Pollution, climate change, or control?

[BluesLegend]

The only scientific certainty in climate change is, there WILL be another ice age. Glaciers will come down from the Artic and grind NY City to bedrock, just like they did during the last ice age.

 

[Redfish]

well said sir. global warming is an excuse so hyper liberals can act histrionic.
i hate to say it, but it was on it's way to being like scientology, which actually has more correct facts up to and including xenu.

climate deniers....imagine that....... that's how it starts.
but, luckily, like the march toward socialism, it's dead.
Trump won't allow hard earned tax money to be wasted on nefarious science.

Why do you think climate science is nefarious?

great question. it's tainted by and for a liberal agenda. it's a way to control people and on a world scale. it's about money too, and lot's of it. the science it's self has been cooked, embellished, in some cases invented. the idea of controlling the weather is preposterous, that we can somehow stop hurricanes and tornados by not burning coal is outrageous. the global community has hijacked people's good spirit toward environment, everyone wants a greener earth, not just liberals.

if you really dig into it, for instance CO2 or vapors as "greenhouse gases". their quantity and effect has been overblown.

it's a mantra that started out with shivering polar bears stranded on a piece of floating ice. over the years it progressed to climate deniers should be persecuted. the science was wrong when al gore invented this "crisis", and it's wrong today. there was never a consensus.

the underlying tone is inherently evil/insidious, because the premise is pinned to taking people's hard earned money and wasting it on chasing windmills.

all i'm saying is let's secure the borders, stop inner city genocide fix some bridges, before we obsess over the pie in the sky, and how we decide how many blue sky days we want. that technology is a wayoff.

Your theory might be more believable if it was a handful of scientists or agencies that were giving these "false reports" that you speak of, against opposing reports from the majority of the scientific community. However, it is the opposite of that. The majority of the scientific community and the majority of leading countries in the word all agree about the threat that our changing climate is causing. The so called climate deniers, all use the same talking points trying to point the discussion to a "governemnt control" thing.

In reality we should all be working towards a cleaner environment. Im a small government guy and don't want them all over my life, i've also been very frustrated by extreme environmental groups and the obstruction they bring to progress in our communities. But there can be a simple compromise by recognizing that climate issues are a threat to our society and working together on common sense policies to help take care of our land, water and air in a way that make sense. We have a democracy so there will always be arguments on both sides. But lets at least work on the problems and discuss the issue rather that going all in to completely discredit the other side. That is simply counter productive.

nice rant, but you are mixing two things.

Yes, everyone agrees that the climate is changing

No, not everyone agrees that man is causing it, or that man could stop, slow, or reverse it.

Yes, I was referring to that as well in my statement. I see a majority of studies supporting the effects of mans activity compared to those opposing it. The fact you can be so confident that man has no effect is comical and naive. I'm fine with you being skeptical, challenging it and calling for more details and studies, but a complete dismissal of the overwhelming science only reveals the political motives behind your argument.

again, lets deal with facts

fact one, man is polluting the air and water
fact two, the climate of earth is changing (of course it has been changing for hundreds of millions of years)
fact three, CO2 is not a pollutant
fact four, there is no proven direct link between man made pollution and climate change,
fact five, there is a theory that links pollution to climate
fact six, carbon credit selling will make some people very rich

We need to think about what is really going on here before blindly accepting the theories of those who want to tax us.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, because it is a waste of my time. You make claims based on partisan assumptions not facts so whats the point on arguing motives that you assign to your opponents. If you want to talk about something real then let me know otherwise don't waste my time with this BS.

You are a liar. The liberal hole in the ozone layer hysteria is FACT. Liberals hyperventilating about deformed frogs is FACT. Liberals using the spotted owl to destroy the timber industry and liberals pounding iron spikes into trees injuring timber workers is FACT. Go lick your wounds liberal liar.

Im breathing just fine... There may be a few wingnuts chained to trees doing what you speak of but who gives a shit about that... they don't represent the mass majority of environmentally conscious people.

Science isnt about democracy. The fabrication and skewing of temperatures is not science. Its fraud science and a black eye to real science.

I agree, anybody that has falsified scientific reports should be exposed and discredited. Any that publishes a report should be critiqued and challenged... That is the scientific method and how we improve our knowledge. But you can't find a few bad apples and say the whole bunch is ruined. There has been an overwhelming amount of studies and reports that support the threats that climate change brings. Some of the projections may have been off but analysis of causes and historical data has not.

OK, lets assume that you and the "scientists" like algore are correct. What exactly and specifically do you want humanity to do about it?

