Climate Change has run its course@

[Sunsettommy]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Climate change has been real for a BILLION years, thus your statement is absurd.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

You are delusional since it is unenforceable and many countries already struggling to keep up with it, while America has a done a better job keeping their emissions under control, despite not being part of the Paris mandate.

 

[skookerasbil]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Climate change has been real for a BILLION years, thus your statement is absurd.

Hard for me to even respond to that guy anymore....its weird having a low information guy on a message board like this. Like when you are standing around at a party talking about an issue and you just know somebody is clueless you don't even involve them in the conversation.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Climate change has been real for a BILLION years, thus your statement is absurd.

Hard for me to even respond to that guy anymore....its weird having a low information guy on a message board like this. Like when you are standing around at a party talking about an issue and you just know somebody is clueless you don't even involve them in the conversation.

I am dealing with a similar fella at another forum, who just claimed that KOCH has paid THOUSANDS of Skeptics, here is the actual quote:

"Koch has thousands of "skeptics" on his payroll."

It is an obvious lie.

Koch Koch Koch Koch Koch… Zzzzz.

 

[skookerasbil]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Climate change has been real for a BILLION years, thus your statement is absurd.

Hard for me to even respond to that guy anymore....its weird having a low information guy on a message board like this. Like when you are standing around at a party talking about an issue and you just know somebody is clueless you don't even involve them in the conversation.

I am dealing with a similar fella at another forum, who just claimed that KOCH has paid THOUSANDS of Skeptics, here is the actual quote:

"Koch has thousands of "skeptics" on his payroll."

It is an obvious lie.

Koch Koch Koch Koch Koch… Zzzzz.

Yeeesh!

 

[Sunsettommy]

There was a time a decade ago and more ago, when a lot of people were listening to Al $$$ Gore, the small pool of warmist scientists, leftist Politicians make their doom and gloom claims of a horrible future.

Today their much reduced voice gets ever more shrill and stupider as the much talked about doom and gloom never happens, while there are FEWER Tornadoes, landfalling Hurricanes, less super heat waves which are also getting smaller in scope, Arctic sea ice no longer declining, warming rate prediction/projections never comes close and much more.

Crick is now lying about the Per Decade warming rate, in is last ditch attempt to save the smoldering wreckage of the AGW conjecture that has already died of a lot of failed prediction/projections.

 

[toobfreak]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Everybody in the world except Christopher Columbus was convinced the Earth was flat and you would sail off the edge.

Ummmm nnnnno they weren't. If that were the case the king and queen of Spain wouldn't have loaded him up, now would they.

>> During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[5]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.[2][6][7] --- Myth of Flat Earth Belief​

Meahwhile in this neck of the wood there's landslides all around still being cleaned up after the wettest torrential rain month of May in recorded history, but that's perfectly normal, "s0n".

Excepting Toob, of course. LOL People like him love to repeat lies and silly tales that are simply not true.

As the number of extreme weather events impact people's lives, and destroy their possessions they will come to accept that they have been lied to and misled for the energy companies profits, even as they economic situation becomes worse because of the actions of those companies.

Just curious who was to blame for all the extreme weather events impacting people's lives and possessions from roughly 10,000 years ago up to about a hundred years ago before the energy companies were around to blame?

 

[Pogo]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Not really. The problem, or perhaps I should say some of the problems is that the Climate Change movement was corrupted by the various other supporters. Women’s rights groups embraced Climate Change as part of their thing. If you did not support radical action on Climate Change, you were a total sexist as one example.

One of the big problems that I’ve pointed out for years is Nuclear Power. I’ve long argued that Nuclear Power is the Golden BB for Climate Change believers. You see, it produces zero Carbon Dioxide, and is reliable, sustainable, and with newer designs, much much safer.

This obvious answer has long been rejected out of hand by the Climate Change believers. They champion obviously incomplete theories in lieu of common sense answers. Worse, they do so while wrapping the Climate Change blanket around whatever they can.

