Green New Deal

[iceberg]

Temps are rising much faster than normal. Donlt give that "climate always changes" bullshit.

Here is what I believe, that AHG is real. The effects are happening now, these studies done by scientist in my article give us an idea of what to expect if we do nothing. Some areas will be affected more than others.

And there are scientists that say it's all bunk, but you ignore those scientists because they do not fit your cause. Remember who pays scientists: governments.

So why would government make up these kids of things? Because government has been trying to gain more and more control over people as time moves on. To some degree, they've been fairly successful. But the two things stopping them from total control are energy and healthcare. Once government is able to totally control those two things, they will have total control over the people in this (and other) countries.

In our form of government, this can't be done unless they have the support of the people. So how do we get support of the people? Fear.

Get these people to not only hand over power, but beg you to take it from them. "Please, please government, take total control of our energy before we kill ourselves with it!" This is what they are looking for.

So what we have here is a worldwide government conspiracy to influence collected data and it's interpretation involving tens of thousands of climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and ecologists throughout the world. To that we would have to add the hundreds of pier groups who review and comment on findings and academy's of science. Since the private sector has become involve in both basic(4%) and applied research(24%), we would have to include them in this conspiracy. And governments who have lost their ability to hide their most embarrassing secrets have somehow discovered how to keep this conspiracy a secret.

Not being a great fan of conspiracy theories, I think your idea is fucking crazy.

I don't know why you think it's crazy. Look at how brainwashing has worked for the left thus far. They've been pretty successful. And as I already stated, you only want to look at those professions that agree with your position, and not those that disagree.

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns - WND - WND

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I have many more and I'm sure the internet is full of others. The point is that it's not a consensus. It's debated by others in those fields and that are so often ignored.

I don't know if there is consensus among writers of articles you read on the internet but there is no doubt there is scientific consensus among the top scientist in the world that climate is changing and man is responsible.

In science it is natural and expected that scientific theories will be questioned and alternatives theories offered and so it is with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change. There have been other alternative theories and hypothesis but none have stood up to peer scrutiny as the Greenhouse Theory has. And no it is not just consensus of government agencies.

The following are all non-goverment organization funded by members, universities, private businesses, and foundations, not the government. All are in agreement with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change and that humanity is a primary cause.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America

In addition there are approximate 58 international Academies of Science including the National Academy of Science which are funded by members, foundations, and governments. They represent over 25,000 of the top scientist in the world, selected based on merit and achievements. Every single one of these organizations accepts as fact that the earth is in a state major climate change. 56 of these organizations state that humanity is the major cause.

This is scientific consensus

Oops..
Do 97% of Scientists Really Believe in Global Warming?

obama, like many politicians, uses the most extreme #'s they can find.

even if they have to put them there.

 

[RealDave]

And there are scientists that say it's all bunk, but you ignore those scientists because they do not fit your cause. Remember who pays scientists: governments.

So why would government make up these kids of things? Because government has been trying to gain more and more control over people as time moves on. To some degree, they've been fairly successful. But the two things stopping them from total control are energy and healthcare. Once government is able to totally control those two things, they will have total control over the people in this (and other) countries.

In our form of government, this can't be done unless they have the support of the people. So how do we get support of the people? Fear.

Get these people to not only hand over power, but beg you to take it from them. "Please, please government, take total control of our energy before we kill ourselves with it!" This is what they are looking for.

So what we have here is a worldwide government conspiracy to influence collected data and it's interpretation involving tens of thousands of climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and ecologists throughout the world. To that we would have to add the hundreds of pier groups who review and comment on findings and academy's of science. Since the private sector has become involve in both basic(4%) and applied research(24%), we would have to include them in this conspiracy. And governments who have lost their ability to hide their most embarrassing secrets have somehow discovered how to keep this conspiracy a secret.

Not being a great fan of conspiracy theories, I think your idea is fucking crazy.

I don't know why you think it's crazy. Look at how brainwashing has worked for the left thus far. They've been pretty successful. And as I already stated, you only want to look at those professions that agree with your position, and not those that disagree.

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns - WND - WND

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I have many more and I'm sure the internet is full of others. The point is that it's not a consensus. It's debated by others in those fields and that are so often ignored.

I don't know if there is consensus among writers of articles you read on the internet but there is no doubt there is scientific consensus among the top scientist in the world that climate is changing and man is responsible.

