What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What I Don't Understand About "Climate Change"

Independentthinker

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
768
Points
928
1. the Earth has had many periods of warming and cooling and the left can't prove that the current warming isn't just a natural cycle that would have happened anyway, despite industrialization. The two happening at the same time could just be a coincidence and the left can't prove that they aren't just a coincidence.

2. Assuming we did everything the left wanted to do (like bankrupt the entire planet and having us all wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling on foot), even most of them admit that global temperatures would still rise. While they always imply that temps would go back down, their own facts show that temps would continue to rise, admitting that the best we can do is cut down on the rate of the increasing temperatures. Somehow they never bring up that little factoid.

3. Now this is the biggie. I really don't understand how in the hell the left thinks that the US and the US alone can decrease global temps (see point 2 that even the left admit that all we can do is limit the growth rate of global temps, not actually decrease global temps). The left are always implying that If the US (all by itself) did all of these things they want the US to do, there would be fewer catastrophic fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.. India and China are by far the biggest polluters on the planet and several other countries are out in front of the US, and yet now that environment fighting Joe is now president, several other world leaders wouldn't even attend Biden's recent forum on the climate. So, what good would it actually do if the rest of the planet, particularly the really bad countries, didn't do their part?

 

Otis Mayfield

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
972
Reaction score
919
Points
873
1309_temp-2020_comparison-plot-768px.jpg



American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3

ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4

AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5

AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6

AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7

APS emblem
American Physical Society
"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8

GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International Academies: Joint Statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

UNSAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14





Just want to address your point #1
 

andaronjim

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
29,334
Reaction score
16,138
Points
1,415
Location
Floor E Da
1. the Earth has had many periods of warming and cooling and the left can't prove that the current warming isn't just a natural cycle that would have happened anyway, despite industrialization. The two happening at the same time could just be a coincidence and the left can't prove that they aren't just a coincidence.

2. Assuming we did everything the left wanted to do (like bankrupt the entire planet and having us all wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling on foot), even most of them admit that global temperatures would still rise. While they always imply that temps would go back down, their own facts show that temps would continue to rise, admitting that the best we can do is cut down on the rate of the increasing temperatures. Somehow they never bring up that little factoid.

3. Now this is the biggie. I really don't understand how in the hell the left thinks that the US and the US alone can decrease global temps (see point 2 that even the left admit that all we can do is limit the growth rate of global temps, not actually decrease global temps). The left are always implying that If the US (all by itself) did all of these things they want the US to do, there would be fewer catastrophic fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.. India and China are by far the biggest polluters on the planet and several other countries are out in front of the US, and yet now that environment fighting Joe is now president, several other world leaders wouldn't even attend Biden's recent forum on the climate. So, what good would it actually do if the rest of the planet, particularly the really bad countries, didn't do their part?

With the global warming zelots, they are fools ready to part with their money, thinking that dumbass prog elites will save them. Yes, prog slaves are that stupid...
 

Pete7469

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
25,148
Reaction score
10,643
Points
940
Location
The Real World
Here is your fatal flaw.

You assume the left "thinks".

I am not being jovial, facetious or joking in any way or manner. Ordinary bed wetters have no functioning frontal lobes. Some were born without them entirely because generations of them never used their brains, this is evidenced by the fact that dystopian marxist governments have been created, murdered 120 million people, increased poverty, and failed to deliver any semblance of equity beyond feudal societies where a ruling class dominates the proles. You're either equally poor, or "more" equally rich and powerful.


The entire premise of the MMGW hoax is to undermine if not totally destroy anything and everything in America that creates prosperity. It has just as much to do with "protecting the environment" as Gun Control has to do with "public safety". If the bed wetters gave a fruit fly's fuck about "the environment" they would put their efforts behind endeavors that would make a difference,like getting the plastic cleaned up out of the oceans. If "public safety" was a concern, they would at least tacitly support police but also mandate gun safety education, and shooting courses for every sane adult. They should be the biggest advocates of the NRA, but they're the biggest enemy, and they're the enemies of humanity, the COTUS and the USA in general.
 