The arguments against Nuclear are based upon older and less refined designs. Yet we are told that newer everything else is all we should ever consider. What I mean is newer batteries are somehow able to miracle their way through the current problems with inefficient energy storage. One of the things that nobody tells you is that recharging batteries is inefficient. It takes more energy to put power into the battery than you get in, and more to get it out than you actually can use.

Let’s use the bank account analogy. You go to deposit $100 in your bank account. Your bank charges you a buck and a half to put the money in your savings account. OK, that’s fine. Then every month the Bank charges you a two bucks to hold onto your money for you. This means if you don’t add any money to the account, it will eventually evaporate away in fees. Well you aren’t going to stand for that. So you take your money out, and it cost you another five bucks to get the money out of your account.

It cost energy to put power into the battery, as the battery sits, some of the energy is lost over time. Depending on the type of battery, this energy loss can be significant. When you decide to use the power in the battery, even more is lost.

Gasoline or Diesel engines are also subject to similar problems. Gasoline and Diesel evaporate slowly. The Gas Tank or Fuel Tank have vents to manage this. It cost more energy to start an engine than it takes to keep it running providing it idles for less than a minute. That is why many makers have included “stop and start” tech to their cars. When you stop at a light, the engine automatically shuts down, and when you touch the gas, the engine restarts automatically, and engages the transmission all in a second or two.

It is where Hybrids get their efficiency, the stop and start nature of city driving. There the engine stays off if the battery is full enough, and the rate of acceleration is mild enough.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, and the Climate Change folks reject it out of hand. We aren’t even allowed to explore newer designs that could incorporate the safety lessons that we have learned over the decades. We aren’t even allowed to consider new designs that would actually use the radioactive waste that has been generated. One of the newer designs that are possible is one that would literally keep running for a couple centuries off of existing supplies of nuclear waste.

Nope. Not going to happen.

It is as if we were only allowed to discuss the safety of flying by using the Wright Flyer as the only airplane that ever existed. We can’t learn from it, improve it, and increase the safety and reliablility. Nope, flying is dangerous, look at the Wright Flyer and how many people have died.

Instead of being one of the safest means of travel, it would be listed as the most dangerous because we aren’t allowed to consider any improvements, or progress, or evolution if you prefer on the issue.

Your point on climate change being subjected to the back seat of left wing politics has clearly played a role in its demise. The other special interest groups on the left are given higher priority in campaign platforms....its not even close. Of course, $$ contributions a big factor....your rank and file DUM voter isn't sending money hoping the candidate wins on the issue of climate change. There are other issues more near and dear to their heart. Too, voters have figured out that there is a whole army of climate change industry sheisters that have attached themselves to the "science"....voters don't like that especially when the same voters hate capitalism in the first place. Right now, climate change is like a boat floating around in the middle of the sea with no motor and no anchor either. Its a political zero in modern day DUM politics....a peripheral issue in almost every county except the handful of radical k00k ones.

Not sure about the nuclear point...most alarmists in here do not advocate for nuclear. I'm a skeptic and am strongly against nuclear power. I don't think we have a clue yet about the long term effects from Fukishima and will never get the full account of it either.

Got it. You see it as nothing more than a Democratic issue, so you oppose it.

Analysis disconnect.

Nobody has shown any propensity to open their wallets to fight climate change after 25 years of the religion lobbing bombs. A thorn in the sides of uber-progressives....actually, more like a massive bumpy cucumber but I digress....

Ten years from now, progressives will be sitting in front of the same ghey banner they do today ( and did 10 years ago ). And still nobody will be taking any more than a token gesture in any fight against climate change. Progressives, supposedly the smartest people in the room, still spike the football in front of a science club billboard, but no place else. In the real world, nobody is worrying about the 3mm rise in the ocean!!

It's always instructive when a wag who purports to lay out a timeline, proceeds to do so using a political term that already left the scene a century ago. Not to mention the "ghey"s and "religions" and dumptruck loads of emoticons that confirm what OldRocks just noted.

 

[Pogo]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Everybody in the world except Christopher Columbus was convinced the Earth was flat and you would sail off the edge.

