The Climate Hoaxers are targeting beef.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course the agitprop says the sociopaths are not going to try and limit or reduce people's meat consumption, the rest of the agitprop insists that success in fighting the bullshit climate hoax requires it. So my idea is this. We should start eating MORE. We should be gorging ourselves with beef. Even if you just buy a tube of shitty ground beef from the dollar store once a week and throw it away it will keep demand high.



It's shitty meat anyway, so just feed it to dogs if they'll eat it. This way if we increase our beef consumption and the moonbats do manage to pass some draconian law, we can just go back to eating our regular amount. For that matter if you have the acreage, buy a calf and fatten it up. Then have the thing slaughtered and there is fuck all the bed wetters can do about it. Hopefully we can keep leftist lunacy down well enough to vote these jabbering retards out of power next time, get serious about election integrity, and keep these insane dumbfucks from screwing with our diets because I for one WILL NOT reduce my beef consumption. In fact I have pledged to prepare and charcoal grill steak at least twice a month.

(Mods: I looked for a thread on this, I couldn't find it. Please merge it if there is one.)

The thread premise is a lie.

This lie was been long debunked and yet the reprehensible right continues to propagate this lie; further proof that conservatives are indeed scum.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course the agitprop says the sociopaths are not going to try and limit or reduce people's meat consumption, the rest of the agitprop insists that success in fighting the bullshit climate hoax requires it. So my idea is this. We should start eating MORE. We should be gorging ourselves with beef. Even if you just buy a tube of shitty ground beef from the dollar store once a week and throw it away it will keep demand high.



It's shitty meat anyway, so just feed it to dogs if they'll eat it. This way if we increase our beef consumption and the moonbats do manage to pass some draconian law, we can just go back to eating our regular amount. For that matter if you have the acreage, buy a calf and fatten it up. Then have the thing slaughtered and there is fuck all the bed wetters can do about it. Hopefully we can keep leftist lunacy down well enough to vote these jabbering retards out of power next time, get serious about election integrity, and keep these insane dumbfucks from screwing with our diets because I for one WILL NOT reduce my beef consumption. In fact I have pledged to prepare and charcoal grill steak at least twice a month.

(Mods: I looked for a thread on this, I couldn't find it. Please merge it if there is one.)

The thread premise is a lie.

This lie was been long debunked and yet the reprehensible right continues to propagate this lie; further proof that conservatives are indeed scum.

Green New Deal FAQ - Document Viewer : NPR

AOC wants to get rid of farting cows...........is that debunked?

 

[ChemEngineer]

Been reading today about water shortage from states that use the Colorado river for water, Also read about places that are in bad shape because of heavy corporation industry use of land with little or no regard for the environment, profit being the motivator. If you don't care about or understand climate change please care about pollution & clean water. We all need it to live.

Wow, deep. You're an armchair environmentalist/ virtue poser.
"We all need water to live." OOOOOOOO, brilliant.
Most companies focus on poisoning all water and air JUST for profits.
Your heroes, John Kerry, Michael Bloombert,George Soros, Barack Obama, Ted Turner, Hollywood Glitterati, the Clintons - none of them care about "profits." They give away all they earn to the needy, same as you do, right?

 

[Crick]

No consensus of scientists ever supported the idea that an ice age was imminent.

It is not the scientists who have politicized the debate, it is those who reject their conclusions.

Have a nice fucking day you ignorant, puerile asswipe.

Climate Change Cultist should not be using the internet or electricity

Do I emit CO2 when I surf the internet? – Energuide
Jan 04, 2021 · In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, internet use accounts for 3.7% of global emissions, i.e. the equivalent of all air traffic in the world. And this figure is expected to double by 2025

"Let's put this into perspective. From your link:
In concrete terms, this represents, for the internet alone, an average of 400 g (~14.1 ounces) of CO2 emitted per inhabitant each year.

The average automobile produces 4.6 metric TONS (10,141.3 pounds) of CO2 per year.

The average American car gets 22 mpg. Every gallon of gasoline burned produces 8,887 grams of CO2. So, you could completely offset your internet CO2 consumption by driving your typical car ONE (1) less mile over the course of an entire year or by getting a car that gets 23 mpg or better.

