"man-caused" global warming - a different perspective

[Timmy]

Scientists and liberals alike portray global-warming as man-caused. Okay, sure, let's say that's true. George Carlin once said "we won't destroy the Earth. Earth will shake us off like flees".

Point is, this business may simply be Earth's rejection of human population. It's HIGHLY possible the "Earth's intent" is to reduce or eliminate the human population. That's just how shit works.

We can talk man-caused global warming 24-7, but it's a wasted effort to assume we'll do anything about it, and be sure we won't. Liberal Hollywood is a prime example. They adamantly shriek man-caused global warming, playing the victim roll, all while they warm up their yachts, 10,000 square ft. homes, pools and private jets. In other terms, as long as human population isn't addressed, which it won't be, whether it's global warming, disease or otherwise, humans are fucked and we've earned it.

Bit cynical, don't you think? I do believe it's also wrong. The human race has fought environmental and biological treats before and won. Even global warming is being fought and some countries are actually on target to become carbon neutral over the next 20 years. As more of the effects of global warming start to hit the incentive to do something about it will also become more pronounced. I don't claim it'll be easy. I don't even claim it will be completely reversed. But using" it's to late so we don't need to address it" as a line of reasoning is wrong from both a moral and pragmatic standpoint.

carbon neutral? Ha!............... I'll believe that when I see it. Doesn't matter if they do, which they won't, because it doesn't address the primary problem.

Only liberals would demonize elements on the periodic table, talk about anti science.

Should we pour mercury into our water supply ??? Is just an element !

 

[BluesLegend]

Scientists and liberals alike portray global-warming as man-caused. Okay, sure, let's say that's true. George Carlin once said "we won't destroy the Earth. Earth will shake us off like flees".

Point is, this business may simply be Earth's rejection of human population. It's HIGHLY possible the "Earth's intent" is to reduce or eliminate the human population. That's just how shit works.

We can talk man-caused global warming 24-7, but it's a wasted effort to assume we'll do anything about it, and be sure we won't. Liberal Hollywood is a prime example. They adamantly shriek man-caused global warming, playing the victim roll, all while they warm up their yachts, 10,000 square ft. homes, pools and private jets. In other terms, as long as human population isn't addressed, which it won't be, whether it's global warming, disease or otherwise, humans are fucked and we've earned it.

Bit cynical, don't you think? I do believe it's also wrong. The human race has fought environmental and biological treats before and won. Even global warming is being fought and some countries are actually on target to become carbon neutral over the next 20 years. As more of the effects of global warming start to hit the incentive to do something about it will also become more pronounced. I don't claim it'll be easy. I don't even claim it will be completely reversed. But using" it's to late so we don't need to address it" as a line of reasoning is wrong from both a moral and pragmatic standpoint.

carbon neutral? Ha!............... I'll believe that when I see it. Doesn't matter if they do, which they won't, because it doesn't address the primary problem.

Only liberals would demonize elements on the periodic table, talk about anti science.

Fighting semantics because you don't want to fight the premise of what someone says, is a time old debating trick, used by those who are LOSING that debate.
Sweden commits to becoming carbon neutral by 2045 with new law
It's the name they given it.

Caron neutral tune in next week when libs lose it when a dying star produces carbon.

 

[BluesLegend]

Scientists and liberals alike portray global-warming as man-caused. Okay, sure, let's say that's true. George Carlin once said "we won't destroy the Earth. Earth will shake us off like flees".

Point is, this business may simply be Earth's rejection of human population. It's HIGHLY possible the "Earth's intent" is to reduce or eliminate the human population. That's just how shit works.

We can talk man-caused global warming 24-7, but it's a wasted effort to assume we'll do anything about it, and be sure we won't. Liberal Hollywood is a prime example. They adamantly shriek man-caused global warming, playing the victim roll, all while they warm up their yachts, 10,000 square ft. homes, pools and private jets. In other terms, as long as human population isn't addressed, which it won't be, whether it's global warming, disease or otherwise, humans are fucked and we've earned it.

Funny how you mention Hollywood . California has been a world leader in fighting pollution . And you can see the results in fighting off smog for example .

It doesn't have to be all or nothing . You can use reason. We don't have to live in a tee pee in order to be an environmentalist.

Lib please how many lanes do California highways have now 20?

What is your point ?

It is better than having 2 lanes of stopped traffic .

Those environment loving green Californian's have the highest number of registered vehicles in the country spewing pollution into the air.

Yes . Because they have the most people . They also have the toughest emissions.

Dude California paved over the environment obliterating it so they could drive millions of pollution spewing carbon coughing vehicles, FACT!

 

[BluesLegend]

Scientists and liberals alike portray global-warming as man-caused. Okay, sure, let's say that's true. George Carlin once said "we won't destroy the Earth. Earth will shake us off like flees".

