CDZ Climate Change effects already here, yet denial persists

[GaryDog]

What?

Eating meat now is a talking point for the AGW cult?

Yep. They are getting more unhinged by the day

http://iceagenow.info/tax-meat-until-its-too-expensive-to-eat-new-un-report-suggests/

Science is science. It doesn't exist to please you.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Americans are not smart.

No argument there, but I'm not buying into the climate cult propaganda.

 

[GaryDog]

Americans are not smart.

No argument there, but I'm not buying into the climate cult propaganda.

It's not a cult. Cults involve blind, irrational devotion. It's layers of scientific findings pointing primarily to one undeniable conclusion: We're rapidly making our planet less habitable for ourselves thanks to fossil fuels, methane, etc.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Cults involve blind, irrational devotion. .

Precisely

 

[Wyatt earp]

I see this thread going to the bad lands real fast.

Not sure why. The facts are not controversial to those in the know. Similarly, evolution by natural selection is also not controversial, except in churches in the U.S.

What facts?

Where is this identical planet earth you speak of and void of humans?

Can someone translate this mouth-breather?

I knew this thread is going away soon.


Its time to set you up.

I'm beginning to see that this is the deal here. If someone represents something other than an arch-conservative, moronic point of view, get them banned, or dinged so many times that they are effectively silenced.

Meanwhile, in this very thread, someone calls me a fucking moron without provocation and is untouched.

Who called you a moron? You play in the CDZ..

And not out in the open debates, why is that?

Not important...

So you are against meat now..just like I suspected

The AGW cult next target : Outlaw meat



So they are saying the earth can only hold 3 billion more people? Another retarded prediction...

How many people can the Earth actually hold?



Live Science notes:


One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life", "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

 

[GaryDog]

Cults involve blind, irrational devotion. .

Precisely

Pithy replies aren't convincing. If you have opposing science, bring it.

 

[GaryDog]

Not sure why. The facts are not controversial to those in the know. Similarly, evolution by natural selection is also not controversial, except in churches in the U.S.

What facts?

Where is this identical planet earth you speak of and void of humans?

Can someone translate this mouth-breather?

I knew this thread is going away soon.


Its time to set you up.

I'm beginning to see that this is the deal here. If someone represents something other than an arch-conservative, moronic point of view, get them banned, or dinged so many times that they are effectively silenced.

Meanwhile, in this very thread, someone calls me a fucking moron without provocation and is untouched.

Who called you a moron? You play in the CDZ..

And not out in the open debates, why is that?

Not important...

So you are against meat now..just like I suspected

The AGW cult next target : Outlaw meat



So they are saying the earth can only hold 3 billion more people? Another retarded prediction...

How many people can the Earth actually hold?



Live Science notes:


One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life", "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

That was a lot of babbling nonsense predicated on strawman arguments. I'm not against hamburgers, I'm not even a vegetarian. I'm merely making a point.

I post all over the forum. I'm seeing a pattern where, no matter how correct/informed/smart the "debate" opponent is, you flail away with emotion and rote assertion. You're just not very eloquent.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

welcome to the new world and its revelations

beknownst to most leftists there has always been a changing climate

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Cults involve blind, irrational devotion. .

Precisely

Pithy replies aren't convincing. If you have opposing science, bring it.

I do, but I'm pretty sure no matter what you were presented with would make much difference to you, thus, I don't feel like wasting my time.

 

[jon_berzerk]

George Moonbat wants to convince us, that once you make the necessary adjustments...it's the hottest JULY EVAH!!!! And our only salvation is to embrace EnviroMarxism.

There is still not one single repeatable lab experiment that shows how an additional 120PPM of CO2 will raise temperature.

Not one single experiment

No, there's just real-time events demonstrating that this is, in fact, happening.

Correlation does not imply causation

children return to school in the fall

the leaves from the trees fall shortly after return to school

therefore the children returning to school cause the leaves to fall

 

[Wyatt earp]

What facts?

Where is this identical planet earth you speak of and void of humans?

Can someone translate this mouth-breather?

I knew this thread is going away soon.


Its time to set you up.

I'm beginning to see that this is the deal here. If someone represents something other than an arch-conservative, moronic point of view, get them banned, or dinged so many times that they are effectively silenced.

Meanwhile, in this very thread, someone calls me a fucking moron without provocation and is untouched.

Who called you a moron? You play in the CDZ..

And not out in the open debates, why is that?

Not important...

So you are against meat now..just like I suspected

The AGW cult next target : Outlaw meat



So they are saying the earth can only hold 3 billion more people? Another retarded prediction...

How many people can the Earth actually hold?



Live Science notes:


One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life", "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

That was a lot of babbling nonsense predicated on strawman arguments. I'm not against hamburgers, I'm not even a vegetarian. I'm merely making a point.

I post all over the forum. I'm seeing a pattern where, no matter how correct/informed/smart the "debate" opponent is, you flail away with emotion and rote assertion. You're just not very eloquent.

