Climate change or Pollution?

[Wilbur Right]

Dale, there must be a conspiracy web site you visit.
But relying on Russians for your info? Well ok then.


]Results of application
No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory and it is generally consideredpseudoscience on the order of global warming denialism.[2] It originated in the Soviet Union, its major scientific supporters worked in Russia, and it has never gained a following anywhere outside the Soviet Union. Having largely passed with the USSR, it occasionally makes a comeback among less intellectual conservativeelements,[3] where it is used as an excuse to continue ignoring the energy crisis of the future.[4] Russiancreationists also favour it.

The Swedes, in fact, drilled in Siljan at Gold's behest and only came up with 80 barrels of oily sludge over a six year period, which easily may have been residue from oil lubricant used in the drilling machinery. Abiotic oil proponents, however, continue to cherry-pick minor increases in production at certain oil wells and declare it as "proof" of abiotic oil.[5]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which is it? the libs say the actions of human beings are changing the climate of planet earth. Intelligent people say that man is polluting planet earth, Ok so far?

so, libs are saying that pollution directly causes climate change, but they do not want to attack pollution as their cause celeb.

Libs say that CO2 is a pollutant, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been consistent at .039% since we were capable of measuring it and was the same millions of years ago based on ice cores etc.

So the question of the day is:

Why don't libs make pollution their cause and forget the climate change bullshit?

no one likes pollution, everyone would hop on the anti-pollution bandwagon.

So what is really going on here?

My take: climate change is a hoax but libs are using it to control the activities of humans who are doing things that liberals don't like. Like riding in private planes----------oh wait, liberals do that. or living in huge mansions that suck up tons of electricity---------------oh wait, liberals do that.

So, it seems that liberals want to control our lives but not theirs. Got it.

Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oil, gas and uranium/plutonium was put on earth for us to use for energy, drill baby drill...

Solar, wind and what ever other so called "green" renewable energy are decades away from being practical...

In 1900, the airplane was a long time away from being practical as either in war or peace. That was hardly a good reason to put it on the shelf.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which is it? the libs say the actions of human beings are changing the climate of planet earth. Intelligent people say that man is polluting planet earth, Ok so far?

so, libs are saying that pollution directly causes climate change, but they do not want to attack pollution as their cause celeb.

Libs say that CO2 is a pollutant, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been consistent at .039% since we were capable of measuring it and was the same millions of years ago based on ice cores etc.

So the question of the day is:

Why don't libs make pollution their cause and forget the climate change bullshit?

no one likes pollution, everyone would hop on the anti-pollution bandwagon.

So what is really going on here?

My take: climate change is a hoax but libs are using it to control the activities of humans who are doing things that liberals don't like. Like riding in private planes----------oh wait, liberals do that. or living in huge mansions that suck up tons of electricity---------------oh wait, liberals do that.

So, it seems that liberals want to control our lives but not theirs. Got it.

Stop lying about what I believe:

The Politics of Global Warming

 

[Redfish]

true, the earth is making oil as we speak.

Cool. You got any tips on the market price of a barrel of crude say, Oh 2 million years out? I want to taken a position in oil futures.

might be a bit difficult to exercise those options. But if you want some I will gladly sell some to you.

 

[Redfish]

Of course the point is to go after pollution, especially from fossil fuels.

Get real, its densely populated liberal inner cities spewing the pollution. Pouring raw sewage into waterways. Exporting mountains of garbage and waste. Fouling the air. Paving over nature and overloading the ecosystem. Liberal run inner cities are pollution factories.

Yes, pollution = bad

Pollution does not cause climate change-----------that's the point.

 

[Redfish]

Oil, gas and uranium/plutonium was put on earth for us to use for energy, drill baby drill...

Solar, wind and what ever other so called "green" renewable energy are decades away from being practical...

In 1900, the airplane was a long time away from being practical as either in war or peace. That was hardly a good reason to put it on the shelf.

no one has said that we should stop looking for, and developing, alternate energy sources. But its foolish to drop the ones we have before that alternates are economically viable.

 

[FJO]

Of course the point is to go after pollution, especially from fossil fuels.

Oil is NOT a fossil fuel. You really believe that oil is dead dinosaurs???

Calling coal and oil 'fossil fuel' makes as much sense as calling north American Indians who speak Spanish Latinos or Hispanics.

 

[Redfish]

Which is it? the libs say the actions of human beings are changing the climate of planet earth. Intelligent people say that man is polluting planet earth, Ok so far?

so, libs are saying that pollution directly causes climate change, but they do not want to attack pollution as their cause celeb.

Libs say that CO2 is a pollutant, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been consistent at .039% since we were capable of measuring it and was the same millions of years ago based on ice cores etc.

So the question of the day is:

Why don't libs make pollution their cause and forget the climate change bullshit?

no one likes pollution, everyone would hop on the anti-pollution bandwagon.