So, well, fuck off fool.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

No consensus of scientists ever supported the idea that an ice age was imminent.

It is not the scientists who have politicized the debate, it is those who reject their conclusions.

Have a nice fucking day you ignorant, puerile asswipe.

Climate Change Cultist should not be using the internet or electricity

Do I emit CO2 when I surf the internet? – Energuide
Jan 04, 2021 · In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, internet use accounts for 3.7% of global emissions, i.e. the equivalent of all air traffic in the world. And this figure is expected to double by 2025

"Let's put this into perspective. From your link:
In concrete terms, this represents, for the internet alone, an average of 400 g (~14.1 ounces) of CO2 emitted per inhabitant each year.

The average automobile produces 4.6 metric TONS (10,141.3 pounds) of CO2 per year.

The average American car gets 22 mpg. Every gallon of gasoline burned produces 8,887 grams of CO2. So, you could completely offset your internet CO2 consumption by driving your typical car ONE (1) less mile over the course of an entire year or by getting a car that gets 23 mpg or better.

So, well, fuck off fool.

So you don't really care about your use of the internet causing global warming. OK

 

[Crick]

Animal and plant species are currently going extinct at a rate that has not been seen since the last mass extinction.

The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene extinction, is an ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch (with the more recent time sometimes called Anthropocene) as a result of human activity.[3][4][5] The included extinctions span numerous families of plants[6] and animals, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes and invertebrates. With widespread degradation of highly biodiverse habitats such as coral reefs and rainforests, as well as other areas, the vast majority of these extinctions are thought to be undocumented, as the species are undiscovered at the time of their extinction, or no one has yet discovered their extinction. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background extinction rates.[4][7][8][9][10][11]

The Holocene extinction includes the disappearance of large land animals known as megafauna, starting at the end of the last glacial period. Megafauna outside of the African mainland, which did not evolve alongside humans, proved highly sensitive to the introduction of new predation, and many died out shortly after early humans began spreading and hunting across the Earth[12][13] (many African species have also gone extinct in the Holocene, but – with few exceptions – megafauna of the mainland was largely unaffected until a few hundred years ago).[14] These extinctions, occurring near the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary, are sometimes referred to as the Quaternary extinction event.

The most popular theory is that human overhunting of species added to existing stress conditions as the extinction coincides with human emergence. Although there is debate regarding how much human predation affected their decline, certain population declines have been directly correlated with human activity, such as the extinction events of New Zealand and Hawaii. Aside from humans, climate change may have been a driving factor in the megafaunal extinctions, especially at the end of the Pleistocene.

Ecologically, humanity has been noted as an unprecedented "global superpredator"[15] that consistently preys on the adults of other apex predators, and has worldwide effects on food webs. There have been extinctions of species on every land mass and in every ocean: there are many famous examples within Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia, North and South America, and on smaller islands. Overall, the Holocene extinction can be linked to the human impact on the environment. The Holocene extinction continues into the 21st century, with meat consumption, overfishing, and ocean acidification and the decline in amphibian populations[16] being a few broader examples of a cosmopolitan decline in biodiversity. Human population growth and increasing per capita consumption are considered to be the primary drivers of this decline.[11][17][18][19]

The 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, published by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, posits that roughly one million species of plants and animals face extinction within decades as the result of human actions.[19][20][21][22] Organized human existence is jeopardized by increasingly rapid destruction of the systems that support life on Earth, according to the report, the result of one of the most comprehensive studies of the health of the planet ever conducted.[23]