In science it is natural and expected that scientific theories will be questioned and alternatives theories offered and so it is with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change. There have been other alternative theories and hypothesis but none have stood up to peer scrutiny as the Greenhouse Theory has. And no it is not just consensus of government agencies.

The following are all non-goverment organization funded by members, universities, private businesses, and foundations, not the government. All are in agreement with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change and that humanity is a primary cause.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America

In addition there are approximate 58 international Academies of Science including the National Academy of Science which are funded by members, foundations, and governments. They represent over 25,000 of the top scientist in the world, selected based on merit and achievements. Every single one of these organizations accepts as fact that the earth is in a state major climate change. 56 of these organizations state that humanity is the major cause.

This is scientific consensus

Oops..
Do 97% of Scientists Really Believe in Global Warming?

obama, like many politicians, uses the most extreme #'s they can find.

even if they have to put them there.

This coming from a dumbass Trump supporter who just said he had 35,000 supporters in a building that held 6500.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

The United States, what can we do that will reverse Global Warming?

The world has a population of 7.6 BILLION PEOPLE.

The United States has a population of 330 MILLION PEOPLE. That means we (United States) make up 0.043% of the world population,

What percentage of the world population still burn either wood or animal dung to heat and cook?

Arguably we are the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world and despite the efforts of the current administration we are still considered a world leader. Other nations still look to US for leadership.

Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement was a huge disappoint for environmentalists around the world. However, the blow has been soften with the support of the United States Climate Alliance representing 21 US states and Trump's ridiculous quotes on climate change has certainly helped.

The Paris Accord only gave other countries the ability to limit our economic success. Of course they are pissed off.

That is complete nonsense. The agreement establishes a goal of a 26% reduction in carbon emission over a 20 year period. At the end each 5 years the US can readjust the figure. There is no penalty for not meeting the goal. Thankfully, 21 states agreed to support the Accord, assuring the world we aren't all idiots.

Well Trump thought it was a bad idea and so do I.

I have a better idea though. Let those other countries catch up to us, and then we'll agree to reduce our carbon emissions by 25%.

 

[Flopper]

So what we have here is a worldwide government conspiracy to influence collected data and it's interpretation involving tens of thousands of climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and ecologists throughout the world. To that we would have to add the hundreds of pier groups who review and comment on findings and academy's of science. Since the private sector has become involve in both basic(4%) and applied research(24%), we would have to include them in this conspiracy. And governments who have lost their ability to hide their most embarrassing secrets have somehow discovered how to keep this conspiracy a secret.

Not being a great fan of conspiracy theories, I think your idea is fucking crazy.

I don't know why you think it's crazy. Look at how brainwashing has worked for the left thus far. They've been pretty successful. And as I already stated, you only want to look at those professions that agree with your position, and not those that disagree.

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns - WND - WND

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I have many more and I'm sure the internet is full of others. The point is that it's not a consensus. It's debated by others in those fields and that are so often ignored.

I don't know if there is consensus among writers of articles you read on the internet but there is no doubt there is scientific consensus among the top scientist in the world that climate is changing and man is responsible.

In science it is natural and expected that scientific theories will be questioned and alternatives theories offered and so it is with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change. There have been other alternative theories and hypothesis but none have stood up to peer scrutiny as the Greenhouse Theory has. And no it is not just consensus of government agencies.

The following are all non-goverment organization funded by members, universities, private businesses, and foundations, not the government. All are in agreement with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change and that humanity is a primary cause.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America

In addition there are approximate 58 international Academies of Science including the National Academy of Science which are funded by members, foundations, and governments. They represent over 25,000 of the top scientist in the world, selected based on merit and achievements. Every single one of these organizations accepts as fact that the earth is in a state major climate change. 56 of these organizations state that humanity is the major cause.

This is scientific consensus

BTW Do you realize you have links to articles that are 10 to 15 years old?

Yes I do, but since the time these articles were written, things have gotten better, haven't they? And if not, why not since we keep spending more and more money on this cause?

Do you think God created this planet for animals and plants? Of course not. He created it for the human species. Everything else was put here for our advantage.

Both your statements are your opinion. There is no verse in Bible that says the earth was created for man. This is a favorite argument Christians use to defend their right to rape the land, pollute the air and turn our waters into cesspools.

