidents therefore traffic laws 'obviously' don't work.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: toolgal462
We will have to agree to disagree, some protection is better than letting industry police itself..IMHO

And I could agree the EPA has not always lived up to their mandate.

I would not agree to no protections. There are still protections in place.

But I'm all for rolling back redundant and useless regulations.

And therein lies the problem, redundant or useless, is in the eye of the beholder.

I would have to dig in to see(no time now), who knows..I might even agree with you on some of it..doubtful but possible.

I just do not trust industry to police themselves, their commitment is to cash over all.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: toolgal462
Public knowledge. mostly rolling back any initiatives to protect the environment that Obama put in place, and then some.
Goddamn paywall on at least one link(sorry)
www.independent.co.uk...

www.nytimes.com... ssetType=REGIWALL

www.nationalgeographic.com...

www.brookings.edu...

Hmmmm, well....nothing wrong with rolling back or removing redundant, useless, costly Obama era laws especially since they obviously DID NOT WORK.

ie: Didn't Obama's EPA poison a major river, which was a source for farming and drinking for many NA?
Obama era regulations didn't seem to do anything to protect the people of Flint, Michigan either.

I hope you do realize, that more regulation does not equal better protections. The only thing more regulations equals is more money for some crappy politicians friends and family. And a loss of money and freedom for the rest of us.

People still get hurt and killed in car accidents therefore traffic laws don't work.

People should just drive at any speed they want on whatever side of the road they like best.

Who said anything about removing all laws/regulations? Not me.
And Trump hasn't done any such thing either.

You said they 'obviously ' weren't working and gave examples of failures of rules not protecting the environment.

I can give plenty of examples of traffic accidents therefore traffic laws 'obviously' don't work.

Because the subject at hand is the EPA and the regulations that were rolled back by Trump.

Your analogy is pointless to the discussion therefore, I wont bother addressing it.

I have however explained that there are still plenty of laws/regulations in tact that are there to protect the environment.

I asked for the specific laws/regulations that Trump removed that actually protected anything?

I am still waiting btw. Apparently, there doesn't exist a single example of a regulation that Trump rolled back that ever protected or saved anything.

If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

The solutions can happen within each state..if the states really are concerned with this this should start at the bottom similar to how we are all starting to legalize marijuana. You want reform start with your local government, they can offer better tax incentives locally to push people towards electric cars or put a moratorium on other things..I'm all for electric cars but you are going to need more nuclear power, wind, solar etc to get this really moving.

Worlds changing now with or without us but I'm all for removing petroleum and other hazardous fuels from our inventory regardless of the climate...should have been done a long time ago but both the democrats and republicans have slept comfortably next to big banks and the oil companies so this is what we have...now lets all pretend otherwise and pick a side..

a reply to: DBCowboy

Ahh the simple solution TPTB want you to believe is that if we all become a planet wide socialist/communist state, we can save the world..!!

That is basically it in a nutshell and unfortunately, some people not only fall for it, but welcome it..

Also unfortunately, you can't reason or argue with most of those people.

They are right and everyone else is wrong, they don't need to look at the geological evidence that proves them wrong, their feelings are all the evidence that is needed and "that is that"..!!

Ahh the simple solution TPTB want you to believe is that if we all become a planet wide socialist/communist state, we can save the world..!!

We're a hare away.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is running the initiative, was scheduled to meet Thursday and Friday in Paris to discuss a proposal that would set a standard tax rate for a company’s global operations and allow individual governments to tax profits above that based on sales accounted for by each country.

The implications are effing scary

You mean global warming right? Or was it global cooling?
Or wait maybe it is climate change..
Oh that's right its ALL THREE.
Please.


"Islands of rubbish, rivers polluted"

Straw arguments. Climate change is not the same thing as water pollution. You can completely disagree with the climate change hypothesis yet be against polluting the planet. Everyone I know is against pollution of our waters yet most know climate change is a global scam.
There is ZERO good behind the climate change movement.


"Like all things good"
Climate alarmism is not "good".

Asking for tens of TRILLIONS of dollars to combat a manufactured crises while there are actual threats is not "good".

In fact anything that steals the spotlight from things like famine and disease is the exact opposite of good.

The movement you clearly support is evil.

The planet is warming.

It doesn’t matter why, it’s too late to change.

A better question is, why is TPTB so intent on distracting us from making reasonable changes to increase the chances of our survival?

a reply to: JonathanNicholas

Wow, maybe you have real serious comprehension issues
Strawman argument?

a reply to: Gryphon66

A better question is, why is TPTB so intent on distracting us from making reasonable changes to increase the chances of our survival?

Are you effing serious ?

When green legislation has existed over half a century and a enforcement agency that's mandate is environment law enforcement.

WHAT THE EFF IS reasonable about crying the climate is out to git everyone?

Especially when yall don't own or control THE ENTIRE PLANET?

I ask again REASONABLE ?

Get some reason and get back to us.

Well said.

I say call it what it really is-
Religion.
That's the twisted ironic part. The left loves coming down on the religious.
Good lord.
Just what the hell do you think climate change is?