So what is really going on here?

My take: climate change is a hoax but libs are using it to control the activities of humans who are doing things that liberals don't like. Like riding in private planes----------oh wait, liberals do that. or living in huge mansions that suck up tons of electricity---------------oh wait, liberals do that.

So, it seems that liberals want to control our lives but not theirs. Got it.

Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not.

what a cop out. Pollution is the problem, but you libs have erroneously tied it to an imaginary problem of man made climate change. Why? because you are scared of the evil polluters? because people won't "jump on board"?

This is typical liberal circular logic. Instead of attacking the real problem, make up one that you think is more politically correct. Kinda like obozocare, the fix for a problem that did not exist.

 

[FJO]

Fossil fuel is a general term for buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials, formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.




Then there's this.
Hope it helps.

"Fossil" also describes a thing or a person regarded outmoded or redundant.

Can you think of anyone that fits that definition?

 

[Redfish]

Which is it? the libs say the actions of human beings are changing the climate of planet earth. Intelligent people say that man is polluting planet earth, Ok so far?

so, libs are saying that pollution directly causes climate change, but they do not want to attack pollution as their cause celeb.

Libs say that CO2 is a pollutant, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been consistent at .039% since we were capable of measuring it and was the same millions of years ago based on ice cores etc.

So the question of the day is:

Why don't libs make pollution their cause and forget the climate change bullshit?

no one likes pollution, everyone would hop on the anti-pollution bandwagon.

So what is really going on here?

My take: climate change is a hoax but libs are using it to control the activities of humans who are doing things that liberals don't like. Like riding in private planes----------oh wait, liberals do that. or living in huge mansions that suck up tons of electricity---------------oh wait, liberals do that.

So, it seems that liberals want to control our lives but not theirs. Got it.

Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not.

what you are really saying is that the EPA is not doing its job. Why is that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oil, gas and uranium/plutonium was put on earth for us to use for energy, drill baby drill...

Solar, wind and what ever other so called "green" renewable energy are decades away from being practical...

In 1900, the airplane was a long time away from being practical as either in war or peace. That was hardly a good reason to put it on the shelf.

no one has said that we should stop looking for, and developing, alternate energy sources. But its foolish to drop the ones we have before that alternates are economically viable.

Are you serious? People here and everywhere bitch about putting money into solar, for example.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which is it? the libs say the actions of human beings are changing the climate of planet earth. Intelligent people say that man is polluting planet earth, Ok so far?

so, libs are saying that pollution directly causes climate change, but they do not want to attack pollution as their cause celeb.

Libs say that CO2 is a pollutant, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been consistent at .039% since we were capable of measuring it and was the same millions of years ago based on ice cores etc.

So the question of the day is:

Why don't libs make pollution their cause and forget the climate change bullshit?

no one likes pollution, everyone would hop on the anti-pollution bandwagon.

So what is really going on here?

My take: climate change is a hoax but libs are using it to control the activities of humans who are doing things that liberals don't like. Like riding in private planes----------oh wait, liberals do that. or living in huge mansions that suck up tons of electricity---------------oh wait, liberals do that.

So, it seems that liberals want to control our lives but not theirs. Got it.

Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not.

what you are really saying is that the EPA is not doing its job. Why is that?

I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which is it? the libs say the actions of human beings are changing the climate of planet earth. Intelligent people say that man is polluting planet earth, Ok so far?

so, libs are saying that pollution directly causes climate change, but they do not want to attack pollution as their cause celeb.

Libs say that CO2 is a pollutant, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been consistent at .039% since we were capable of measuring it and was the same millions of years ago based on ice cores etc.

So the question of the day is:

Why don't libs make pollution their cause and forget the climate change bullshit?

no one likes pollution, everyone would hop on the anti-pollution bandwagon.

So what is really going on here?

My take: climate change is a hoax but libs are using it to control the activities of humans who are doing things that liberals don't like. Like riding in private planes----------oh wait, liberals do that. or living in huge mansions that suck up tons of electricity---------------oh wait, liberals do that.

So, it seems that liberals want to control our lives but not theirs. Got it.

Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not.

what a cop out. Pollution is the problem, but you libs have erroneously tied it to an imaginary problem of man made climate change. Why? because you are scared of the evil polluters? because people won't "jump on board"?

This is typical liberal circular logic. Instead of attacking the real problem, make up one that you think is more politically correct. Kinda like obozocare, the fix for a problem that did not exist.

Go back and read post 24.

 

[Redfish]

Oil, gas and uranium/plutonium was put on earth for us to use for energy, drill baby drill...

Solar, wind and what ever other so called "green" renewable energy are decades away from being practical...

In 1900, the airplane was a long time away from being practical as either in war or peace. That was hardly a good reason to put it on the shelf.

no one has said that we should stop looking for, and developing, alternate energy sources. But its foolish to drop the ones we have before that alternates are economically viable.