First stop the pointless fight and attacks denying the science and accusing it a fraud. Then work together to better understand the cause/effects/and consequences. Then put our energy into reducing the aggrovating factors and finding alternative ways to live in a cleaner way that is better for our habitat. The debate about what is too much when it comes to infringing on our businesses and lifestyle is still an important and necessary element in the conversation. But let's at least get there.

 

[BluesLegend]

You are a liar. The liberal hole in the ozone layer hysteria is FACT. Liberals hyperventilating about deformed frogs is FACT. Liberals using the spotted owl to destroy the timber industry and liberals pounding iron spikes into trees injuring timber workers is FACT. Go lick your wounds liberal liar.

Im breathing just fine... There may be a few wingnuts chained to trees doing what you speak of but who gives a shit about that... they don't represent the mass majority of environmentally conscious people.

Science isnt about democracy. The fabrication and skewing of temperatures is not science. Its fraud science and a black eye to real science.

I agree, anybody that has falsified scientific reports should be exposed and discredited. Any that publishes a report should be critiqued and challenged... That is the scientific method and how we improve our knowledge. But you can't find a few bad apples and say the whole bunch is ruined. There has been an overwhelming amount of studies and reports that support the threats that climate change brings. Some of the projections may have been off but analysis of causes and historical data has not.

OK, lets assume that you and the "scientists" like algore are correct. What exactly and specifically do you want humanity to do about it?

First stop the pointless fight and attacks denying the science and accusing it a fraud. Then work together to better understand the cause/effects/and consequences. Then put our energy into reducing the aggrovating factors and finding alternative ways to live in a cleaner way that is better for our habitat. The debate about what is too much when it comes to infringing on our businesses and lifestyle is still an important and necessary element in the conversation. But let's at least get there.

Your so called climate change science is a joke get real. Typical of liberals and government, they have corrupted science with government grants biased towards liberal causes, SHOCKER. Libs corrupt everything they touch.

 

[Slade3200]

Why do you think climate science is nefarious?

great question. it's tainted by and for a liberal agenda. it's a way to control people and on a world scale. it's about money too, and lot's of it. the science it's self has been cooked, embellished, in some cases invented. the idea of controlling the weather is preposterous, that we can somehow stop hurricanes and tornados by not burning coal is outrageous. the global community has hijacked people's good spirit toward environment, everyone wants a greener earth, not just liberals.

if you really dig into it, for instance CO2 or vapors as "greenhouse gases". their quantity and effect has been overblown.

it's a mantra that started out with shivering polar bears stranded on a piece of floating ice. over the years it progressed to climate deniers should be persecuted. the science was wrong when al gore invented this "crisis", and it's wrong today. there was never a consensus.

the underlying tone is inherently evil/insidious, because the premise is pinned to taking people's hard earned money and wasting it on chasing windmills.

all i'm saying is let's secure the borders, stop inner city genocide fix some bridges, before we obsess over the pie in the sky, and how we decide how many blue sky days we want. that technology is a wayoff.

Your theory might be more believable if it was a handful of scientists or agencies that were giving these "false reports" that you speak of, against opposing reports from the majority of the scientific community. However, it is the opposite of that. The majority of the scientific community and the majority of leading countries in the word all agree about the threat that our changing climate is causing. The so called climate deniers, all use the same talking points trying to point the discussion to a "governemnt control" thing.

In reality we should all be working towards a cleaner environment. Im a small government guy and don't want them all over my life, i've also been very frustrated by extreme environmental groups and the obstruction they bring to progress in our communities. But there can be a simple compromise by recognizing that climate issues are a threat to our society and working together on common sense policies to help take care of our land, water and air in a way that make sense. We have a democracy so there will always be arguments on both sides. But lets at least work on the problems and discuss the issue rather that going all in to completely discredit the other side. That is simply counter productive.

nice rant, but you are mixing two things.

Yes, everyone agrees that the climate is changing

No, not everyone agrees that man is causing it, or that man could stop, slow, or reverse it.

Yes, I was referring to that as well in my statement. I see a majority of studies supporting the effects of mans activity compared to those opposing it. The fact you can be so confident that man has no effect is comical and naive. I'm fine with you being skeptical, challenging it and calling for more details and studies, but a complete dismissal of the overwhelming science only reveals the political motives behind your argument.

again, lets deal with facts

fact one, man is polluting the air and water
fact two, the climate of earth is changing (of course it has been changing for hundreds of millions of years)
fact three, CO2 is not a pollutant
fact four, there is no proven direct link between man made pollution and climate change,
fact five, there is a theory that links pollution to climate
fact six, carbon credit selling will make some people very rich

We need to think about what is really going on here before blindly accepting the theories of those who want to tax us.

