Global Warming Denialists, does CO2 absorb longwave radiation?

[Brambo]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

 

[Brambo]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Tell that to the diarrhea stained used PMS rags claiming that there are no experiments showing CO2 to be a greenhouse gas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Sure does, fucktard. So what?

 

[forkup]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Tell that to the diarrhea stained used PMS rags claiming that there are no experiments showing CO2 to be a greenhouse gas.

Lol stop fighting them. I've done it too, and I've tried to argue creationists. They will try to find little pieces of inconsistencies, however small and claim it invalidates all science. And stuff which is undeniable they'll claim its the scientist warping their data, it's a useless argument.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Tell that to the diarrhea stained used PMS rags claiming that there are no experiments showing CO2 to be a greenhouse gas.

It's a waste of time.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

 

[Brambo]

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

What does this have to do with CO2 absorption spectra you brown-stained panties.

 

[forkup]

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

A couple of things. First off, in this article, there are no outside references, so actually checking the truthfulness is impossible. Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet. So he's basically spit balling it. This makes it an assumption, not science.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Tell that to the diarrhea stained used PMS rags claiming that there are no experiments showing CO2 to be a greenhouse gas.

Lol stop fighting them. I've done it too, and I've tried to argue creationists. They will try to find little pieces of inconsistencies, however small and claim it invalidates all science. And stuff which is undeniable they'll claim its the scientist warping their data, it's a useless argument.

^It may have something to do with your lack of information that makes your argument inefficient. As a creationist that loves science, I see the the two fitting together like hand and glove. So happy that science has finally realized that dimensions don't stop at 4. God knew that, he created them. Science is finding them. That's exciting. I love when Science gets closer to finding the One that understood them first! Finally!

Because science hasn't uncovered the properties of all these dimensions yet, let's let God be the first to inform them and you, that dimensions can be stretched, burnt, rolled up, and torn. That has everything to do with science, and the One that used "science" and "physics" to create.

He is also the God of LIGHT. The abilities that light possesses has science so stumped that it gave rise to Quantum Physics. Without understanding why or how, it appears that light thinks. Science me that pups...

 

[forkup]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Tell that to the diarrhea stained used PMS rags claiming that there are no experiments showing CO2 to be a greenhouse gas.

Lol stop fighting them. I've done it too, and I've tried to argue creationists. They will try to find little pieces of inconsistencies, however small and claim it invalidates all science. And stuff which is undeniable they'll claim its the scientist warping their data, it's a useless argument.

^It may have something to do with your lack of information that makes your argument inefficient. As a creationist that loves science, I see the the two fitting together like hand and glove. So happy that science has finally realized that dimensions don't stop at 4. God knew that, he created them. Science is finding them. That's exciting. I love when Science gets closer to finding the One that understood them first! Finally!

Because science hasn't uncovered the properties of all these dimensions yet, let's let God be the first to inform them and you, that dimensions can be stretched, burnt, rolled up, and torn. That has everything to do with science, and the One that used "science" and "physics" to create.

He is also the God of LIGHT. The abilities that light possesses has science so stumped that it gave rise to Quantum Physics. Without understanding why or how, it appears that light thinks. Science me that pups...

Young or old earth creationist?

 

[Brambo]

I hate that these whacko cult-Christians drag Jesus's name through the mud with their stupidity.

I believe Christ is God but I don't limit God to such stupid shit like "humans can't cause Global Warming".

God made the Universe, and he made it so that Humans are its Shepherds and we are destroying the Earth according to God's plans.

And Science proves that.

 

[forkup]

I hate that these whacko cult-Christians drag Jesus's name through the mud with their stupidity.

I believe Christ is God but I don't limit God to such stupid shit like "humans can't cause Global Warming".

God made the Universe, and he made it so that Humans are its Shepherds and we are destroying the Earth according to God's plans.

And Science proves that.

My problem is. If you love science as you claim, being a creationist has to make you uncomfortable. In my opinion theirs only 2 places that God is a conceivable hypothesis. That's before the Big Bang and how did life start on Earth. In all other areas, science has a perfectly valid and testable explanation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

A couple of things. First off, in this article, there are no outside references, so actually checking the truthfulness is impossible. Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet. So he's basically spit balling it. This makes it an assumption, not science.

Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet.