Point is, this business may simply be Earth's rejection of human population. It's HIGHLY possible the "Earth's intent" is to reduce or eliminate the human population. That's just how shit works.

We can talk man-caused global warming 24-7, but it's a wasted effort to assume we'll do anything about it, and be sure we won't. Liberal Hollywood is a prime example. They adamantly shriek man-caused global warming, playing the victim roll, all while they warm up their yachts, 10,000 square ft. homes, pools and private jets. In other terms, as long as human population isn't addressed, which it won't be, whether it's global warming, disease or otherwise, humans are fucked and we've earned it.

Bit cynical, don't you think? I do believe it's also wrong. The human race has fought environmental and biological treats before and won. Even global warming is being fought and some countries are actually on target to become carbon neutral over the next 20 years. As more of the effects of global warming start to hit the incentive to do something about it will also become more pronounced. I don't claim it'll be easy. I don't even claim it will be completely reversed. But using" it's to late so we don't need to address it" as a line of reasoning is wrong from both a moral and pragmatic standpoint.

carbon neutral? Ha!............... I'll believe that when I see it. Doesn't matter if they do, which they won't, because it doesn't address the primary problem.

Only liberals would demonize elements on the periodic table, talk about anti science.

Should we pour mercury into our water supply ??? Is just an element !

California's water supply is already heavily polluted with mercury, you just can't win today.

Mercury contamination in California to last 10,000 years

 

[Kosh]

Scientists and liberals alike portray global-warming as man-caused. Okay, sure, let's say that's true. George Carlin once said "we won't destroy the Earth. Earth will shake us off like flees".

Point is, this business may simply be Earth's rejection of human population. It's HIGHLY possible the "Earth's intent" is to reduce or eliminate the human population. That's just how shit works.

We can talk man-caused global warming 24-7, but it's a wasted effort to assume we'll do anything about it, and be sure we won't. Liberal Hollywood is a prime example. They adamantly shriek man-caused global warming, playing the victim roll, all while they warm up their yachts, 10,000 square ft. homes, pools and private jets. In other terms, as long as human population isn't addressed, which it won't be, whether it's global warming, disease or otherwise, humans are fucked and we've earned it.

Bit cynical, don't you think? I do believe it's also wrong. The human race has fought environmental and biological treats before and won. Even global warming is being fought and some countries are actually on target to become carbon neutral over the next 20 years. As more of the effects of global warming start to hit the incentive to do something about it will also become more pronounced. I don't claim it'll be easy. I don't even claim it will be completely reversed. But using" it's to late so we don't need to address it" as a line of reasoning is wrong from both a moral and pragmatic standpoint.

carbon neutral? Ha!............... I'll believe that when I see it. Doesn't matter if they do, which they won't, because it doesn't address the primary problem.

Only liberals would demonize elements on the periodic table, talk about anti science.

Should we pour mercury into our water supply ??? Is just an element !

Another far left religious narrative noted!

 

[Kosh]

Remember that the entire AGW cult is based on computer models that they program:

 

[Timmy]

We know man can effect local environments to a large scale . Is it such a stretch that we can then effect it on a world scale .

 

[BlindBoo]

Wrong. Mankind is not causing the earth to warm. That is the sun doing that. Each year the earth warms and cools. Mapped in a graph it look like a sine wave. The theory is that AWG is causing the sine wave to be ever increasing over the years by a tiny bit every year and that man's contribution is causing that tiny bit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists and liberals alike portray global-warming as man-caused. Okay, sure, let's say that's true. George Carlin once said "we won't destroy the Earth. Earth will shake us off like flees".

Point is, this business may simply be Earth's rejection of human population. It's HIGHLY possible the "Earth's intent" is to reduce or eliminate the human population. That's just how shit works.

We can talk man-caused global warming 24-7, but it's a wasted effort to assume we'll do anything about it, and be sure we won't. Liberal Hollywood is a prime example. They adamantly shriek man-caused global warming, playing the victim roll, all while they warm up their yachts, 10,000 square ft. homes, pools and private jets. In other terms, as long as human population isn't addressed, which it won't be, whether it's global warming, disease or otherwise, humans are fucked and we've earned it.

Bit cynical, don't you think? I do believe it's also wrong. The human race has fought environmental and biological treats before and won. Even global warming is being fought and some countries are actually on target to become carbon neutral over the next 20 years. As more of the effects of global warming start to hit the incentive to do something about it will also become more pronounced. I don't claim it'll be easy. I don't even claim it will be completely reversed. But using" it's to late so we don't need to address it" as a line of reasoning is wrong from both a moral and pragmatic standpoint.

carbon neutral? Ha!............... I'll believe that when I see it. Doesn't matter if they do, which they won't, because it doesn't address the primary problem.