Of course this planet was created for man. Why would God make a planet where we are the dominant animal capable of doing the things we can do if it was not for us? From a religious point of view, we are the only occupants with souls. Animals don't have souls. From a religious point of view, we are here to be tested and then judged for the next life.

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Having dominion means to rule over or have dominance over. That does not mean God created the earth for man to ravage. The earth belongs to God not man.
"The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." (Psalm 24:1)

 

[RealDave]

dude, there is an entire forum for your stupid claim in here that has debunked every aspect of your nonsense. why don't you instead, go spend some time there. I have no need to go to the internet and do your job for you. you prove it. I know you can't and won't. there you go!

Well ..... you might have known global warming is real if you’d watch something other than FOX AND IDIOT FRIENDS AND FREAKS OF THE ROUND TABLE.

Instead of going out of your way to remain stupid, try to make room in your Rush/Hannity soted brain and read some of the peer reviewed papers written on the subject.

And don’t worry, science isn’t black magic and God won’t smote you for raising your I.Q.

Though Rush and Hannity might look at you cross eyed with a frown.

anytime someone on the left is getting their ass handed to them they run to FOX NEW LOL and cement the loss on their part.

It's their default mode.

Limbaugh
Fox
Hannity
Coulter

Racism
Homophobia

When they do find themselves in a corner, they just blurt out any of the above. It saves them time from learning anything, trying to disprove anything, or even helping them get out of a debate.

then whine words have lost their meaning.

i think they are more upset that means its lost impact.

Not too sure about that. They still use them repeatedly. I think they really don't know. When they lose elections, just blame it on the Republicans for cheating and not their worn out strategies. It's like the Boy who Cried Wolf.

Republicans do cheat. Photo ID laws. Voter suppression. Gerrymandering. Russian collusion. If you assfucks don;t want to be accused of cheating, QUIT YOUR FUCKING CHEATING.

 

[Markle]

Arguably we are the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world and despite the efforts of the current administration we are still considered a world leader. Other nations still look to US for leadership.

Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement was a huge disappoint for environmentalists around the world. However, the blow has been soften with the support of the United States Climate Alliance representing 21 US states. Also, Trump's ridiculous quotes on climate change has certainly helped.

Then post a reliable source and working link stating the United States produces more CO2 than anyone else in the world. Please combine countries so you reach 330 million people. Don't leave out China or India.

 

[RealDave]

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

The United States, what can we do that will reverse Global Warming?

The world has a population of 7.6 BILLION PEOPLE.

The United States has a population of 330 MILLION PEOPLE. That means we (United States) make up 0.043% of the world population,

What percentage of the world population still burn either wood or animal dung to heat and cook?

Arguably we are the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world and despite the efforts of the current administration we are still considered a world leader. Other nations still look to US for leadership.

Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement was a huge disappoint for environmentalists around the world. However, the blow has been soften with the support of the United States Climate Alliance representing 21 US states and Trump's ridiculous quotes on climate change has certainly helped.

The Paris Accord only gave other countries the ability to limit our economic success. Of course they are pissed off.

That is complete nonsense. The agreement establishes a goal of a 26% reduction in carbon emission over a 20 year period. At the end each 5 years the US can readjust the figure. There is no penalty for not meeting the goal. Thankfully, 21 states agreed to support the Accord, assuring the world we aren't all idiots.

Well Trump thought it was a bad idea and so do I.

I have a better idea though. Let those other countries catch up to us, and then we'll agree to reduce our carbon emissions by 25%.

View attachment 245785

How much CO2 has the US admitted over the past 40 years compared to China? How about we stop & they can emit until they catch up to us.

We surpassed 400 ppm because the US put most of that there. Now you assfucks want to tell developing countries that they can't develop?

You &Trump are both fucking idiots.

Trump thinks his money will protect his kids & grandchilren. Evidently, you don;t care.

 

[Markle]

This coming from a dumbass Trump supporter who just said he had 35,000 supporters in a building that held 6500.

 

[RealDave]

where?

Goggle it. You won’t find it on Breitbart or Fox gnus.

dude, there is an entire forum for your stupid claim in here that has debunked every aspect of your nonsense. why don't you instead, go spend some time there. I have no need to go to the internet and do your job for you. you prove it. I know you can't and won't. there you go!

Well ..... you might have known global warming is real if you’d watch something other than FOX AND IDIOT FRIENDS AND FREAKS OF THE ROUND TABLE.