Pete7469

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
25,148
Reaction score
10,643
Points
940
Location
The Real World
OP
Independentthinker

Independentthinker

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
768
Points
928
1309_temp-2020_comparison-plot-768px.jpg



American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3

ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4

AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5

AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6

AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7

APS emblem
American Physical Society
"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8

GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International Academies: Joint Statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

UNSAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14





Just want to address your point #1
You can't prove that it's NOT just a coincidence that CO2 emissions happen to be high at the very same time a heating event naturally happened. It's nothing more than saying that at the very same time more people are mowing grass than ever before at the very same time cancer cases are increasing. You can't prove a causal effect that more cancer cases are related to more grass mowing, just as you can't prove that at the same time CO2 levels are high that it is just a coincidence that it is happening at the same time as a naturally occurring heating event.

Do you care to address points 2 & 3, because if everything you say about point 1 is 100% correct, then we still have the other two points.
 
Last edited:

andaronjim

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
29,334
Reaction score
16,138
Points
1,415
Location
Floor E Da
You can't prove that it's NOT just a coincidence that CO2 emissions happen to be high at the very same time a heating event naturally happened. It's nothing more than saying that at the very same time more people are mowing grass than ever before at the very same time cancer cases are increasing. You can't prove a causal effect that more cancer cases are related to more grass mowing, just as you can't prove that at the same time CO2 levels are high that it is just a coincidence that it is happening at the same time as a naturally occurring heating event.

Do you care to address points 2 & 3, because if everything you say about point 1 is 100% correct, then we still have the other two points.
They never take into account the amounts of Water Vapor in the air either. Progs havent figured out how to tax water vapor, but they are using a rain tax now for that problem.. Never enough taxes, because prog elites hate anyone, not them. That is why you see them flaunting themselves while those around them must mask up and be slaves.....


Now shut up prog slaves and put on your masks, as your prog masters demand that you comply or else.




1631916544520.png1631916582352.png1631916612389.png
 

Likkmee

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
14,637
Reaction score
4,836
Points
310
Location
Second World
Sadly, Brazil is the worse one...BUT your owners are the reason.
Man. Cut down those shitty trees and we'll give you seeds no weeds,fungicides. It's easy peasy with our technology today.
Here's a list of orchids, ferns, bromeliads and parrots-snake babies to look for.We got that covered. It's not a problem.We'll sent some people to evaluate the wood before you cut those fucking sunblockers down that wont let your grow crops properly. Burn the rest. Ash it gods gift to man for growing things.You can be the second best in the world....right up there with Madagascar
You'll be wealthy as a motherfucker. How does 2500-5000 us pesos a month grab ya ? You dont make that in 6 months cutting sugar cane all day !
Trucks and tools to help your day ? HA. No problem man. We got it all
 