I agree with your last sentence. Many would challenge your fourth "fact"

 

[LaDexter]

there WILL be another ice age

You do not understand what an ice age is, what causes it to begin, and what causes it to end. Glaciers aren't going to be in what is NYC for hundreds of millions of years.

Let's start with the basics - is Antarctica an ice age today?

 

[Redfish]

great question. it's tainted by and for a liberal agenda. it's a way to control people and on a world scale. it's about money too, and lot's of it. the science it's self has been cooked, embellished, in some cases invented. the idea of controlling the weather is preposterous, that we can somehow stop hurricanes and tornados by not burning coal is outrageous. the global community has hijacked people's good spirit toward environment, everyone wants a greener earth, not just liberals.

if you really dig into it, for instance CO2 or vapors as "greenhouse gases". their quantity and effect has been overblown.

it's a mantra that started out with shivering polar bears stranded on a piece of floating ice. over the years it progressed to climate deniers should be persecuted. the science was wrong when al gore invented this "crisis", and it's wrong today. there was never a consensus.

the underlying tone is inherently evil/insidious, because the premise is pinned to taking people's hard earned money and wasting it on chasing windmills.

all i'm saying is let's secure the borders, stop inner city genocide fix some bridges, before we obsess over the pie in the sky, and how we decide how many blue sky days we want. that technology is a wayoff.

Your theory might be more believable if it was a handful of scientists or agencies that were giving these "false reports" that you speak of, against opposing reports from the majority of the scientific community. However, it is the opposite of that. The majority of the scientific community and the majority of leading countries in the word all agree about the threat that our changing climate is causing. The so called climate deniers, all use the same talking points trying to point the discussion to a "governemnt control" thing.

In reality we should all be working towards a cleaner environment. Im a small government guy and don't want them all over my life, i've also been very frustrated by extreme environmental groups and the obstruction they bring to progress in our communities. But there can be a simple compromise by recognizing that climate issues are a threat to our society and working together on common sense policies to help take care of our land, water and air in a way that make sense. We have a democracy so there will always be arguments on both sides. But lets at least work on the problems and discuss the issue rather that going all in to completely discredit the other side. That is simply counter productive.

nice rant, but you are mixing two things.

Yes, everyone agrees that the climate is changing

No, not everyone agrees that man is causing it, or that man could stop, slow, or reverse it.

Yes, I was referring to that as well in my statement. I see a majority of studies supporting the effects of mans activity compared to those opposing it. The fact you can be so confident that man has no effect is comical and naive. I'm fine with you being skeptical, challenging it and calling for more details and studies, but a complete dismissal of the overwhelming science only reveals the political motives behind your argument.

again, lets deal with facts

fact one, man is polluting the air and water
fact two, the climate of earth is changing (of course it has been changing for hundreds of millions of years)
fact three, CO2 is not a pollutant
fact four, there is no proven direct link between man made pollution and climate change,
fact five, there is a theory that links pollution to climate
fact six, carbon credit selling will make some people very rich

We need to think about what is really going on here before blindly accepting the theories of those who want to tax us.

I agree with your last sentence. Many would challenge your fourth "fact"

sure, but many would also agree with it since the so-called proof has been proven to be manipulated.

 

[BluesLegend]

there WILL be another ice age

You do not understand what an ice age is, what causes it to begin, and what causes it to end. Glaciers aren't going to be in what is NYC for hundreds of millions of years.

Let's start with the basics - is Antarctica an ice age today?

Go back to school dummy, pay attention this time.

 

[Redfish]

You are a liar. The liberal hole in the ozone layer hysteria is FACT. Liberals hyperventilating about deformed frogs is FACT. Liberals using the spotted owl to destroy the timber industry and liberals pounding iron spikes into trees injuring timber workers is FACT. Go lick your wounds liberal liar.

Im breathing just fine... There may be a few wingnuts chained to trees doing what you speak of but who gives a shit about that... they don't represent the mass majority of environmentally conscious people.

Science isnt about democracy. The fabrication and skewing of temperatures is not science. Its fraud science and a black eye to real science.

I agree, anybody that has falsified scientific reports should be exposed and discredited. Any that publishes a report should be critiqued and challenged... That is the scientific method and how we improve our knowledge. But you can't find a few bad apples and say the whole bunch is ruined. There has been an overwhelming amount of studies and reports that support the threats that climate change brings. Some of the projections may have been off but analysis of causes and historical data has not.