Instead of going out of your way to remain stupid, try to make room in your Rush/Hannity soted brain and read some of the peer reviewed papers written on the subject.

And don’t worry, science isn’t black magic and God won’t smote you for raising your I.Q.

Though Rush and Hannity might look at you cross eyed with a frown.

anytime someone on the left is getting their ass handed to them they run to FOX NEW LOL and cement the loss on their part.

It's their default mode.

Limbaugh
Fox
Hannity
Coulter

Racism
Homophobia

When they do find themselves in a corner, they just blurt out any of the above. It saves them time from learning anything, trying to disprove anything, or even helping them get out of a debate.

Oh please, you drool over them & believe everything they say.

Even Trump listens to them. That's how we got the last shutdown.

 

[Markle]

The United States, what can we do that will reverse Global Warming?

The world has a population of 7.6 BILLION PEOPLE.

The United States has a population of 330 MILLION PEOPLE. That means we (United States) make up 0.043% of the world population,

What percentage of the world population still burn either wood or animal dung to heat and cook?

Arguably we are the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world and despite the efforts of the current administration we are still considered a world leader. Other nations still look to US for leadership.

Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement was a huge disappoint for environmentalists around the world. However, the blow has been soften with the support of the United States Climate Alliance representing 21 US states and Trump's ridiculous quotes on climate change has certainly helped.

The Paris Accord only gave other countries the ability to limit our economic success. Of course they are pissed off.

That is complete nonsense. The agreement establishes a goal of a 26% reduction in carbon emission over a 20 year period. At the end each 5 years the US can readjust the figure. There is no penalty for not meeting the goal. Thankfully, 21 states agreed to support the Accord, assuring the world we aren't all idiots.

Well Trump thought it was a bad idea and so do I.

I have a better idea though. Let those other countries catch up to us, and then we'll agree to reduce our carbon emissions by 25%.

View attachment 245785

How much CO2 has the US admitted over the past 40 years compared to China? How about we stop & they can emit until they catch up to us.

We surpassed 400 ppm because the US put most of that there. Now you assfucks want to tell developing countries that they can't develop?

You &Trump are both fucking idiots.

Trump thinks his money will protect his kids & grandchilren. Evidently, you don;t care.

I'm certain you simply forgot to post the reliable source and working link proving your amusing allegations.

I won't hold my breath until you support your post.

 

[RealDave]

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

So the answer is to throw trillions of dollars into something that will likely not change anything. Sorry, but I think we could use those trillions for better things.

No, I think at this point the money should be going to research as FA_Q2 suggested. The problem is bigger than just limiting greenhouse gas production. Once excessive amounts are in the air, how do we get them out? Also, there are lot of answered questions about climate change.

It seems pretty clear that there is not going to be any global plan to reduce greenhouse gas production. It's going take a lot more than scientists warnings of increases in CO2 or small increases in global atmospheric temperature. People are going to have to experience first hand the results of climate change. Maybe by then there will be technological developments that can help. If not we just adapt.

Eventually we will use cleaner products for energy. I really can't see people going to a gas station in about 100 years from now. But it has to come at it's own time--not be forced on us through taxation or subsidies. If we are going to change, it has to be a benefit that people can immediately see, not something we can't or prove.

Look......we're both older people. We remember way back when this all started. Back then, it was global cooling that was the headline in the news. But since then, look at how much we've done. We have much cleaner burning gasoline, cars that get two to four times the milage they used to get, we got rid of fluorocarbons in our spray cans, lead out of our gasoline and paint, new anti-freeze for our cars, eliminated DDT, use of biodegradable packaging (McDonald's), elimination of asbestos, low sulfur diesel fuel, and the list goes on and on.

So what have our rewards been for these efforts? Things are worse now than ever before according to environmentalists in spite of the huge reduction of our carbon footprint.

2% OF G.N.P. SPENT BY U.S. ON CLEANUP

Obama Energy Czar: Fracking Is Good For The Environment

Huge reduction? Hardly. We have reduced emissions but not enough.

What have you done?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well ..... you might have known global warming is real if you’d watch something other than FOX AND IDIOT FRIENDS AND FREAKS OF THE ROUND TABLE.

Instead of going out of your way to remain stupid, try to make room in your Rush/Hannity soted brain and read some of the peer reviewed papers written on the subject.