Are you serious? People here and everywhere bitch about putting money into solar, for example.

what they bitch about is wasting govt money on projects that have not had any positive results.

When this technology is viable the profit motive and private industry will make it go. Pouring more government money into it wont accomplish anything.

Did the following have government grants? Edison, Ford, Gates, Jobs, Curie, Buffet, GE, Maytag, Sears, Walmart, et al.

Private entrepreneurism works, govt experimentation does not.

 

[Redfish]

Which is it? the libs say the actions of human beings are changing the climate of planet earth. Intelligent people say that man is polluting planet earth, Ok so far?

so, libs are saying that pollution directly causes climate change, but they do not want to attack pollution as their cause celeb.

Libs say that CO2 is a pollutant, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been consistent at .039% since we were capable of measuring it and was the same millions of years ago based on ice cores etc.

So the question of the day is:

Why don't libs make pollution their cause and forget the climate change bullshit?

no one likes pollution, everyone would hop on the anti-pollution bandwagon.

So what is really going on here?

My take: climate change is a hoax but libs are using it to control the activities of humans who are doing things that liberals don't like. Like riding in private planes----------oh wait, liberals do that. or living in huge mansions that suck up tons of electricity---------------oh wait, liberals do that.

So, it seems that liberals want to control our lives but not theirs. Got it.

Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not.

what you are really saying is that the EPA is not doing its job. Why is that?

I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that.

you certainly implied it. you said polluters fight the government (and win). The EPA is charged with enforcing pollution laws, if the polluters are fighting and winning, then the EPA is not doing its job-----------right?

 

[PkrBum]

Fossil fuels are a finite resource. My opinion is that the transition from them to the alternatives will be a natural and smooth transition... hardly in need of enormous govt solutions.

The earth is also highly efficient at sequestering carbon... as evidenced by both the enormous reserves being utilized and the fact that the climate models are being revised repeatedly to account for the oceans carbon sink... etc. Therefore a return to the fraction of the co2 ppm in our atmosphere is a given.

I think that an alternative to the current global warming demagoguery may be just as likely. That humans could well have saved life on earth by recycling the carbon. Below 180ppm co2 in our atmosphere may well have been a tipping point to mass vegetation extinction. That theory is certainly as viable as the current "settled science"... whatever that is.

Lastly... given a choice... humans certainly benefit from our current warming trend that began approximately 10k years ago when there were mile high glaciers that sat on our midwest.

 

[Redfish]

Which is it? the libs say the actions of human beings are changing the climate of planet earth. Intelligent people say that man is polluting planet earth, Ok so far?

so, libs are saying that pollution directly causes climate change, but they do not want to attack pollution as their cause celeb.

Libs say that CO2 is a pollutant, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been consistent at .039% since we were capable of measuring it and was the same millions of years ago based on ice cores etc.

So the question of the day is:

Why don't libs make pollution their cause and forget the climate change bullshit?

no one likes pollution, everyone would hop on the anti-pollution bandwagon.

So what is really going on here?

My take: climate change is a hoax but libs are using it to control the activities of humans who are doing things that liberals don't like. Like riding in private planes----------oh wait, liberals do that. or living in huge mansions that suck up tons of electricity---------------oh wait, liberals do that.

So, it seems that liberals want to control our lives but not theirs. Got it.

Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not.

what a cop out. Pollution is the problem, but you libs have erroneously tied it to an imaginary problem of man made climate change. Why? because you are scared of the evil polluters? because people won't "jump on board"?

This is typical liberal circular logic. Instead of attacking the real problem, make up one that you think is more politically correct. Kinda like obozocare, the fix for a problem that did not exist.

Go back and read post 24.

goes back to another thread, I am not going to read through that entire thread to discern with you believe.

 

[Redfish]

Fossil fuels are a finite resource. My opinion is that the transition from them to the alternatives will be a natural and smooth transition... hardly in need of enormous govt solutions.

The earth is also highly efficient at sequestering carbon... as evidenced by both the enormous reserves being utilized and the fact that the climate models are being revised repeatedly to account for the oceans carbon sink... etc. Therefore a return to the fraction of the co2 ppm in our atmosphere is a given.

I think that an alternative to the current global warming demagoguery may be just as likely. That humans could well have saved life on earth by recycling the carbon. Below 180ppm co2 in our atmosphere may well have been a tipping point to mass vegetation extinction. That theory is certainly as viable as the current "settled science"... whatever that is.

Lastly... given a choice... humans certainly benefit from our current warming trend that began approximately 10k years ago when there were mile high glaciers that sat on our midwest.

Yep, if only those soccer moms 10K years ago had not driven their huge SUVs, the glaciers might still be here.

 

[there4eyeM]

Agreed, pollution as such is ugly and degrading to human spirit. That is enough to justify all measures to end it. Especially polluting the air.