Looks like the reduction in 2009 was much more than 1%.

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014 | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

 

[The Irish Ram]

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

What does this have to do with CO2 absorption spectra you brown-stained panties.

Do you think rude comments lend credence to your arguments? The don't. Watch how to make a point without the disgusting affronts:
The answer to your question is some gases do, and some don't. As for the "global warming" scam to redistribute our wealth, how does letting everyone but us burn our coal as much as they want ( with no precipatrons in place to help clean the environment, like we have) help restrict CO2 emissions?
Global warming has nothing to do with CO2 absorption. Volcanoes have nothing to do with global warming. Farting has nothing to do with the intensity of solar flares, hair spray won't change a thing. The sun determines our climate and always has, and always will.

 

[forkup]

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

A couple of things. First off, in this article, there are no outside references, so actually checking the truthfulness is impossible. Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet. So he's basically spit balling it. This makes it an assumption, not science.

Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet.

View attachment 89354

Looks like the reduction in 2009 was much more than 1%.

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014 | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis? I personally believe that to be a stretch. And btw in 2002 the dot com bubble burst and emissions where going up then. So trying to tie up the 2 gets tricky right off the bat.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Tell that to the diarrhea stained used PMS rags claiming that there are no experiments showing CO2 to be a greenhouse gas.

Lol stop fighting them. I've done it too, and I've tried to argue creationists. They will try to find little pieces of inconsistencies, however small and claim it invalidates all science. And stuff which is undeniable they'll claim its the scientist warping their data, it's a useless argument.

^It may have something to do with your lack of information that makes your argument inefficient. As a creationist that loves science, I see the the two fitting together like hand and glove. So happy that science has finally realized that dimensions don't stop at 4. God knew that, he created them. Science is finding them. That's exciting. I love when Science gets closer to finding the One that understood them first! Finally!

Because science hasn't uncovered the properties of all these dimensions yet, let's let God be the first to inform them and you, that dimensions can be stretched, burnt, rolled up, and torn. That has everything to do with science, and the One that used "science" and "physics" to create.

He is also the God of LIGHT. The abilities that light possesses has science so stumped that it gave rise to Quantum Physics. Without understanding why or how, it appears that light thinks. Science me that pups...

Don't they have global warming in the 5th dimension?

 

[Brambo]

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

What does this have to do with CO2 absorption spectra you brown-stained panties.

Do you think rude comments lend credence to your arguments? The don't. Watch how to make a point without the disgusting affronts:
The answer to your question is some gases do, and some don't. As for the "global warming" scam to redistribute our wealth, how does letting everyone but us burn our coal as much as they want ( with no precipatrons in place to help clean the environment, like we have) help restrict CO2 emissions?
Global warming has nothing to do with CO2 absorption. Volcanoes have nothing to do with global warming. Farting has nothing to do with the intensity of solar flares, hair spray won't change a thing. The sun determines our climate and always has, and always will.

Global warming has to do with CO2 absorption.

If you say no...only God does...then you're a fucking satanist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

A couple of things. First off, in this article, there are no outside references, so actually checking the truthfulness is impossible. Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet. So he's basically spit balling it. This makes it an assumption, not science.

Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet.

View attachment 89354

Looks like the reduction in 2009 was much more than 1%.

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014 | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis? I personally believe that to be a stretch. And btw in 2002 the dot com bubble burst and emissions where going up then. So trying to tie up the 2 gets tricky right off the bat.

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis?

The economy tanked, less CO2 was released.
Why is that hard to believe?
There was a smaller drop in 2000-2001, when the dotcom bubble burst. It wasn't 2002.

 

[Brambo]

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

A couple of things. First off, in this article, there are no outside references, so actually checking the truthfulness is impossible. Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet. So he's basically spit balling it. This makes it an assumption, not science.

Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet.

View attachment 89354

Looks like the reduction in 2009 was much more than 1%.

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014 | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis? I personally believe that to be a stretch. And btw in 2002 the dot com bubble burst and emissions where going up then. So trying to tie up the 2 gets tricky right off the bat.

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis?

The economy tanked, less CO2 was released.
Why is that hard to believe?
There was a smaller drop in 2000-2001, when the dotcom bubble burst. It wasn't 2002.

Why do we agree on some things and not on others?

You make my trolling less fun you buttwipe!