They point to a lack of scientific evidence to prove that religious people are either stupid or crazy for believing in a creator. That they "reject science".

Those same lefty dipSchiffs want the world to believe that someone born with Male genitalia can be a woman and someone born with a vagina can be a man. Also that men can have periods and give birth.
Also that grown men should be allowed to share a bathroom with 6 year old girls...
We could go on.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: DBCowboy

I think it is sadly the human paradigm... we simply must believe we're at the cusp of disaster at all times and, to make matters worse, we must believe that anything and everything is both driven by humans and can be countered by humans (or, rather, by separating us from our finite monetary resources, traditions, and freedoms.)

In reality, humanity ain't SNIP. We're nowhere near as impactful or as potent as we'd like to believe we are. We are here, we live, and we ultimately die... the globe keep spinning, the weather continues to change, and the only footprint each of us leaves is some manner of garbage that will eventually rot away same as we do (though some of that garbage may take what seems to be a ridiculously long time to decompose, we're only viewing it through human terms of longevity... in the grand cosmic scene that time is stupidly short.)

The really disturbing thing to me is that somehow a swath of people have been brainwashed or programmed to reject human nature unquestioningly and screw themselves and their own in the process because we have a blatantly obvious scam being played on us that goes by the name of "Anthropomorphic climate change." It is a cult, same as any other cult out there. Look at, for instance, Scientology...
You must not question the theories or leadership of Scientology.
You must pay into Scientology, unflinchingly, whatever sum the machine demands you pay.
Scientology's needs and instructions come before and often to the detriment of yourself, your family, and your community.
Do not point out the foibles and lack of adherence to the rules of Scientology practiced by all of the higher ups within Scientology, the rules exist for YOU to follow, not for those who are better than you.
Etc...

So yeah, I find the Climate Change crowd to be a bunch of gullible, self depreciative rubes who are just a notch or two away from the mental illness and mass delusions of the Heaven's Gate or Jonestown idiots.

a reply to: JonathanNicholas

Those same lefty dipSchiffs want the world to believe that someone born with Male genitalia can be a woman and someone born with a vagina can be a man. Also that men can have periods and give birth.

The people that say feelings determine gender also say the climate is out to git everyone.

They need to stop hijacking 'science' to push their agendas.

Admiral Byrd believed the earth was warming up too (or at least said he did) and even espoused it in school educational propaganda at the time. this agenda has been at play a looooong time.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The planet is warming.

It doesn’t matter why, it’s too late to change.

A better question is, why is TPTB so intent on distracting us from making reasonable changes to increase the chances of our survival?

Wow, you are calling that 180-degree opposite to what I see. I see the PTB, the establishment, actively pushing the AGW narrative and driving change which is purely for change's sake. Calling AGW out for being BS and recognizing that the "climate scientists" get their money from the same governments and elites (via sponsored grants) that are financially and power-wise profiting in a huge way from the AGW narrative is the new Resistance movement, spawned in the same vein as every major political resistance movement against the injustices of the Establishment since this nation's founding.

Since every thing and every activity "use" carbon it is the ultimate target for taxation. Under their rubric nothing we have or do can be exempt from their ever-reaching hands.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So it's not cooling, just to be sure here. . . .

originally posted by: lonegurkha
How about this maybe Mit to the rescue

Except for the fact that sequestering atmospheric CO2 will cause a stunt in the growth of all plant life, we will have less harvests, and plants will need more water with less CO2... In case you haven't realized it yet, the human population is still increasing, so sequestering atmospheric CO2 will cause massive famines... Are you in favor of having billions of people starve to death just so your "feelings are better"?

We have the clinically insane types like AOC, whom want to completely get rid of gasoline/petroleum in a few years when we have no other source of power that can take over oil/petroleum. Not to mention the by-products of petroleum, like plastics, asphalt, rubber, etc. How are we going to fix our roads? What are we going to substitute plastic with? This includes medical equipment such as pacemakers, etc.

Then we have the disgustingly insane like the...lady/cannibal whom proclaimed to AOC that a Swiss progressive scientist was saying that we need to start eating our dead to "save the planet..." She went even more overboard by stating "we have to eat babies to save the world RIGHT NOW!!!..."

Even NASA had to admit that Earth has become GREENER because of the increase in atmospheric CO2. If you want to sequester atmospheric CO2, you are not really a conscious environmentalist. Even with all the "deforestation, forest fires, etc" THE EARTH HAS BECOME GREENER. Yet you all in the left want to take away the one thing that has made Earth greener... That shows the fact that none of you really care for the environment, or Earth. You just care about your left-wing agendas being forced on the rest of the world meanwhile you do things, like atmospheric CO2 sequestration, that WILL BE BAD FOR EARTH...

That's how insane you all in the left have become. You claim to be "environmentalists," but you want to take away the food that has made Earth greener...

If you don't realize how insane these ideas you "progressives have", which will be detrimental to mankind and the flora and fauna of Earth, you are part of the problem, and not really a solution.