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

REFERENCES

1. Hume, J. P.; Walters, M. (2012). Extinct Birds. London: A & C Black. ISBN 978-1-4081-5725-1.
2. Diamond, Jared (1999). "Up to the Starting Line". Guns, Germs, and Steel. W.W. Norton. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-0-393-31755-8.
3. Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M, Crist E, Mahmoud MI, Laurance WF (13 November 2017). "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice" (PDF). BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125. Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century.
4. Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R. (8 June 2018). "The misunderstood sixth mass extinction". Science. 360 (6393): 1080–1081. Bibcode:2018Sci...360.1080C. doi:10.1126/science.aau0191. OCLC 7673137938. PMID 29880679. S2CID 46984172.
5. Dirzo, Rodolfo; Young, Hillary S.; Galetti, Mauro; Ceballos, Gerardo; Isaac, Nick J. B.; Collen, Ben (2014). "Defaunation in the Anthropocene" (PDF). Science. 345(6195): 401–406. Bibcode:2014Sci...345..401D. doi:10.1126/science.1251817. PMID 25061202. S2CID 206555761. In the past 500 years, humans have triggered a wave of extinction, threat, and local population declines that may be comparable in both rate and magnitude with the five previous mass extinctions of Earth’s history.
6. Hollingsworth, Julia (June 11, 2019). "Almost 600 plant species have become extinct in the last 250 years". CNN. Retrieved January 14, 2020. The research -- published Monday in Nature, Ecology & Evolution journal -- found that 571 plant species have disappeared from the wild worldwide, and that plant extinction is occurring up to 500 times faster than the rate it would without human intervention.
7. Pimm, Stuart L.; Russell, Gareth J.; Gittleman, John L.; Brooks, Thomas M. (1995). "The Future of Biodiversity". Science. 269 (5222): 347–350. Bibcode:1995Sci...269..347P. doi:10.1126/science.269.5222.347. PMID 17841251. S2CID 35154695.
8. Lawton, J. H.; May, R. M. (1995). "Extinction Rates". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 9: 124–126. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1996.t01-1-9010124.x.
9. De Vos, Jurriaan M.; Joppa, Lucas N.; Gittleman, John L.; Stephens, Patrick R.; Pimm, Stuart L. (2014-08-26). "Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction" (PDF). Conservation Biology (in Spanish). 29 (2): 452–462. doi:10.1111/cobi.12380. ISSN 0888-8892. PMID 25159086.
10. Teyssèdre, A. (2004). "Biodiversity and Global Change". Towards a sixth mass extinction crisis?. Paris: ADPF. ISBN 978-2-914-935289.
11. Pimm, S. L.; Jenkins, C. N.; Abell, R.; Brooks, T. M.; Gittleman, J. L.; Joppa, L. N.; Raven, P. H.; Roberts, C. M.; Sexton, J. O. (30 May 2014). "The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection" (PDF). Science. 344 (6187): 1246752. doi:10.1126/science.1246752. PMID 24876501. S2CID 206552746. The overarching driver of species extinction is human population growth and increasing per capita consumption.
12. "Without humans, the whole world could look like Serengeti". EurekAlert!. Retrieved August 16, 2020. The existence of Africa's many species of mammals is thus not due to an optimal climate and environment, but rather because it is the only place where they have not yet been eradicated by humans. The underlying reason includes evolutionary adaptation of large mammals to humans as well as greater pest pressure on human populations in long-inhabited Africa in the past.
13. Faurby, Søren; Svenning, Jens-Christian (2015). "Historic and prehistoric human‐driven extinctions have reshaped global mammal diversity patterns". Diversity and Distributions. 21 (10): 1155–1166. doi:10.1111/ddi.12369. hdl:10261/123512.
14. Galetti, Mauro; Moleón, Marcos; Jordano, Pedro; Pires, Mathias M.; Guimarães, Paulo R.; Pape, Thomas; Nichols, Elizabeth; Hansen, Dennis; Olesen, Jens M.; Munk, Michael; de Mattos, Jacqueline S. (2018). "Ecological and evolutionary legacy of megafauna extinctions: Anachronisms and megafauna interactions" (PDF). Biological Reviews. 93 (2): 845–862. doi:10.1111/brv.12374. PMID 28990321. S2CID 4762203.
15. Darimont, Chris T.; Fox, Caroline H.; Bryan, Heather M.; Reimchen, Thomas E. (21 August 2015). "The unique ecology of human predators". Science. 349 (6250): 858–860. Bibcode:2015Sci...349..858D. doi:10.1126/science.aac4249. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 26293961. S2CID 4985359.
16. Wake, David B.; Vredenburg, Vance T. (2008-08-12). "Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (Supplement 1): 11466–11473. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10511466W. doi:10.1073/pnas.0801921105. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 2556420. PMID 18695221.
17. Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Dirzo, Rodolfo (23 May 2017). "Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines". PNAS. 114 (30): E6089–E6096. doi:10.1073/pnas.1704949114. PMC 5544311. PMID 28696295. Much less frequently mentioned are, however, the ultimate drivers of those immediate causes of biotic destruction, namely, human overpopulation and continued population growth, and overconsumption, especially by the rich. These drivers, all of which trace to the fiction that perpetual growth can occur on a finite planet, are themselves increasing rapidly.
18. Cockburn, Harry (March 29, 2019). "Population explosion fuelling rapid reduction of wildlife on African savannah, study shows". The Independent. Retrieved April 1, 2019. Encroachment by people into one of Africa’s most celebrated ecosystems is “squeezing the wildlife in its core”, by damaging habitation and disrupting the migration routes of animals, a major international study has concluded.
19. Stokstad, Erik (5 May 2019). "Landmark analysis documents the alarming global decline of nature". Science. AAAS. Retrieved 26 August 2020. For the first time at a global scale, the report has ranked the causes of damage. Topping the list, changes in land use—principally agriculture—that have destroyed habitat. Second, hunting and other kinds of exploitation. These are followed by climate change, pollution, and invasive species, which are being spread by trade and other activities. Climate change will likely overtake the other threats in the next decades, the authors note. Driving these threats are the growing human population, which has doubled since 1970 to 7.6 billion, and consumption. (Per capita of use of materials is up 15% over the past 5 decades.)
20. Plumer, Brad (May 6, 2019). "Humans Are Speeding Extinction and Altering the Natural World at an 'Unprecedented' Pace". The New York Times. Retrieved May 6, 2019. “Human actions threaten more species with global extinction now than ever before,” the report concludes, estimating that “around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken.”
21. Staff (May 6, 2019). "Media Release: Nature's Dangerous Decline 'Unprecedented'; Species Extinction Rates 'Accelerating'". Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Retrieved May 6, 2019.
22. "World is 'on notice' as major UN report shows one million species face extinction". UN News. May 6, 2019. Retrieved January 8, 2020.
23. Watts, Jonathan (May 6, 2019). "Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life". The Guardian. Retrieved May 16, 2019.

