Climate Change Is Not As Serious Of A Problem As It Used To Be

I think that every time I see ants in my back yard. I can easily see them taking over the world. As bad as they are though, I'm not ready to eat them just yet.
I'm not sure how they get prepared but the last time I had chocolate covered ants not only was the shell tasty because it was chocolate, the insides tasted like sweet raisins. It was definitely not the experience I expected.

Yeah if we as humans were a strong for our size as ants were for theirs we wouldn't need tow trucks we could carry our own automobiles home.
 
I'm not sure how they get prepared but the last time I had chocolate covered ants not only was the shell tasty because it was chocolate, the insides tasted like sweet raisins. It was definitely not the experience I expected.
I've heard that before. Maybe that's why God created chocolate.
 
And HOW do those alarmists exclude themselves from such controls? That was the core of your claim.

Why? Does that have any bearing whatsoever on the validity of the science? No, it is based solely on your emotions and your personal, political dislikes.

No scientists have said that AGW will lead to human extinction.
You need to read my signature because I simply didn't read this and your last reply. Either answer my one post with one reply without chopping mine up. I'm more Rightwing so I know what I wrote, I don't need numpties dissecting my post up to try and get me to re-read it again.

So you now know, I even did a thread in the feedback section. If you wish to carry on multi quoting me, I will carry on not replying to you. If others love you multi quoting them, knock your pan in. If this concept is too tricky for you, let me know and I can put you on block so I don't waste my time.
 
All kinds of Americans now believe that Climate Change is not as serious of a problem as it used to be, including those on the left. I wonder what AOC will think now? In 2019 she said the world was going to end in 12 years due to Climate Change. Do we still only have 7 years left or isn't it as serious of a problem as she stated? Or, has Biden destroyed the country so badly that Climate Change has moved much further down the list of priorities? That's my guess. Making ends meet in Biden's world has now become the number one priority, along with decreasing crime, the invasion on our Southern border, and trying to stave off a nuclear WWIII. Biden has made all of these things more of a problem than Climate Change.




For the entire life of humanity on Earth, climate change has been a complete NOTHING of a problem. We can study it, but there is no "crisis" as the truth of the data has always read


NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO BREAKOUT IN CANES
NO OCEAN RISE
NO INCREASE IN SURFACE AIR PRESSURE
 
Wanting to scrap everyone's gas boilers, ban stoves, ban wood burners, ban cars, demand everyone to be vegan, ban oil, ban nuclear etc..

The day you Alarmists live in mud huts, wear grass clothes, ride wooden bikes, eat leaves, avoid oil and tarmac, will be the day I'll listen to you nut jobs.

But you can't even say what co2, temperatures, and sea level levels have to be to cause human extinction. Your evidence is, "All the scientists said so".
HOW do those alarmists exclude themselves from such controls? That was the core of your initial claim: that they were enacting controls on YOU that THEY would be exempt from. Neither gas boilers, gas stoves, wood burners nor cars have yet been banned and no one has even suggested anything that would exempt anyone from such decisions in the future.

Why should you wait till they are all living like cavemen from the Stone Age? Does that have any bearing whatsoever on the validity of the science? No. And no one is suggesting that YOU should live as if you were in the Stone Age. You are simply demonstrating your dislike.

No scientists have ever said that AGW will lead to human extinction.

Have you read my sig?
 
HOW do those alarmists exclude themselves from such controls? That was the core of your initial claim: that they were enacting controls on YOU that THEY would be exempt from. Neither gas boilers, gas stoves, wood burners nor cars have yet been banned and no one has even suggested anything that would exempt anyone from such decisions in the future.

Why should you wait till they are all living like cavemen from the Stone Age? Does that have any bearing whatsoever on the validity of the science? No. And no one is suggesting that YOU should live as if you were in the Stone Age. You are simply demonstrating your dislike.

No scientists have ever said that AGW will lead to human extinction.

Have you read my sig?
Scotland have banned wood burners for new builds. New ICE cars are being banned from various dates.

Everything you Alarmists complain about you're contributing to. Trying getting a grip on your own life first before preaching to others.
 
Scotland have banned wood burners for new builds. New ICE cars are being banned from various dates.
And how does that exclude AGW alarmists from those restrictions?
Everything you Alarmists complain about you're contributing to.
That is pure speculation. We certainly aren't voting in that direction.
Trying getting a grip on your own life first before preaching to others.
You have no idea what my life is like. That you bring such things into this discussion makes me think you can't refute the science.
 
Scotland have banned wood burners for new builds. New ICE cars are being banned from various dates.

Everything you Alarmists complain about you're contributing to. Trying getting a grip on your own life first before preaching to others.
A thousand pardons Mr I-can't-handle-multi-quotes.

  • And how does that exclude AGW alarmists from those restrictions?
  • That is pure speculation. We certainly aren't voting in that direction.
  • You have no idea what my life is like. That you bring such things into this discussion makes me think you can't refute the science.
 
A thousand pardons Mr I-can't-handle-multi-quotes.

  • And how does that exclude AGW alarmists from those restrictions?
  • That is pure speculation. We certainly aren't voting in that direction.
  • You have no idea what my life is like. That you bring such things into this discussion makes me think you can't refute the science.
I can handle multi quotes, I read others. Unlike you, I know what I wrote, I don't need to re-read everything twice.