And don’t worry, science isn’t black magic and God won’t smote you for raising your I.Q.

Though Rush and Hannity might look at you cross eyed with a frown.

anytime someone on the left is getting their ass handed to them they run to FOX NEW LOL and cement the loss on their part.

It's their default mode.

Limbaugh
Fox
Hannity
Coulter

Racism
Homophobia

When they do find themselves in a corner, they just blurt out any of the above. It saves them time from learning anything, trying to disprove anything, or even helping them get out of a debate.

then whine words have lost their meaning.

i think they are more upset that means its lost impact.

Not too sure about that. They still use them repeatedly. I think they really don't know. When they lose elections, just blame it on the Republicans for cheating and not their worn out strategies. It's like the Boy who Cried Wolf.

Republicans do cheat. Photo ID laws. Voter suppression. Gerrymandering. Russian collusion. If you assfucks don;t want to be accused of cheating, QUIT YOUR FUCKING CHEATING.

Voter suppression. Where?
Gerrymandering. Are you saying Democrats don't do the same?
Russian collusion. The only Russian collusion came from the DNC and Hillary. Not Trump.
Photo ID laws. Yes, in the eyes of Democrats, minorities are too stupid to obtain an ID.

Let's take a look at the last couple of Republican elections:

Trump: Russian collusion.
GW reelection win: Diebold machines.
GW first win: Hanging chads, Supreme Court, Jeb Bush.
The change of Congressional leadership: Voter ID, Gerrymandering.

See a pattern here yet? If not, allow me to explain.

Democrats never lose elections. They always get cheated somehow. Do you know why? Because if your leaders ever told you the truth, and that is conservatism is far from dead, many of your cohorts wouldn't come out to vote. It would knock the wind out of their sails. So they have to lie to you in order to keep you coming out to vote.

Therefore convince the voters they really won, it's just that Republicans found a way to cheat them out of their win. The whole country is like me.....liberal. My friends are liberal, all the people at Starbucks are liberal, the people I work with are liberal. The whole country is basically liberal. Sure, there are Republicans.....in pickup trucks, on yachts, in flyover country, but most of the country is like me.....liberal.

 

[RealDave]

Arguably we are the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world and despite the efforts of the current administration we are still considered a world leader. Other nations still look to US for leadership.

Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement was a huge disappoint for environmentalists around the world. However, the blow has been soften with the support of the United States Climate Alliance representing 21 US states and Trump's ridiculous quotes on climate change has certainly helped.

The Paris Accord only gave other countries the ability to limit our economic success. Of course they are pissed off.

That is complete nonsense. The agreement establishes a goal of a 26% reduction in carbon emission over a 20 year period. At the end each 5 years the US can readjust the figure. There is no penalty for not meeting the goal. Thankfully, 21 states agreed to support the Accord, assuring the world we aren't all idiots.

Well Trump thought it was a bad idea and so do I.

I have a better idea though. Let those other countries catch up to us, and then we'll agree to reduce our carbon emissions by 25%.

View attachment 245785

How much CO2 has the US admitted over the past 40 years compared to China? How about we stop & they can emit until they catch up to us.

We surpassed 400 ppm because the US put most of that there. Now you assfucks want to tell developing countries that they can't develop?

You &Trump are both fucking idiots.

Trump thinks his money will protect his kids & grandchilren. Evidently, you don;t care.

I'm certain you simply forgot to post the reliable source and working link proving your amusing allegations.

I won't hold my breath until you support your post.

Why bother when you are too fucking stupid to grasp it? YOu just run away sceaming "Fake News"

Lets see, we were numberf one in emissions for decades. So who do you think piled on the most CO2 into the atmosophere.

Dumbass.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

So the answer is to throw trillions of dollars into something that will likely not change anything. Sorry, but I think we could use those trillions for better things.

No, I think at this point the money should be going to research as FA_Q2 suggested. The problem is bigger than just limiting greenhouse gas production. Once excessive amounts are in the air, how do we get them out? Also, there are lot of answered questions about climate change.

It seems pretty clear that there is not going to be any global plan to reduce greenhouse gas production. It's going take a lot more than scientists warnings of increases in CO2 or small increases in global atmospheric temperature. People are going to have to experience first hand the results of climate change. Maybe by then there will be technological developments that can help. If not we just adapt.