andaronjim

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
29,334
Reaction score
16,138
Points
1,415
Location
Floor E Da
Sadly, Brazil is the worse one...BUT your owners are the reason.
Man. Cut down those shitty trees and we'll give you seeds no weeds,fungicides. It's easy peasy with our technology today.
Here's a list of orchids, ferns, bromeliads and parrots-snake babies to look for.We got that covered. It's not a problem.We'll sent some people to evaluate the wood before you cut those fucking sunblockers down that wont let your grow crops properly. Burn the rest. Ash it gods gift to man for growing things.You can be the second best in the world....right up there with Madagascar
You'll be wealthy as a motherfucker. How does 2500-5000 us pesos a month grab ya ? You dont make that in 6 months cutting sugar cane all day !
Trucks and tools to help your day ? HA. No problem man. We got it all
I wonder how much CO2 is coming from the Californication fires, that the saved Governor Newsome just cant seem to deal with? You know all those acres of CO2 being burned up, do to stupid people voting for a cretin who couldnt put out a campfire..
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,325
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
1. the Earth has had many periods of warming and cooling and the left can't prove that the current warming isn't just a natural cycle that would have happened anyway, despite industrialization. The two happening at the same time could just be a coincidence and the left can't prove that they aren't just a coincidence.
There are no "proofs" in the natural sciences. There is evidence consisting of causal relationships, satisfied predictions and an absence of falsification. There is a GREAT deal more evidence that human GHG emissions are causing warming than that they are occurring concurrently. Your assumption here and in your other points that concern about global warming is solely held by "the left" is patently false. A far better argument may be made that such concerns are held by the educated but if that's a parallel you want to make, feel free.
2. Assuming we did everything the left wanted to do (like bankrupt the entire planet and having us all wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling on foot), even most of them admit that global temperatures would still rise. While they always imply that temps would go back down, their own facts show that temps would continue to rise, admitting that the best we can do is cut down on the rate of the increasing temperatures. Somehow they never bring up that little factoid.
Those concerned about global warming would like to see serious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. That requires moving even more rapidly to alternative energy sources. That does NOT involve bankrupting the planet, wearing animal skins or eating berries. Oddly, you clearly admit here that human action is responsible for global warming and that a human response will eventually overcome it. As for the "factoid" you claim is being hidden; you certainly didn't learn that from the fossil fuel industry or their representatives. That stopping AGW will take committed effort and time is not a reason to skip it. It's reason to start is as quickly and as intensely as possible. You reason here like a grade schooler.
3. Now this is the biggie. I really don't understand how in the hell the left thinks that the US and the US alone can decrease global temps (see point 2 that even the left admit that all we can do is limit the growth rate of global temps, not actually decrease global temps). The left are always implying that If the US (all by itself) did all of these things they want the US to do, there would be fewer catastrophic fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.. India and China are by far the biggest polluters on the planet and several other countries are out in front of the US, and yet now that environment fighting Joe is now president, several other world leaders wouldn't even attend Biden's recent forum on the climate. So, what good would it actually do if the rest of the planet, particularly the really bad countries, didn't do their part?
No one has argued that the US can end global warming on its own, thus your "biggie" is more of a nothing burger. Given our per capita consumption of fossil fuels, however, the rest of the world would have a great deal of difficulty succeeding without us. It is absurd - and I do mean absurd - to claim that demanding the US take action equates to a belief that no other country need do anything. The truth, of course, is that we must ALL act. And since we are citizens of this democracy, it is with our nation we can have the greatest impact. Agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol, the Bonn Agreement, the Bali Action Plan, the Paris Climate Accord and others allow us to negotiate and apply pressure on other nations to take the action we all know is required. Again, you reason this issue like a grade schooler.
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
46,382
Reaction score
8,950
Points
2,040
1. the Earth has had many periods of warming and cooling and the left can't prove that the current warming isn't just a natural cycle that would have happened anyway, despite industrialization. The two happening at the same time could just be a coincidence and the left can't prove that they aren't just a coincidence.

2. Assuming we did everything the left wanted to do (like bankrupt the entire planet and having us all wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling on foot), even most of them admit that global temperatures would still rise. While they always imply that temps would go back down, their own facts show that temps would continue to rise, admitting that the best we can do is cut down on the rate of the increasing temperatures. Somehow they never bring up that little factoid.

3. Now this is the biggie. I really don't understand how in the hell the left thinks that the US and the US alone can decrease global temps (see point 2 that even the left admit that all we can do is limit the growth rate of global temps, not actually decrease global temps). The left are always implying that If the US (all by itself) did all of these things they want the US to do, there would be fewer catastrophic fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.. India and China are by far the biggest polluters on the planet and several other countries are out in front of the US, and yet now that environment fighting Joe is now president, several other world leaders wouldn't even attend Biden's recent forum on the climate. So, what good would it actually do if the rest of the planet, particularly the really bad countries, didn't do their part?