 

[Crick]

No consensus of scientists ever supported the idea that an ice age was imminent.

It is not the scientists who have politicized the debate, it is those who reject their conclusions.

Have a nice fucking day you ignorant, puerile asswipe.

Climate Change Cultist should not be using the internet or electricity

Do I emit CO2 when I surf the internet? – Energuide
Jan 04, 2021 · In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, internet use accounts for 3.7% of global emissions, i.e. the equivalent of all air traffic in the world. And this figure is expected to double by 2025

"Let's put this into perspective. From your link:
In concrete terms, this represents, for the internet alone, an average of 400 g (~14.1 ounces) of CO2 emitted per inhabitant each year.

The average automobile produces 4.6 metric TONS (10,141.3 pounds) of CO2 per year.

The average American car gets 22 mpg. Every gallon of gasoline burned produces 8,887 grams of CO2. So, you could completely offset your internet CO2 consumption by driving your typical car ONE (1) less mile over the course of an entire year or by getting a car that gets 23 mpg or better.

So, well, fuck off fool.

So you don't really care about your use of the internet causing global warming. OK

I think my 41 mpg car and the fact that I eat less than a pound of beef every year more than makes up for it.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

No consensus of scientists ever supported the idea that an ice age was imminent.

It is not the scientists who have politicized the debate, it is those who reject their conclusions.

Have a nice fucking day you ignorant, puerile asswipe.

Climate Change Cultist should not be using the internet or electricity

Do I emit CO2 when I surf the internet? – Energuide
Jan 04, 2021 · In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, internet use accounts for 3.7% of global emissions, i.e. the equivalent of all air traffic in the world. And this figure is expected to double by 2025

"Let's put this into perspective. From your link:
In concrete terms, this represents, for the internet alone, an average of 400 g (~14.1 ounces) of CO2 emitted per inhabitant each year.