Eventually we will use cleaner products for energy. I really can't see people going to a gas station in about 100 years from now. But it has to come at it's own time--not be forced on us through taxation or subsidies. If we are going to change, it has to be a benefit that people can immediately see, not something we can't or prove.

Look......we're both older people. We remember way back when this all started. Back then, it was global cooling that was the headline in the news. But since then, look at how much we've done. We have much cleaner burning gasoline, cars that get two to four times the milage they used to get, we got rid of fluorocarbons in our spray cans, lead out of our gasoline and paint, new anti-freeze for our cars, eliminated DDT, use of biodegradable packaging (McDonald's), elimination of asbestos, low sulfur diesel fuel, and the list goes on and on.

So what have our rewards been for these efforts? Things are worse now than ever before according to environmentalists in spite of the huge reduction of our carbon footprint.

2% OF G.N.P. SPENT BY U.S. ON CLEANUP

Obama Energy Czar: Fracking Is Good For The Environment

Huge reduction? Hardly. We have reduced emissions but not enough.

What have you done?

Me? I've done nothing because I think it's all BS. In fact when I fill up my car in summer, I do it on Ozone Alert days just to piss off people like you.

The better question is: what have you done? How is that windmill turning in your backyard? How are those solar panels working out? Do you enjoy public transportation all the time? I bet you have a very expensive bike to rid around on.

 

[RealDave]

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

Haven't we acted enough already?

View attachment 245696

If somebody is to act, it isn't us. Talk to the people in India or China. When they catch up to us, then it's time to talk.

Look at the graph dumbass. The y axis doesn't start at zero.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

Haven't we acted enough already?

View attachment 245696

If somebody is to act, it isn't us. Talk to the people in India or China. When they catch up to us, then it's time to talk.

Look at the graph dumbass. The y axis doesn't start at zero.

What the graph shows is that in spite of our manufacturing and population, we emit very little in C02 compared to other places. We Americans can't stop or do anything about climate change. All we can do is lower ours. But if the rest of the world isn't, then nothing we can do will help.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Goggle it. You won’t find it on Breitbart or Fox gnus.

dude, there is an entire forum for your stupid claim in here that has debunked every aspect of your nonsense. why don't you instead, go spend some time there. I have no need to go to the internet and do your job for you. you prove it. I know you can't and won't. there you go!

Well ..... you might have known global warming is real if you’d watch something other than FOX AND IDIOT FRIENDS AND FREAKS OF THE ROUND TABLE.

Instead of going out of your way to remain stupid, try to make room in your Rush/Hannity soted brain and read some of the peer reviewed papers written on the subject.

And don’t worry, science isn’t black magic and God won’t smote you for raising your I.Q.

Though Rush and Hannity might look at you cross eyed with a frown.

anytime someone on the left is getting their ass handed to them they run to FOX NEW LOL and cement the loss on their part.

It's their default mode.

Limbaugh
Fox
Hannity
Coulter

Racism
Homophobia

When they do find themselves in a corner, they just blurt out any of the above. It saves them time from learning anything, trying to disprove anything, or even helping them get out of a debate.

Oh please, you drool over them & believe everything they say.

Even Trump listens to them. That's how we got the last shutdown.

You leftists are such puppets. Listen to liars and you'll parrot liars.

Flashback: The Monologue That Started the Meme | Rush Limbaugh | iHeartRadio

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The United States, what can we do that will reverse Global Warming?

The world has a population of 7.6 BILLION PEOPLE.

The United States has a population of 330 MILLION PEOPLE. That means we (United States) make up 0.043% of the world population,

What percentage of the world population still burn either wood or animal dung to heat and cook?

Arguably we are the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world and despite the efforts of the current administration we are still considered a world leader. Other nations still look to US for leadership.

Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement was a huge disappoint for environmentalists around the world. However, the blow has been soften with the support of the United States Climate Alliance representing 21 US states and Trump's ridiculous quotes on climate change has certainly helped.

The Paris Accord only gave other countries the ability to limit our economic success. Of course they are pissed off.

That is complete nonsense. The agreement establishes a goal of a 26% reduction in carbon emission over a 20 year period. At the end each 5 years the US can readjust the figure. There is no penalty for not meeting the goal. Thankfully, 21 states agreed to support the Accord, assuring the world we aren't all idiots.

Well Trump thought it was a bad idea and so do I.