Ummmm nnnnno they weren't. If that were the case the king and queen of Spain wouldn't have loaded him up, now would they.

>> During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[5]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.[2][6][7] --- Myth of Flat Earth Belief​

Meahwhile in this neck of the wood there's landslides all around still being cleaned up after the wettest torrential rain month of May in recorded history, but that's perfectly normal, "s0n".

Excepting Toob, of course. LOL People like him love to repeat lies and silly tales that are simply not true.

It would seem the myth of "the earth is flat" was not as pervasive as they myth that "before Columbus people thought the world was flat" Advertising hype in the form of embellished/sanitized history.

As the number of extreme weather events impact people's lives, and destroy their possessions they will come to accept that they have been lied to and misled for the energy companies profits, even as they economic situation becomes worse because of the actions of those companies.

Savannah's treatise on nuke development is informative and optimistic, but it's also a case of an industry going "OK, when we told you it was safe before we admit we were lying but this time we're not lying, trust us really we're not". It sounds eerily like tobacco companies going "what? Tar and nicotine? Posh, there's nothing wrong with tar and nicotine" and then when the proof comes in they go "Look, here's our new low-tar cigarette".

 

[skookerasbil]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Not really. The problem, or perhaps I should say some of the problems is that the Climate Change movement was corrupted by the various other supporters. Women’s rights groups embraced Climate Change as part of their thing. If you did not support radical action on Climate Change, you were a total sexist as one example.

One of the big problems that I’ve pointed out for years is Nuclear Power. I’ve long argued that Nuclear Power is the Golden BB for Climate Change believers. You see, it produces zero Carbon Dioxide, and is reliable, sustainable, and with newer designs, much much safer.

This obvious answer has long been rejected out of hand by the Climate Change believers. They champion obviously incomplete theories in lieu of common sense answers. Worse, they do so while wrapping the Climate Change blanket around whatever they can.

The arguments against Nuclear are based upon older and less refined designs. Yet we are told that newer everything else is all we should ever consider. What I mean is newer batteries are somehow able to miracle their way through the current problems with inefficient energy storage. One of the things that nobody tells you is that recharging batteries is inefficient. It takes more energy to put power into the battery than you get in, and more to get it out than you actually can use.

Let’s use the bank account analogy. You go to deposit $100 in your bank account. Your bank charges you a buck and a half to put the money in your savings account. OK, that’s fine. Then every month the Bank charges you a two bucks to hold onto your money for you. This means if you don’t add any money to the account, it will eventually evaporate away in fees. Well you aren’t going to stand for that. So you take your money out, and it cost you another five bucks to get the money out of your account.

It cost energy to put power into the battery, as the battery sits, some of the energy is lost over time. Depending on the type of battery, this energy loss can be significant. When you decide to use the power in the battery, even more is lost.

Gasoline or Diesel engines are also subject to similar problems. Gasoline and Diesel evaporate slowly. The Gas Tank or Fuel Tank have vents to manage this. It cost more energy to start an engine than it takes to keep it running providing it idles for less than a minute. That is why many makers have included “stop and start” tech to their cars. When you stop at a light, the engine automatically shuts down, and when you touch the gas, the engine restarts automatically, and engages the transmission all in a second or two.

It is where Hybrids get their efficiency, the stop and start nature of city driving. There the engine stays off if the battery is full enough, and the rate of acceleration is mild enough.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, and the Climate Change folks reject it out of hand. We aren’t even allowed to explore newer designs that could incorporate the safety lessons that we have learned over the decades. We aren’t even allowed to consider new designs that would actually use the radioactive waste that has been generated. One of the newer designs that are possible is one that would literally keep running for a couple centuries off of existing supplies of nuclear waste.

Nope. Not going to happen.

It is as if we were only allowed to discuss the safety of flying by using the Wright Flyer as the only airplane that ever existed. We can’t learn from it, improve it, and increase the safety and reliablility. Nope, flying is dangerous, look at the Wright Flyer and how many people have died.