The average automobile produces 4.6 metric TONS (10,141.3 pounds) of CO2 per year.

The average American car gets 22 mpg. Every gallon of gasoline burned produces 8,887 grams of CO2. So, you could completely offset your internet CO2 consumption by driving your typical car ONE (1) less mile over the course of an entire year or by getting a car that gets 23 mpg or better.

So, well, fuck off fool.

So you don't really care about your use of the internet causing global warming. OK

I think my 41 mpg car and the fact that I eat less than a pound of beef every year more than makes up for it.

You should not be using a car if you believe in manmade global warming.
You really don't care do you.

 

[Crick]

I care more than you, obviously.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Envirohypocrites abound. Take Al Gore, and Bloomberg, and the Obamas, and the Clintons, and Richard Branson, and John Kerry and virtually every Democrat in America.

 

[mamooth]

If CO2 and methane are a problem, then we are doomed because there is far more water vapor and water vapor is far more effective at trapping heat.

Yep, there's another science illiterate who doesn't grasp that each gas blocks different portions of the IR emission window.

Not all deniers are completely clueless about the basics. Just almost all of them.

By that line of reasoning, the climate-mongers would be much better advised to go after water vapor in the atmosphere as a threat to all life.

We've got a serious Dunning-Kruger case here. He's far too stupid to understand how stupid he is, so we get this constant belligerent ignorance.

 

[mamooth]

Envirohypocrites abound. Take Al Gore, and Bloomberg, and the Obamas, and the Clintons, and Richard Branson, and John Kerry and virtually every Democrat in America.

As always, you lying about us doesn't make us hypocrites. It just makes you a butthurt squealing liar.

Now, how does your cult say to respond to that? Run and check. After all, it's not like you can think independently.

 

[Pete7469]

Envirohypocrites abound. Take Al Gore, and Bloomberg, and the Obamas, and the Clintons, and Richard Branson, and John Kerry and virtually every Democrat in America.

That's the part I don't get...

When you can see people doing the opposite of what they're telling everyone else to do, why would you listen to anything they say? When you vote for a political whore, under the assumption they're going to do something, and then they not only don't do it, but exacerbate the problem, why would you continue to vote for them? For decades now I've heard leftist sociopaths rant and rave like hitler about "the rich". They insist "the rich" don't pay their "share" or don't pay enough or even assert pay none at all.

These same sociopaths avoid as much tax obligation as they can sign into law, and GET RICHER in office than ever before. After years of grandstanding promising to steal from "the rich" and GIVE YOU something in return you end up with less freedom if anything, "the rich" still have their shit, the political whore has more money, and then you find out the sociopath political whore got into office thanks to donantions from "the rich". For years Bernie Sanders was the only political whore I saw that didn't end up with multiple millions of dollars after a 6 year senate term. At the time he still had at least that for integrity. Look at him now though.

Then look at all this new MMGW bullshit. Some of you probably remember the protests and efforts of the PETA and animal "rights" lunatics to regulate our diets. People utterly ignored these autistic vegan hippie dipshits. They tried every avenue to push their agenda and were ridiculed and mocked for the blithering imbeciles they are.So now they want to jump on the bullshit MMGW hoax because it's got staying power. For reasons that befuddle me, there are still hordes of mouth breathers wearing masks that believe human beings are destroying the planet. They won't simply look things up for themselves and discover they bought into the biggest heap of soft steaming bullshit ever because it's easier to continue believing it.

So now we have these assholes trying to guilt people into eating paper and soy burgers, maybe for no other reason than to increase demand for the NYSlimes, because they have been ignored by everyone right up till now. Well I will not only continue to ignore them but I will increase my beef consumption, and I'll do it without a fucking mask on.

.

 

[Crick]

That's the part I don't get...

When you can see people doing the opposite of what they're telling everyone else to do, why would you listen to anything they say? When you vote for a political whore, under the assumption they're going to do something, and then they not only don't do it, but exacerbate the problem, why would you continue to vote for them? For decades now I've heard leftist sociopaths rant and rave like hitler about "the rich". They insist "the rich" don't pay their "share" or don't pay enough or even assert pay none at all.