How does the planet become bankrupt? Think about that.

Also regarding your 3rd question. It is a matter of personal responsibility, you do believe in that don’t you? We do the best we can with what we’ve got. We have always set the example for the world, why stop now?
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,288
Reaction score
8,519
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
1. the Earth has had many periods of warming and cooling and the left can't prove that the current warming isn't just a natural cycle that would have happened anyway, despite industrialization. The two happening at the same time could just be a coincidence and the left can't prove that they aren't just a coincidence.

2. Assuming we did everything the left wanted to do (like bankrupt the entire planet and having us all wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling on foot), even most of them admit that global temperatures would still rise. While they always imply that temps would go back down, their own facts show that temps would continue to rise, admitting that the best we can do is cut down on the rate of the increasing temperatures. Somehow they never bring up that little factoid.

3. Now this is the biggie. I really don't understand how in the hell the left thinks that the US and the US alone can decrease global temps (see point 2 that even the left admit that all we can do is limit the growth rate of global temps, not actually decrease global temps). The left are always implying that If the US (all by itself) did all of these things they want the US to do, there would be fewer catastrophic fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.. India and China are by far the biggest polluters on the planet and several other countries are out in front of the US, and yet now that environment fighting Joe is now president, several other world leaders wouldn't even attend Biden's recent forum on the climate. So, what good would it actually do if the rest of the planet, particularly the really bad countries, didn't do their part?

You are so full of shit. Read the first sentence and did not bother with the rest of the lies.

 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,288
Reaction score
8,519
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
Here is your fatal flaw.

You assume the left "thinks".

I am not being jovial, facetious or joking in any way or manner. Ordinary bed wetters have no functioning frontal lobes. Some were born without them entirely because generations of them never used their brains, this is evidenced by the fact that dystopian marxist governments have been created, murdered 120 million people, increased poverty, and failed to deliver any semblance of equity beyond feudal societies where a ruling class dominates the proles. You're either equally poor, or "more" equally rich and powerful.


The entire premise of the MMGW hoax is to undermine if not totally destroy anything and everything in America that creates prosperity. It has just as much to do with "protecting the environment" as Gun Control has to do with "public safety". If the bed wetters gave a fruit fly's fuck about "the environment" they would put their efforts behind endeavors that would make a difference,like getting the plastic cleaned up out of the oceans. If "public safety" was a concern, they would at least tacitly support police but also mandate gun safety education, and shooting courses for every sane adult. They should be the biggest advocates of the NRA, but they're the biggest enemy, and they're the enemies of humanity, the COTUS and the USA in general.
Pete, ol' boy, you are one dumb fuck.

Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy. What does this mean for the nation’s political-economic divide?​


1631982343300.png

1631982409050.png

 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,288
Reaction score
8,519
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
You can't prove that it's NOT just a coincidence that CO2 emissions happen to be high at the very same time a heating event naturally happened. It's nothing more than saying that at the very same time more people are mowing grass than ever before at the very same time cancer cases are increasing. You can't prove a causal effect that more cancer cases are related to more grass mowing, just as you can't prove that at the same time CO2 levels are high that it is just a coincidence that it is happening at the same time as a naturally occurring heating event.

Do you care to address points 2 & 3, because if everything you say about point 1 is 100% correct, then we still have the other two points.
On the contrary, the geological record points out that the time of high temperatures on Earth are exactly the times of high CO2. And that when there is a very rapid change, in either direction, it is a time of extinction.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,288
Reaction score
8,519
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
1. the Earth has had many periods of warming and cooling and the left can't prove that the current warming isn't just a natural cycle that would have happened anyway, despite industrialization. The two happening at the same time could just be a coincidence and the left can't prove that they aren't just a coincidence.

2. Assuming we did everything the left wanted to do (like bankrupt the entire planet and having us all wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling on foot), even most of them admit that global temperatures would still rise. While they always imply that temps would go back down, their own facts show that temps would continue to rise, admitting that the best we can do is cut down on the rate of the increasing temperatures. Somehow they never bring up that little factoid.