I have a better idea though. Let those other countries catch up to us, and then we'll agree to reduce our carbon emissions by 25%.

View attachment 245785

How much CO2 has the US admitted over the past 40 years compared to China? How about we stop & they can emit until they catch up to us.

We surpassed 400 ppm because the US put most of that there. Now you assfucks want to tell developing countries that they can't develop?

You &Trump are both fucking idiots.

Trump thinks his money will protect his kids & grandchilren. Evidently, you don;t care.

Well one thing we can agree upon: let's let China catch up to us.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know why you think it's crazy. Look at how brainwashing has worked for the left thus far. They've been pretty successful. And as I already stated, you only want to look at those professions that agree with your position, and not those that disagree.

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns - WND - WND

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I have many more and I'm sure the internet is full of others. The point is that it's not a consensus. It's debated by others in those fields and that are so often ignored.

I don't know if there is consensus among writers of articles you read on the internet but there is no doubt there is scientific consensus among the top scientist in the world that climate is changing and man is responsible.

In science it is natural and expected that scientific theories will be questioned and alternatives theories offered and so it is with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change. There have been other alternative theories and hypothesis but none have stood up to peer scrutiny as the Greenhouse Theory has. And no it is not just consensus of government agencies.

The following are all non-goverment organization funded by members, universities, private businesses, and foundations, not the government. All are in agreement with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change and that humanity is a primary cause.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America

In addition there are approximate 58 international Academies of Science including the National Academy of Science which are funded by members, foundations, and governments. They represent over 25,000 of the top scientist in the world, selected based on merit and achievements. Every single one of these organizations accepts as fact that the earth is in a state major climate change. 56 of these organizations state that humanity is the major cause.

This is scientific consensus

BTW Do you realize you have links to articles that are 10 to 15 years old?

Yes I do, but since the time these articles were written, things have gotten better, haven't they? And if not, why not since we keep spending more and more money on this cause?

Do you think God created this planet for animals and plants? Of course not. He created it for the human species. Everything else was put here for our advantage.

Both your statements are your opinion. There is no verse in Bible that says the earth was created for man. This is a favorite argument Christians use to defend their right to rape the land, pollute the air and turn our waters into cesspools.

Of course this planet was created for man. Why would God make a planet where we are the dominant animal capable of doing the things we can do if it was not for us? From a religious point of view, we are the only occupants with souls. Animals don't have souls. From a religious point of view, we are here to be tested and then judged for the next life.

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Having dominion means to rule over or have dominance over. That does not mean God created the earth for man to ravage. The earth belongs to God not man.
"The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." (Psalm 24:1)

Yes, the earth does belong to God and not man. So why do you insist man controls it and not God?

 

[iceberg]

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

So the answer is to throw trillions of dollars into something that will likely not change anything. Sorry, but I think we could use those trillions for better things.

No, I think at this point the money should be going to research as FA_Q2 suggested. The problem is bigger than just limiting greenhouse gas production. Once excessive amounts are in the air, how do we get them out? Also, there are lot of answered questions about climate change.

It seems pretty clear that there is not going to be any global plan to reduce greenhouse gas production. It's going take a lot more than scientists warnings of increases in CO2 or small increases in global atmospheric temperature. People are going to have to experience first hand the results of climate change. Maybe by then there will be technological developments that can help. If not we just adapt.

Eventually we will use cleaner products for energy. I really can't see people going to a gas station in about 100 years from now. But it has to come at it's own time--not be forced on us through taxation or subsidies. If we are going to change, it has to be a benefit that people can immediately see, not something we can't or prove.

Look......we're both older people. We remember way back when this all started. Back then, it was global cooling that was the headline in the news. But since then, look at how much we've done. We have much cleaner burning gasoline, cars that get two to four times the milage they used to get, we got rid of fluorocarbons in our spray cans, lead out of our gasoline and paint, new anti-freeze for our cars, eliminated DDT, use of biodegradable packaging (McDonald's), elimination of asbestos, low sulfur diesel fuel, and the list goes on and on.

So what have our rewards been for these efforts? Things are worse now than ever before according to environmentalists in spite of the huge reduction of our carbon footprint.

2% OF G.N.P. SPENT BY U.S. ON CLEANUP

Obama Energy Czar: Fracking Is Good For The Environment

Huge reduction? Hardly. We have reduced emissions but not enough.

What have you done?

i hold my farts in.

unless im around you.