These same sociopaths avoid as much tax obligation as they can sign into law, and GET RICHER in office than ever before. After years of grandstanding promising to steal from "the rich" and GIVE YOU something in return you end up with less freedom if anything, "the rich" still have their shit, the political whore has more money, and then you find out the sociopath political whore got into office thanks to donantions from "the rich". For years Bernie Sanders was the only political whore I saw that didn't end up with multiple millions of dollars after a 6 year senate term. At the time he still had at least that for integrity. Look at him now though.

Then look at all this new MMGW bullshit. Some of you probably remember the protests and efforts of the PETA and animal "rights" lunatics to regulate our diets. People utterly ignored these autistic vegan hippie dipshits. They tried every avenue to push their agenda and were ridiculed and mocked for the blithering imbeciles they are.So now they want to jump on the bullshit MMGW hoax because it's got staying power. For reasons that befuddle me, there are still hordes of mouth breathers wearing masks that believe human beings are destroying the planet. They won't simply look things up for themselves and discover they bought into the biggest heap of soft steaming bullshit ever because it's easier to continue believing it.

So now we have these assholes trying to guilt people into eating paper and soy burgers, maybe for no other reason than to increase demand for the NYSlimes, because they have been ignored by everyone right up till now. Well I will not only continue to ignore them but I will increase my beef consumption, and I'll do it without a fucking mask on.

Thank goodness that you plan to eat without your mask. There've been far too many choking events among mask dilettante's of the anti-vaxxers and generally anti-science right wing. ; - )

This line about hypocrisy is an old one. It's very easy on an issue that can be termed one of lifestyle to find these points for which your targets may be criticized. But you should at least be sufficiently honest to admit that you disliked these people and their points of view long prior to any of this eco-hypocrisy nonsense and that this particular argument is based on nothing but cognitive dissonence. The important point, at least as far as this forum and the topic of this thread goes, is that none of this has any bearing on global warming, the effect of raising beef cattle on the environment or the claim that Biden and/or progressives are "targeting beef". You state you think man-made (anthropogenic) global warming is bullshit. So, obviously, you don't care about the effects of bovine flatulence on the atmosphere or of monoculture feed crops used to feed them on the environment as a whole. Or do you?

What part of the AGW theory do you reject? Do you believe the greenhouse effect is real? Do you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you believe humans have increased the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Do you believe widespread consumption of beef has an impact on the environment? Just curious.

 

[Obiwan]

How long did the melt last? Shall we say 50,000 years.

Wait, it wasn't irreversible?

I think the odds of our species lasting that long are slim to none.

A couple of degrees warmer is going to destroy our high tech species?

Maybe if we let the idiots outlaw cheap, useful energy.

Animal and plant species are currently going extinct at a rate that has not been seen since the last mass extinction. Rising sea levels will require the relocation of hundreds of millions of people over the span of a few decades. What do you think that will do to the world's economy Todd? Crops are going to start failing left and right for a variety of reasons. Todd, you're smarter than this. Have some balls and accept what you know to be the facts.

Animal and plant species are currently going extinct at a rate that has not been seen since the last mass extinction.

Because temperatures have risen slightly?

Rising sea levels will require the relocation of hundreds of millions of people over the span of a few decades.

It's true, levels have risen a few inches. How many windmills will it take to make them drop?

What do you think that will do to the world's economy Todd?

I guess we could crush our economy now....and beat the rush.
AOC has some ideas. DURR.

Crops are going to start failing left and right for a variety of reasons.

Quick, let's outlaw GMOs, they're yucky!!!

Have some balls and accept what you know to be the facts.

Why don't you help me with some facts.
Let's say we cut our emissions by 4 billion metric tons over the next 50 years and spend $20 trillion to do it while China adds 6 billion metric tons, what's the temperature going to be in 2100?

Animals and plants are going extinct at an unprecedented rate due to that warming and a dozen other anthropogenic effects. Were you aware of this? Does it worry you? It should.