Instead of being one of the safest means of travel, it would be listed as the most dangerous because we aren’t allowed to consider any improvements, or progress, or evolution if you prefer on the issue.

Your point on climate change being subjected to the back seat of left wing politics has clearly played a role in its demise. The other special interest groups on the left are given higher priority in campaign platforms....its not even close. Of course, $$ contributions a big factor....your rank and file DUM voter isn't sending money hoping the candidate wins on the issue of climate change. There are other issues more near and dear to their heart. Too, voters have figured out that there is a whole army of climate change industry sheisters that have attached themselves to the "science"....voters don't like that especially when the same voters hate capitalism in the first place. Right now, climate change is like a boat floating around in the middle of the sea with no motor and no anchor either. Its a political zero in modern day DUM politics....a peripheral issue in almost every county except the handful of radical k00k ones.

Not sure about the nuclear point...most alarmists in here do not advocate for nuclear. I'm a skeptic and am strongly against nuclear power. I don't think we have a clue yet about the long term effects from Fukishima and will never get the full account of it either.

Got it. You see it as nothing more than a Democratic issue, so you oppose it.

Analysis disconnect.

Nobody has shown any propensity to open their wallets to fight climate change after 25 years of the religion lobbing bombs. A thorn in the sides of uber-progressives....actually, more like a massive bumpy cucumber but I digress....

Ten years from now, progressives will be sitting in front of the same ghey banner they do today ( and did 10 years ago ). And still nobody will be taking any more than a token gesture in any fight against climate change. Progressives, supposedly the smartest people in the room, still spike the football in front of a science club billboard, but no place else. In the real world, nobody is worrying about the 3mm rise in the ocean!!

It's always instructive when a wag who purports to lay out a timeline, proceeds to do so using a political term that already left the scene a century ago. Not to mention the "ghey"s and "religions" and dumptruck loads of emoticons that confirm what OldRocks just noted.

Oh I'm glad you noticed the timelines since every time I post them up I am splitting my sides laughing. And the emoticons for me are just a way of adding a few more bumps to the bumpy cucumber!

 

[Pogo]

Not really. The problem, or perhaps I should say some of the problems is that the Climate Change movement was corrupted by the various other supporters. Women’s rights groups embraced Climate Change as part of their thing. If you did not support radical action on Climate Change, you were a total sexist as one example.

One of the big problems that I’ve pointed out for years is Nuclear Power. I’ve long argued that Nuclear Power is the Golden BB for Climate Change believers. You see, it produces zero Carbon Dioxide, and is reliable, sustainable, and with newer designs, much much safer.

This obvious answer has long been rejected out of hand by the Climate Change believers. They champion obviously incomplete theories in lieu of common sense answers. Worse, they do so while wrapping the Climate Change blanket around whatever they can.

The arguments against Nuclear are based upon older and less refined designs. Yet we are told that newer everything else is all we should ever consider. What I mean is newer batteries are somehow able to miracle their way through the current problems with inefficient energy storage. One of the things that nobody tells you is that recharging batteries is inefficient. It takes more energy to put power into the battery than you get in, and more to get it out than you actually can use.

Let’s use the bank account analogy. You go to deposit $100 in your bank account. Your bank charges you a buck and a half to put the money in your savings account. OK, that’s fine. Then every month the Bank charges you a two bucks to hold onto your money for you. This means if you don’t add any money to the account, it will eventually evaporate away in fees. Well you aren’t going to stand for that. So you take your money out, and it cost you another five bucks to get the money out of your account.

It cost energy to put power into the battery, as the battery sits, some of the energy is lost over time. Depending on the type of battery, this energy loss can be significant. When you decide to use the power in the battery, even more is lost.

Gasoline or Diesel engines are also subject to similar problems. Gasoline and Diesel evaporate slowly. The Gas Tank or Fuel Tank have vents to manage this. It cost more energy to start an engine than it takes to keep it running providing it idles for less than a minute. That is why many makers have included “stop and start” tech to their cars. When you stop at a light, the engine automatically shuts down, and when you touch the gas, the engine restarts automatically, and engages the transmission all in a second or two.