Your point.is nonsense and you ignore or don't even know about NASA new C02 sattalite ..

All the C02 is coming from the southern hemisphere..

Land clearing.

Man do I really have to educate you again like our argument on Militia?






Online
bear513Gold Member
I just stumbled on this (don't know if this topic was covered before)

What the hell? By looking at the map the C02 hotspots are in the damn southern hemisphere..... I thought according to the man made climate change cult it had to do with us burning fossil fuels?


NASA Satellite's 1st CO2 Maps of Earth Revealed

This map, pieced together with data from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, shows global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from Oct. 1 through Nov. 11.
CREDIT: NASA/JPL-Caltech
This past summer, NASA launched its first satellite devoted to measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas that is driving global warming.

Today (Dec. 18 2), scientists with the space agency unveiled the first carbon maps obtained by the spacecraft, named the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, or OCO-2

°Snip°


A news conference at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, Eldering and her colleagues showed a map of the globe that uses about 600,000 data points taken by OCO-2 from Oct. 1 through Nov. 17. It shows hotspots of carbon dioxide over northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil

 

[GaryDog]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

welcome to the new world and its revelations

beknownst to most leftists there has always been a changing climate

If you're not willing to follow the discussion, just leave.

 

[GaryDog]

Cults involve blind, irrational devotion. .

Precisely

Pithy replies aren't convincing. If you have opposing science, bring it.

I do, but I'm pretty sure no matter what you were presented with would make much difference to you, thus, I don't feel like wasting my time.

I think you know your sources are either overwhelmingly out-dueled by the prevailing opinion and/or your information isn't relevant.

 

[GaryDog]

Can someone translate this mouth-breather?

I knew this thread is going away soon.


Its time to set you up.

I'm beginning to see that this is the deal here. If someone represents something other than an arch-conservative, moronic point of view, get them banned, or dinged so many times that they are effectively silenced.

Meanwhile, in this very thread, someone calls me a fucking moron without provocation and is untouched.

Who called you a moron? You play in the CDZ..

And not out in the open debates, why is that?

Not important...

So you are against meat now..just like I suspected

The AGW cult next target : Outlaw meat



So they are saying the earth can only hold 3 billion more people? Another retarded prediction...

How many people can the Earth actually hold?



Live Science notes:


One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life", "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

That was a lot of babbling nonsense predicated on strawman arguments. I'm not against hamburgers, I'm not even a vegetarian. I'm merely making a point.

I post all over the forum. I'm seeing a pattern where, no matter how correct/informed/smart the "debate" opponent is, you flail away with emotion and rote assertion. You're just not very eloquent.

Your point.is nonsense and you ignore or don't even know about NASA new C02 sattalite ..

All the C02 is coming from the southern hemisphere..

Land clearing.

Man do I really have to educate you again like our argument on Militia?






Online
bear513Gold Member
I just stumbled on this (don't know if this topic was covered before)

What the hell? By looking at the map the C02 hotspots are in the damn southern hemisphere..... I thought according to the man made climate change cult it had to do with us burning fossil fuels?


NASA Satellite's 1st CO2 Maps of Earth Revealed

This map, pieced together with data from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, shows global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from Oct. 1 through Nov. 11.
CREDIT: NASA/JPL-Caltech
This past summer, NASA launched its first satellite devoted to measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas that is driving global warming.

Today (Dec. 18 2), scientists with the space agency unveiled the first carbon maps obtained by the spacecraft, named the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, or OCO-2

°Snip°


A news conference at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, Eldering and her colleagues showed a map of the globe that uses about 600,000 data points taken by OCO-2 from Oct. 1 through Nov. 17. It shows hotspots of carbon dioxide over northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil

If you could spell "satellite" I'd have more confidence you have a clue what you're talking about.

I've provided information about millennia of CO2 trends and you give us one snapshot from a new satellite? Wow.

 

[GaryDog]

But hey, at least you guys have Donald Trump in your intellectual corner:

Trump's skepticism of global warming may influence Republicans, U-M survey finds

 

[jon_berzerk]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

welcome to the new world and its revelations

beknownst to most leftists there has always been a changing climate

If you're not willing to follow the discussion, just leave.

that is the discussion

 

[flacaltenn]

climate change happens. If you deny that, you deny history and reality. To think taxing people and shit will change it, is also ridiculous.
Its another way for the globalists to take control.. that's it

Well at least you recognize reality here.

What to do about it? Hey, reasonable people can disagree. What do you propose?

If you're worried about CO2, and don't want to wreak the economy, we should build 100 new nuclear reactors.

Why do the warmers fear nuclear power more than they fear CO2?

Uh, maybe for reasons such as this?

Nuclear power is one option, but it carries a host of issues. There is no magic pill. But ignorance and denial is the only truly unacceptable option.