Only liberals would demonize elements on the periodic table, talk about anti science.

Only a fucking stupid denialist would make that stupid of a statement. You cocksucks are beyond stupid.

Addressing the OP. Nature does not have intent. It simply operates by the rules of chemistry and physics. Biology is the result of those rules.

Yes, we can prevent even worse from happening than what we have already set ourselves up for. However, we are not feeling the effects of the present 410 ppm CO2 and 1800+ ppb of CH4. What we are feeling at present is the effects of the levels of those GHGs 30 to 50 years ago. So it will be at least a decade and a half before we would feel the effects of ceasing to emit, were we able to do that right now. Of course, we cannot. The burning of fossil fuels will be phased out over at least three decades. In the meantime, we really don't know at what point we kick off feedbacks beyond our control.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists and liberals alike portray global-warming as man-caused. Okay, sure, let's say that's true. George Carlin once said "we won't destroy the Earth. Earth will shake us off like flees".

Point is, this business may simply be Earth's rejection of human population. It's HIGHLY possible the "Earth's intent" is to reduce or eliminate the human population. That's just how shit works.

We can talk man-caused global warming 24-7, but it's a wasted effort to assume we'll do anything about it, and be sure we won't. Liberal Hollywood is a prime example. They adamantly shriek man-caused global warming, playing the victim roll, all while they warm up their yachts, 10,000 square ft. homes, pools and private jets. In other terms, as long as human population isn't addressed, which it won't be, whether it's global warming, disease or otherwise, humans are fucked and we've earned it.

Funny how you mention Hollywood . California has been a world leader in fighting pollution . And you can see the results in fighting off smog for example .

It doesn't have to be all or nothing . You can use reason. We don't have to live in a tee pee in order to be an environmentalist.

Lib please how many lanes do California highways have now 20?

Hey Dingleberry, how many 'Conservatives' do you have to have to add up to a three digit IQ? California is second only to Texas in creating renewable energy.

 

[BluesLegend]

Scientists and liberals alike portray global-warming as man-caused. Okay, sure, let's say that's true. George Carlin once said "we won't destroy the Earth. Earth will shake us off like flees".

Point is, this business may simply be Earth's rejection of human population. It's HIGHLY possible the "Earth's intent" is to reduce or eliminate the human population. That's just how shit works.

We can talk man-caused global warming 24-7, but it's a wasted effort to assume we'll do anything about it, and be sure we won't. Liberal Hollywood is a prime example. They adamantly shriek man-caused global warming, playing the victim roll, all while they warm up their yachts, 10,000 square ft. homes, pools and private jets. In other terms, as long as human population isn't addressed, which it won't be, whether it's global warming, disease or otherwise, humans are fucked and we've earned it.

Bit cynical, don't you think? I do believe it's also wrong. The human race has fought environmental and biological treats before and won. Even global warming is being fought and some countries are actually on target to become carbon neutral over the next 20 years. As more of the effects of global warming start to hit the incentive to do something about it will also become more pronounced. I don't claim it'll be easy. I don't even claim it will be completely reversed. But using" it's to late so we don't need to address it" as a line of reasoning is wrong from both a moral and pragmatic standpoint.

carbon neutral? Ha!............... I'll believe that when I see it. Doesn't matter if they do, which they won't, because it doesn't address the primary problem.

Only liberals would demonize elements on the periodic table, talk about anti science.

Only a fucking stupid denialist would make that stupid of a statement. You cocksucks are beyond stupid.

^^^ More proof triggered libs have no sense of humor.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wrong. Mankind is not causing the earth to warm. That is the sun doing that. Each year the earth warms and cools. Mapped in a graph it look like a sine wave. The theory is that AWG is causing the sine wave to be ever increasing over the years by a tiny bit every year and that man's contribution is causing that tiny bit.

But that tiny bit is a pretty large influence on our live when you look at what it is doing to the weather that we depend on for the agriculture that feeds over 7 billion human beings. Then there is the little matter of the increasing power of storms and extreme precipitation events.

 

[Old Rocks]

God controls climate change period....man made climate change is a hoax

Well then, asshole, why didn't you just pray Harvey and Irma away? You like to see fellow Americans made homeless and die? Does your God like that? Come on, show us proof of your God by praying the next hurricane or precipitation event away.

 

[Old Rocks]

Reality, the one thing that terrifies conservatives more than anything else.

Yeah.....

Ummmmm.....

Read my mind.

OK. See Jane run. See Spot run. They can run.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists and liberals alike portray global-warming as man-caused. Okay, sure, let's say that's true. George Carlin once said "we won't destroy the Earth. Earth will shake us off like flees".

Point is, this business may simply be Earth's rejection of human population. It's HIGHLY possible the "Earth's intent" is to reduce or eliminate the human population. That's just how shit works.