3. Now this is the biggie. I really don't understand how in the hell the left thinks that the US and the US alone can decrease global temps (see point 2 that even the left admit that all we can do is limit the growth rate of global temps, not actually decrease global temps). The left are always implying that If the US (all by itself) did all of these things they want the US to do, there would be fewer catastrophic fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.. India and China are by far the biggest polluters on the planet and several other countries are out in front of the US, and yet now that environment fighting Joe is now president, several other world leaders wouldn't even attend Biden's recent forum on the climate. So, what good would it actually do if the rest of the planet, particularly the really bad countries, didn't do their part?

Damn. So I had to look at the rest of your really dumb post. What the scientists say that if we went to zero emissions instantly, and impossibility, that temps would continue to rise for at least 20 to 30 years. Though at a declining rate. We have a big inertial system out there called oceans. As far as your oh so laughable comment about animal skins, it is people like you that are stuck in the past. The technology is already here to completely switch to renewables by 2030. And we would have a more stable and robust grid. But willfully ignorant people like you have zero understanding of technology. I am willing to bet that you were one of the fools that stated the EV's would never work, and Tesla would be bankrupt in a year. And that was only about 8 years ago.
 
OP
Independentthinker

Independentthinker

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
768
Points
928
How does the planet become bankrupt? Think about that.

Also regarding your 3rd question. It is a matter of personal responsibility, you do believe in that don’t you? We do the best we can with what we’ve got. We have always set the example for the world, why stop now?
LOL. Yes, that's what a typical lefty would say. Guess you don't know much about the Great Depression.
 
OP
Independentthinker

Independentthinker

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
768
Points
928
You are so full of shit. Read the first sentence and did not bother with the rest of the lies.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Well, that is interesting. So, you say you read the first sentence and call the rest lies even as you say you didn't read past the first sentence.
 
OP
Independentthinker

Independentthinker

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
768
Points
928
On the contrary, the geological record points out that the time of high temperatures on Earth are exactly the times of high CO2. And that when there is a very rapid change, in either direction, it is a time of extinction.
What??????????????????????????? You just admitted that climate change isn't necessarily man made because the other times in our history with high levels of CO2 and global warming, man wasn't even around. You just proved my point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
OP
Independentthinker

Independentthinker

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
768
Points
928
Damn. So I had to look at the rest of your really dumb post. What the scientists say that if we went to zero emissions instantly, and impossibility, that temps would continue to rise for at least 20 to 30 years. Though at a declining rate. We have a big inertial system out there called oceans. As far as your oh so laughable comment about animal skins, it is people like you that are stuck in the past. The technology is already here to completely switch to renewables by 2030. And we would have a more stable and robust grid. But willfully ignorant people like you have zero understanding of technology. I am willing to bet that you were one of the fools that stated the EV's would never work, and Tesla would be bankrupt in a year. And that was only about 8 years ago.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm, if man is responsible for global warming, and the world's population is growing exponentially, we will NEVER get to the point where temps would reverse. As I said, the US isn't even in the top countries who pollute and Biden just had a climate change meeting where the biggest polluters and several large European countries didn't even show up. If the entire US started wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling by foot, the world's temps would still be rising. Why should we do that to ourselves? How is the world going to get to zero emissions with the biggest polluting countries in the world NOT getting to zero emissions? The left are fools for believing this.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,288
Reaction score
8,519
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
What??????????????????????????? You just admitted that climate change isn't necessarily man made because the other times in our history with high levels of CO2 and global warming, man wasn't even around. You just proved my point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lordy, lordy. Damn, some people are just born stupid. Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 was 280 ppm. We know how much coal we have burned, how much oil and gas we have burned. And that is the only reason at present for the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere. We stand at 410+ ppm now, and it has not been that high in the last 23 million years. And at that time there were no continental ice sheets in either Greenland or Antarctica.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top