Should matter to you.. That's NOT the reactor complex at Fukushima Nuclear. That's a petroleum storage facility somewhere on the same coast. But ---- Hey --- what's the diff? If warmer folks ARE more scared of nuclear than Global Warming -- it does put things in perspective.

I linked up google image search to the wrong thing. Sue me. I don't think scientists or ...."warmer folks"(?)....are more scared of nuclear than global warming. That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.

There's folks back living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Birds are singing. Hiroshima is a BIG ass city today.

What is the "half-life" toxicity of the massive battery stream from electric cars? THAT stuff is toxic forever.

50 Nuclear plants and the US would be all GW crazy certified. Done..

 

[GaryDog]

Well at least you recognize reality here.

What to do about it? Hey, reasonable people can disagree. What do you propose?

If you're worried about CO2, and don't want to wreak the economy, we should build 100 new nuclear reactors.

Why do the warmers fear nuclear power more than they fear CO2?

Uh, maybe for reasons such as this?

Nuclear power is one option, but it carries a host of issues. There is no magic pill. But ignorance and denial is the only truly unacceptable option.

Should matter to you.. That's NOT the reactor complex at Fukushima Nuclear. That's a petroleum storage facility somewhere on the same coast. But ---- Hey --- what's the diff? If warmer folks ARE more scared of nuclear than Global Warming -- it does put things in perspective.

I linked up google image search to the wrong thing. Sue me. I don't think scientists or ...."warmer folks"(?)....are more scared of nuclear than global warming. That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.

There's folks back living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Birds are singing. Hiroshima is a BIG ass city today.

What is the "half-life" toxicity of the massive battery stream from electric cars? THAT stuff is toxic forever.

50 Nuclear plants and the US would be all GW crazy certified. Done..

The radiation emitted from a modern plant meltdown is a helluva lot more than that sticking around from a 1945 atomic blast. Those in the exclusion zone are taking a risk, and maybe not a properly calculated risk. Jeremy Wade from Rivermonsters was in the exclusion zone a few years ago doing an episode and he had to get out within a certain timeline to prevent unacceptable risks.

I'm not bashing nuclear power per se. But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint...particularly with the zero day computer virus that is now loose in the world (and could sabotage a nuclear plant if in the wrong hands).

Ultimately, fusion would be the long-game. Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year. It's a matter of political will, and not forsaking a livable planet for oil profits.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I knew this thread is going away soon.


Its time to set you up.

I'm beginning to see that this is the deal here. If someone represents something other than an arch-conservative, moronic point of view, get them banned, or dinged so many times that they are effectively silenced.

Meanwhile, in this very thread, someone calls me a fucking moron without provocation and is untouched.

Who called you a moron? You play in the CDZ..

And not out in the open debates, why is that?

Not important...

So you are against meat now..just like I suspected

The AGW cult next target : Outlaw meat



So they are saying the earth can only hold 3 billion more people? Another retarded prediction...

How many people can the Earth actually hold?



Live Science notes:


One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life", "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

That was a lot of babbling nonsense predicated on strawman arguments. I'm not against hamburgers, I'm not even a vegetarian. I'm merely making a point.

I post all over the forum. I'm seeing a pattern where, no matter how correct/informed/smart the "debate" opponent is, you flail away with emotion and rote assertion. You're just not very eloquent.

Your point.is nonsense and you ignore or don't even know about NASA new C02 sattalite ..

All the C02 is coming from the southern hemisphere..

Land clearing.

Man do I really have to educate you again like our argument on Militia?






Online
bear513Gold Member
I just stumbled on this (don't know if this topic was covered before)

What the hell? By looking at the map the C02 hotspots are in the damn southern hemisphere..... I thought according to the man made climate change cult it had to do with us burning fossil fuels?


NASA Satellite's 1st CO2 Maps of Earth Revealed

This map, pieced together with data from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, shows global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from Oct. 1 through Nov. 11.
CREDIT: NASA/JPL-Caltech
This past summer, NASA launched its first satellite devoted to measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas that is driving global warming.

Today (Dec. 18 2), scientists with the space agency unveiled the first carbon maps obtained by the spacecraft, named the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, or OCO-2

°Snip°


A news conference at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, Eldering and her colleagues showed a map of the globe that uses about 600,000 data points taken by OCO-2 from Oct. 1 through Nov. 17. It shows hotspots of carbon dioxide over northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil

If you could spell "satellite" I'd have more confidence you have a clue what you're talking about.

I've provided information about millennia of CO2 trends and you give us one snapshot from a new satellite? Wow.

And it matters because?

All you are telling me by trying to correct spelling and grammar is

1. You have no critical thinking, debating skills or even can carry my tool belt.


2. See above.

 

[320 Years of History]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

Lack of information. Misinformation. Both are travesties, but the means and modes by which folks allow themselves to take comfort in the denial of the occurrence and impacts of climate change discomfit me most.