Sea level is rising. It will displace millions of people before the end of this century. Your rhetorical questions are beginning to sound like jc456

The cost of dealing with AGW after catastrophic consequences have taken place will turn the world into paupers. Your apparent fixation on Ocasio-Cortez's offhand remark grows tiresome and disappointing Todd.

Mass starvation is not the foundation of good comedy.

Have some balls and get real. China never bailed out of the Paris Accords.

You seem to be overlooking something when you give us your wild projections about mass starvation....

Plants take in CO2, and need it to survive....

As a matter of fact, a lot of plant growers routinely release CO2 in their greenhouses because the increased levels make the plants thrive!!!!

It seems to me that if you want us to quit eating meat, and you take steps to reduce CO2 (thus reducing plant growth and the amount of plant-based foods), you will probably be looking at mass starvation due to your foolishness!!!!

 

[Crick]

Reducing CO2 to 280 ppm will have no effect on agricultural productivity. It is not a limiting reagant to photosynthesis. Besides which, if CO2 emissions were reduced to zero today, CO2 levels in the atmosphere would not begin to drop for decades. We will not be back to 280 ppm under the rosiest of scenarios till well into the 22nd century.

 

[Obiwan]

Reducing CO2 to 280 ppm will have no effect on agricultural productivity. It is not a limiting reagant to photosynthesis. Besides which, if CO2 emissions were reduced to zero today, CO2 levels in the atmosphere would not begin to drop for decades. We will not be back to 280 ppm under the rosiest of scenarios till well into the 22nd century.

So if CO2 levels wouldn't begin to drop for DECADES if we reduced our CO2 emissions to zero (as you claim), the moonbats are flat-out lying to us when they tell us we only have 8-10 years to live if we don't reduce then NOW, right???

 

[Crick]

No, quite the contrary. The truth is, we missed the last chance to avoid extreme consequences several years back.

 

[toobfreak]

How long did the melt last? Shall we say 50,000 years.

Wait, it wasn't irreversible?

I think the odds of our species lasting that long are slim to none.

A couple of degrees warmer is going to destroy our high tech species?

Maybe if we let the idiots outlaw cheap, useful energy.

Animal and plant species are currently going extinct at a rate that has not been seen since the last mass extinction. Rising sea levels will require the relocation of hundreds of millions of people over the span of a few decades. What do you think that will do to the world's economy Todd? Crops are going to start failing left and right for a variety of reasons. Todd, you're smarter than this. Have some balls and accept what you know to be the facts.

Animal and plant species are currently going extinct at a rate that has not been seen since the last mass extinction.

Because temperatures have risen slightly?

Rising sea levels will require the relocation of hundreds of millions of people over the span of a few decades.

It's true, levels have risen a few inches. How many windmills will it take to make them drop?

What do you think that will do to the world's economy Todd?

I guess we could crush our economy now....and beat the rush.
AOC has some ideas. DURR.

Crops are going to start failing left and right for a variety of reasons.

Quick, let's outlaw GMOs, they're yucky!!!

Have some balls and accept what you know to be the facts.

Why don't you help me with some facts.
Let's say we cut our emissions by 4 billion metric tons over the next 50 years and spend $20 trillion to do it while China adds 6 billion metric tons, what's the temperature going to be in 2100?

Animals and plants are going extinct at an unprecedented rate due to that warming and a dozen other anthropogenic effects. Were you aware of this? Does it worry you? It should.

Sea level is rising. It will displace millions of people before the end of this century. Your rhetorical questions are beginning to sound like jc456

The cost of dealing with AGW after catastrophic consequences have taken place will turn the world into paupers. Your apparent fixation on Ocasio-Cortez's offhand remark grows tiresome and disappointing Todd.

Mass starvation is not the foundation of good comedy.

Have some balls and get real. China never bailed out of the Paris Accords.

You seem to be overlooking something when you give us your wild projections about mass starvation....

Plants take in CO2, and need it to survive....

As a matter of fact, a lot of plant growers routinely release CO2 in their greenhouses because the increased levels make the plants thrive!!!!