It is where Hybrids get their efficiency, the stop and start nature of city driving. There the engine stays off if the battery is full enough, and the rate of acceleration is mild enough.

Nuclear is the obvious answer, and the Climate Change folks reject it out of hand. We aren’t even allowed to explore newer designs that could incorporate the safety lessons that we have learned over the decades. We aren’t even allowed to consider new designs that would actually use the radioactive waste that has been generated. One of the newer designs that are possible is one that would literally keep running for a couple centuries off of existing supplies of nuclear waste.

Nope. Not going to happen.

It is as if we were only allowed to discuss the safety of flying by using the Wright Flyer as the only airplane that ever existed. We can’t learn from it, improve it, and increase the safety and reliablility. Nope, flying is dangerous, look at the Wright Flyer and how many people have died.

Instead of being one of the safest means of travel, it would be listed as the most dangerous because we aren’t allowed to consider any improvements, or progress, or evolution if you prefer on the issue.

Your point on climate change being subjected to the back seat of left wing politics has clearly played a role in its demise. The other special interest groups on the left are given higher priority in campaign platforms....its not even close. Of course, $$ contributions a big factor....your rank and file DUM voter isn't sending money hoping the candidate wins on the issue of climate change. There are other issues more near and dear to their heart. Too, voters have figured out that there is a whole army of climate change industry sheisters that have attached themselves to the "science"....voters don't like that especially when the same voters hate capitalism in the first place. Right now, climate change is like a boat floating around in the middle of the sea with no motor and no anchor either. Its a political zero in modern day DUM politics....a peripheral issue in almost every county except the handful of radical k00k ones.

Not sure about the nuclear point...most alarmists in here do not advocate for nuclear. I'm a skeptic and am strongly against nuclear power. I don't think we have a clue yet about the long term effects from Fukishima and will never get the full account of it either.

Got it. You see it as nothing more than a Democratic issue, so you oppose it.

Analysis disconnect.

Nobody has shown any propensity to open their wallets to fight climate change after 25 years of the religion lobbing bombs. A thorn in the sides of uber-progressives....actually, more like a massive bumpy cucumber but I digress....

Ten years from now, progressives will be sitting in front of the same ghey banner they do today ( and did 10 years ago ). And still nobody will be taking any more than a token gesture in any fight against climate change. Progressives, supposedly the smartest people in the room, still spike the football in front of a science club billboard, but no place else. In the real world, nobody is worrying about the 3mm rise in the ocean!!

It's always instructive when a wag who purports to lay out a timeline, proceeds to do so using a political term that already left the scene a century ago. Not to mention the "ghey"s and "religions" and dumptruck loads of emoticons that confirm what OldRocks just noted.

Oh I'm glad you noticed the timelines since every time I post them up I am splitting my sides laughing. And the emoticons for me are just a way of adding a few more bumps to the bumpy cucumber!

I always notice anachronisms. Especially when they're used as disingenuous triggers.

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way....this is a top story on DRUDGE right now, which makes it even more of a hoot!

 

[BULLDOG]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

You are delusional since it is unenforceable and many countries already struggling to keep up with it, while America has a done a better job keeping their emissions under control, despite not being part of the Paris mandate.

You could be partially right. However, the question is not about compliance. It is about acceptance of the fact that it is something we need to deal with.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

You are delusional since it is unenforceable and many countries already struggling to keep up with it, while America has a done a better job keeping their emissions under control, despite not being part of the Paris mandate.

You could be partially right. However, the question is not about compliance. It is about acceptance of the fact that it is something we need to deal with.

America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems.

 

[BULLDOG]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

You are delusional since it is unenforceable and many countries already struggling to keep up with it, while America has a done a better job keeping their emissions under control, despite not being part of the Paris mandate.

You could be partially right. However, the question is not about compliance. It is about acceptance of the fact that it is something we need to deal with.

America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems.

And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that.