Alarmists preach how bad the climate is, but they just do what everyone else does.

Psychology suggests you struggle with life, so you jump onto the social bandwagon. Science says there's two genders, so agree with science, I disagree with political science.

What makes you feel you're qualified to talk about the climate?
 
I can handle multi quotes, I read others. Unlike you, I know what I wrote, I don't need to re-read everything twice.
Then your sig is a lie?

That you know what you wrote may not help you know to what a conversant is responding
Alarmists preach how bad the climate is, but they just do what everyone else does.
Numerous people on this board, yourself included, are arguing against alarmism. So it is NOT what "everyone else" is doing.
Psychology suggests you struggle with life
Does it? With what sort of issues does psychology suggest I struggle?
so you jump onto the social bandwagon.
What social bandwagon? This website? Might I point out that you have also jumped on this bandwagon. Are you also struggling with life?
Science says there's two genders, so agree with science
Science does not say there are only two genders. Science says there are predominantly two genders but that it is more accurately a spectrum; that there are a significant number of people born with mixtures of gender traits some of whom are actually misidentified at birth or are fully androgynous. There are individuals of both sexes born with a genetic, physiological propensity for homosexuality producing a schism between their mind and their bodies. So, you don't agree with science on that point.
I disagree with political science.
On the topic of global warming, I am not arguing political science. I am arguing climate science. But if, in general, you support mainstream science, why do you reject global warming - AGW?
What makes you feel you're qualified to talk about the climate?
What makes you think a qualification is required?
 
Scotland have banned wood burners for new builds. New ICE cars are being banned from various dates.

Everything you Alarmists complain about you're contributing to. Trying getting a grip on your own life first before preaching to others.

Have you ever burned wood for heat in Scotland? ... are trees growing super fast there? ... here it's the insurance companies who ban wood burners, these things cause fires ... my agent was clear, if my house burns down, and they find a wood burner anywhere on site, they will deny my coverage ... period ...

I know places like California are banning the sale of piston-engined rigs, is there a reason to think they'll ban them completely? ... you'll have to buy your rig in Arizona, then drive it across the border ... remember, we're trying to get rid of 90% of ALL passenger rigs, both EV and piston-driven ... California title and registration fees will reflect that policy ...

Should have stayed in Arizona ...
 
remember, we're trying to get rid of 90% of ALL passenger rigs, both EV and piston-driven ... California title and registration fees will reflect that policy ...
Do you have a link explaing that policy? All I could find was the EO from Newsom that, starting in 2035, all vehicles sold will be zero emission. I could find nothing about simply reducing the number of passenger vehicles, though I can see some reasoning behind such a position in California, particularly the LA area.
 
Do you have a link explaing that policy? All I could find was the EO from Newsom that, starting in 2035, all vehicles sold will be zero emission. I could find nothing about simply reducing the number of passenger vehicles, though I can see some reasoning behind such a position in California, particularly the LA area.
I can't wait to see how that plays out. You can't push a rope up a hill.
 
Do you have a link explaining that policy? All I could find was the EO from Newsom that, starting in 2035, all vehicles sold will be zero emission. I could find nothing about simply reducing the number of passenger vehicles, though I can see some reasoning behind such a position in California, particularly the LA area.

I can't wait to see how that plays out. You can't push a rope up a hill.
So you have no link? Why not?
 
What link do you believe I should be providing to prove I can't wait to see how it plays out in California?
Long ago you should have provided link(s) that supported your claims that the glacial-interglacial cycle is driven by disruptions in oceanic heat transport, particularly links that explained what causes such cyclical disruptions and explains why Milankovitch with feedback from CO2 is not the primary driver, as every other scientist on the planet believes.
 
Long ago you should have provided link(s) that supported your claims that the glacial-interglacial cycle is driven by disruptions in oceanic heat transport, particularly links that explained what causes such cyclical disruptions and explains why Milankovitch with feedback from CO2 is not the primary driver, as every other scientist on the planet believes.
You think they don't know the warm waters off the coast of Europe and the US keeps those regions warmer than they would be without it?

You don't think they know what the tipping point temperature is for extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation is?

You don't think they know what would happen if the AMOC collapses?
 
All kinds of Americans now believe that Climate Change is not as serious of a problem as it used to be, including those on the left. I wonder what AOC will think now? In 2019 she said the world was going to end in 12 years due to Climate Change. Do we still only have 7 years left or isn't it as serious of a problem as she stated? Or, has Biden destroyed the country so badly that Climate Change has moved much further down the list of priorities? That's my guess. Making ends meet in Biden's world has now become the number one priority, along with decreasing crime, the invasion on our Southern border, and trying to stave off a nuclear WWIII. Biden has made all of these things more of a problem than Climate Change.

So, opinion polls are now evidence ?
 
The polls show that Climate change is not considered a top priority anymore. It has nothing to do with evidence or lack of evidence. It just is what it is.
And neither is medical research because many are fat and happy dying from eating fast foods. It’s something smarter people invest in on the left because the populous has too many ignoramus deniers on the right.
 

Forum List

Back
Top