It seems to me that if you want us to quit eating meat, and you take steps to reduce CO2 (thus reducing plant growth and the amount of plant-based foods), you will probably be looking at mass starvation due to your foolishness!!!!

I took the liberty of creating this chart. Each blue column represents the atmosphere, except one is 0.041% smaller, equal to the amount of CO2 we have. Anyone care to guess which one has the CO2 removed?

Then consider: we are being told the Earth is about to turn on its head due to MAN MADE CO2---- that doesn't include the normal CO2 that should be there, that was there, say, prior to 1850, my chart shows ALL CO2 removed, both that few PPM released by man AND that which was already there by nature!

Shall I add it back in? Taking out ALL CO2, even that which was no problem supposed to be there by nature, THIS is the difference we get.

It's a wonder the Earth ever made it past the first billion years.

The CO2 / CARBON scam is a big lie.

 

[Crick]

How long did the melt last? Shall we say 50,000 years.

Wait, it wasn't irreversible?

I think the odds of our species lasting that long are slim to none.

A couple of degrees warmer is going to destroy our high tech species?

Maybe if we let the idiots outlaw cheap, useful energy.

Animal and plant species are currently going extinct at a rate that has not been seen since the last mass extinction. Rising sea levels will require the relocation of hundreds of millions of people over the span of a few decades. What do you think that will do to the world's economy Todd? Crops are going to start failing left and right for a variety of reasons. Todd, you're smarter than this. Have some balls and accept what you know to be the facts.

Animal and plant species are currently going extinct at a rate that has not been seen since the last mass extinction.

Because temperatures have risen slightly?

Rising sea levels will require the relocation of hundreds of millions of people over the span of a few decades.

It's true, levels have risen a few inches. How many windmills will it take to make them drop?

What do you think that will do to the world's economy Todd?

I guess we could crush our economy now....and beat the rush.
AOC has some ideas. DURR.

Crops are going to start failing left and right for a variety of reasons.

Quick, let's outlaw GMOs, they're yucky!!!

Have some balls and accept what you know to be the facts.

Why don't you help me with some facts.
Let's say we cut our emissions by 4 billion metric tons over the next 50 years and spend $20 trillion to do it while China adds 6 billion metric tons, what's the temperature going to be in 2100?

Animals and plants are going extinct at an unprecedented rate due to that warming and a dozen other anthropogenic effects. Were you aware of this? Does it worry you? It should.

Sea level is rising. It will displace millions of people before the end of this century. Your rhetorical questions are beginning to sound like jc456

The cost of dealing with AGW after catastrophic consequences have taken place will turn the world into paupers. Your apparent fixation on Ocasio-Cortez's offhand remark grows tiresome and disappointing Todd.

Mass starvation is not the foundation of good comedy.

Have some balls and get real. China never bailed out of the Paris Accords.

You seem to be overlooking something when you give us your wild projections about mass starvation....

Plants take in CO2, and need it to survive....

As a matter of fact, a lot of plant growers routinely release CO2 in their greenhouses because the increased levels make the plants thrive!!!!

It seems to me that if you want us to quit eating meat, and you take steps to reduce CO2 (thus reducing plant growth and the amount of plant-based foods), you will probably be looking at mass starvation due to your foolishness!!!!

I took the liberty of creating this chart. Each blue column represents the atmosphere, except one is 0.041% smaller, equal to the amount of CO2 we have. Anyone care to guess which one has the CO2 removed?

Then consider: we are being told the Earth is about to turn on its head due to MAN MADE CO2---- that doesn't include the normal CO2 that should be there, that was there, say, prior to 1850, my chart shows ALL CO2 removed, both that few PPM released by man AND that which was already there by nature!

Shall I add it back in? Taking out ALL CO2, even that which was no problem supposed to be there by nature, THIS is the difference we get.

It's a wonder the Earth ever made it past the first billion years.



View attachment 486026

The CO2 / CARBON scam is a big lie.

Let's try this again. I will make two rows of characters. One has 28 characters representing the 280 ppm of CO2 in the pre-industrial Earth's atmosphere. The other has 42 characters representing the 420 ppm CO2 the the current atmosphere contains.

****************************

******************************************

Can you see the difference?