We can talk man-caused global warming 24-7, but it's a wasted effort to assume we'll do anything about it, and be sure we won't. Liberal Hollywood is a prime example. They adamantly shriek man-caused global warming, playing the victim roll, all while they warm up their yachts, 10,000 square ft. homes, pools and private jets. In other terms, as long as human population isn't addressed, which it won't be, whether it's global warming, disease or otherwise, humans are fucked and we've earned it.

Bit cynical, don't you think? I do believe it's also wrong. The human race has fought environmental and biological treats before and won. Even global warming is being fought and some countries are actually on target to become carbon neutral over the next 20 years. As more of the effects of global warming start to hit the incentive to do something about it will also become more pronounced. I don't claim it'll be easy. I don't even claim it will be completely reversed. But using" it's to late so we don't need to address it" as a line of reasoning is wrong from both a moral and pragmatic standpoint.

carbon neutral? Ha!............... I'll believe that when I see it. Doesn't matter if they do, which they won't, because it doesn't address the primary problem.

Only liberals would demonize elements on the periodic table, talk about anti science.

Fighting semantics because you don't want to fight the premise of what someone says, is a time old debating trick, used by those who are LOSING that debate.
Sweden commits to becoming carbon neutral by 2045 with new law
It's the name they given it.

Caron neutral tune in next week when libs lose it when a dying star produces carbon.

Really? How do you know that? After all, it was one of them thar librul lyin' panty waist scientists that said that was the case. Tell me, Blues, ever get past simple arithmetic in school? Ever take any science past grade school? On second thought, did you finish grade school?

 

[BluesLegend]

Bit cynical, don't you think? I do believe it's also wrong. The human race has fought environmental and biological treats before and won. Even global warming is being fought and some countries are actually on target to become carbon neutral over the next 20 years. As more of the effects of global warming start to hit the incentive to do something about it will also become more pronounced. I don't claim it'll be easy. I don't even claim it will be completely reversed. But using" it's to late so we don't need to address it" as a line of reasoning is wrong from both a moral and pragmatic standpoint.

carbon neutral? Ha!............... I'll believe that when I see it. Doesn't matter if they do, which they won't, because it doesn't address the primary problem.

Only liberals would demonize elements on the periodic table, talk about anti science.

Fighting semantics because you don't want to fight the premise of what someone says, is a time old debating trick, used by those who are LOSING that debate.
Sweden commits to becoming carbon neutral by 2045 with new law
It's the name they given it.

Caron neutral tune in next week when libs lose it when a dying star produces carbon.

Really? How do you know that? After all, it was one of them thar librul lyin' panty waist scientists that said that was the case. Tell me, Blues, ever get past simple arithmetic in school? Ever take any science past grade school? On second thought, did you finish grade school?

My left pinky is smarter than you lib. Your so called climate science is a joke, why have none of your dire climate predictions have come true? Oh wait, because your so called climate science is a joke.

Climate change, this is just the latest in a long series of faked crisis you people have drummed up, before this you predicted an ice age and in-between the ice age prediction and your global warming prediction it was the ozone hole and deformed frogs was your proof of that, since debunked.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Reality, the one thing that terrifies conservatives more than anything else.

Yeah.....

Ummmmm.....

Read my mind.

OK. See Jane run. See Spot run. They can run.

Laugh of the day.

 

[Chuz Life]

Reality, the one thing that terrifies conservatives more than anything else.

Yeah.....

Ummmmm.....

Read my mind.

OK. See Jane run. See Spot run. They can run.

Laugh of the day.

Your nevervous laughter is expected.

When would you like to discuss the REALITIES that you fucking leftardz are "terrified" of?

 

[BlindBoo]

Wrong. Mankind is not causing the earth to warm. That is the sun doing that. Each year the earth warms and cools. Mapped in a graph it look like a sine wave. The theory is that AWG is causing the sine wave to be ever increasing over the years by a tiny bit every year and that man's contribution is causing that tiny bit.

But that tiny bit is a pretty large influence on our live when you look at what it is doing to the weather that we depend on for the agriculture that feeds over 7 billion human beings. Then there is the little matter of the increasing power of storms and extreme precipitation events.

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Last Revised: Aug. 30, 2017

• It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
• There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center

Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC AR4, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:

• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

 

[Aletheia4u]

I guess that we must blow up the earth's core in order to get rid of greehouse gases. Maybe that is what Kim Jong Un was trying to do when he dropped the H-bomb. It is to get rid of the greenhouse gases.


Scientists discover vast methane plumes escaping from Arctic seafloor | EarthSky.org

Peak Oil? Not If This Deep Earth Hydrocarbon Theory Is True





NKorea: ‘H-bomb test a success’