 

[skookerasbil]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

You are delusional since it is unenforceable and many countries already struggling to keep up with it, while America has a done a better job keeping their emissions under control, despite not being part of the Paris mandate.

You could be partially right. However, the question is not about compliance. It is about acceptance of the fact that it is something we need to deal with.

Ummm......s0n. Have you ever heard of the Bell Curve. If so I'm fairly certain you don't understand how it works. You may think we have to stop everything else and "deal with it".... but please show us some evidence that people are clamoring to do something about climate change. In other words, you know that big bubble part of the bell on the Bell Curve? Your sentiments reflect either end of the bell ( not sure which but it doesn't matter ) not the big bulby middle. Indeed, very very few are getting hysterical over climate change like you are.... so what the science is saying really doesn't matter.

 

[skookerasbil]

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

You are delusional since it is unenforceable and many countries already struggling to keep up with it, while America has a done a better job keeping their emissions under control, despite not being part of the Paris mandate.

You could be partially right. However, the question is not about compliance. It is about acceptance of the fact that it is something we need to deal with.

America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems.

And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that.

That's right.... and Trump nation is laughing their balls off everyday about it!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

You are delusional since it is unenforceable and many countries already struggling to keep up with it, while America has a done a better job keeping their emissions under control, despite not being part of the Paris mandate.

You could be partially right. However, the question is not about compliance. It is about acceptance of the fact that it is something we need to deal with.

America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems.

And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that.

Ah no, the Clear Air Act of 1970 is still the law. What are being taken out are secretive science based claims and the absurd regulations on things that doesn't help anyone such as the overblown Freshwater rule.

The EPA regularly reduce the already very low toxic level rules because of their zeal to eliminate ALL forms of pollution, an impossibility that drives up compliance costs.

 

[BULLDOG]

Everybody in the world, except for RWNJs in the US, is convinced that global climate change is real and something we need to deal with.

Bar room banter.....a chat for progressives to have over a latte at the local Starbucks s0n.

If the whole world is so convinced climate change is real, why is absolutely nobody picking up their phone to call their representative to tell them to take action? For the past 10 years, no less!! Why is the Paris Treaty dead. Why is the EPA being trainwrecked as we speak? Why do green candidates consistently get their clocks cleaned in midterm elections? Why has climate change still not made an appearance has a debate topic at any presidential debate? Why do solar and wind power combined still only provide 6% of our electricity?

Oh right.... it's because everybody in the world is convinced climate change is real!!

Taking bows over a banner when your sentiments reflect a distinct minority = ghey

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

You are delusional since it is unenforceable and many countries already struggling to keep up with it, while America has a done a better job keeping their emissions under control, despite not being part of the Paris mandate.

You could be partially right. However, the question is not about compliance. It is about acceptance of the fact that it is something we need to deal with.

Ummm......s0n. Have you ever heard of the Bell Curve. If so I'm fairly certain you don't understand how it works. You may think we have to stop everything else and "deal with it".... but please show us some evidence that people are clamoring to do something about climate change. In other words, you know that big bubble part of the bell on the Bell Curve? Your sentiments reflect either end of the bell ( not sure which but it doesn't matter ) not the big bulby middle. Indeed, very very few are getting hysterical over climate change like you are.... so what the science is saying really doesn't matter.

Yes. You have made it very clear that science doesn't mean much to you. Typical trump supporter.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Paris agreement is not dead. Every country in the world has acknowleged the problem and joined the agreement.

You are delusional since it is unenforceable and many countries already struggling to keep up with it, while America has a done a better job keeping their emissions under control, despite not being part of the Paris mandate.

You could be partially right. However, the question is not about compliance. It is about acceptance of the fact that it is something we need to deal with.

America is already one of the cleanest nations on earth in part because of the 1970 Clean Air act, that was a needed push to get the country in dealing with pollution. America did this a long time ago, long before loudmouthed socialist Europe started to pay serious attention to their own pollution problems.

And Trump's EPA is working hard to dismantle all of that.

That's right.... and Trump nation is laughing their balls off everyday about it!!

Yes. Idiots do stuff like that.