OK, lets assume that you and the "scientists" like algore are correct. What exactly and specifically do you want humanity to do about it?

First stop the pointless fight and attacks denying the science and accusing it a fraud. Then work together to better understand the cause/effects/and consequences. Then put our energy into reducing the aggrovating factors and finding alternative ways to live in a cleaner way that is better for our habitat. The debate about what is too much when it comes to infringing on our businesses and lifestyle is still an important and necessary element in the conversation. But let's at least get there.

much of the data has been proven fraudulent. why do you suppose anyone would falsify climate data? Could there be a financial motive? Ya think?

 

[LaDexter]

I am the school, and you chickened out from answering the question.

Please, tell us Antarctica is not an ice age....

 

[Flash]

[QU


nice rant, but you are mixing two things.

Yes, everyone agrees that the climate is changing

No, not everyone agrees that man is causing it, or that man could stop, slow, or reverse it.

The Moon Bats would have a lot more credibility on the science if everybody that was saying it is man made didn't lie so much and invent data.

Everybody from the principle scientists that were exposes in Climategate I and II to the UN Commission to NOAA and NSA under Obama. All we ever get out of the yahoos that bitch about AGW are false data and false science.

It's a scam. that has become a religion for the Moon Bats.

Everything you need to know about climate change is revealled in this chart:

 

[Slade3200]

Your theory might be more believable if it was a handful of scientists or agencies that were giving these "false reports" that you speak of, against opposing reports from the majority of the scientific community. However, it is the opposite of that. The majority of the scientific community and the majority of leading countries in the word all agree about the threat that our changing climate is causing. The so called climate deniers, all use the same talking points trying to point the discussion to a "governemnt control" thing.

In reality we should all be working towards a cleaner environment. Im a small government guy and don't want them all over my life, i've also been very frustrated by extreme environmental groups and the obstruction they bring to progress in our communities. But there can be a simple compromise by recognizing that climate issues are a threat to our society and working together on common sense policies to help take care of our land, water and air in a way that make sense. We have a democracy so there will always be arguments on both sides. But lets at least work on the problems and discuss the issue rather that going all in to completely discredit the other side. That is simply counter productive.

nice rant, but you are mixing two things.

Yes, everyone agrees that the climate is changing

No, not everyone agrees that man is causing it, or that man could stop, slow, or reverse it.

Yes, I was referring to that as well in my statement. I see a majority of studies supporting the effects of mans activity compared to those opposing it. The fact you can be so confident that man has no effect is comical and naive. I'm fine with you being skeptical, challenging it and calling for more details and studies, but a complete dismissal of the overwhelming science only reveals the political motives behind your argument.

again, lets deal with facts

fact one, man is polluting the air and water
fact two, the climate of earth is changing (of course it has been changing for hundreds of millions of years)
fact three, CO2 is not a pollutant
fact four, there is no proven direct link between man made pollution and climate change,
fact five, there is a theory that links pollution to climate
fact six, carbon credit selling will make some people very rich

We need to think about what is really going on here before blindly accepting the theories of those who want to tax us.

I agree with your last sentence. Many would challenge your fourth "fact"

sure, but many would also agree with it since the so-called proof has been proven to be manipulated.

All the proof or a few of the studies? Let's be honest

 

[BluesLegend]

Im breathing just fine... There may be a few wingnuts chained to trees doing what you speak of but who gives a shit about that... they don't represent the mass majority of environmentally conscious people.

Science isnt about democracy. The fabrication and skewing of temperatures is not science. Its fraud science and a black eye to real science.

I agree, anybody that has falsified scientific reports should be exposed and discredited. Any that publishes a report should be critiqued and challenged... That is the scientific method and how we improve our knowledge. But you can't find a few bad apples and say the whole bunch is ruined. There has been an overwhelming amount of studies and reports that support the threats that climate change brings. Some of the projections may have been off but analysis of causes and historical data has not.

OK, lets assume that you and the "scientists" like algore are correct. What exactly and specifically do you want humanity to do about it?

First stop the pointless fight and attacks denying the science and accusing it a fraud. Then work together to better understand the cause/effects/and consequences. Then put our energy into reducing the aggrovating factors and finding alternative ways to live in a cleaner way that is better for our habitat. The debate about what is too much when it comes to infringing on our businesses and lifestyle is still an important and necessary element in the conversation. But let's at least get there.

much of the data has been proven fraudulent. why do you suppose anyone would falsify climate data? Could there be a financial motive? Ya think?

Alex I'll take government grants for $800. These hacks come out of college with a worthless degree and can't find a job, so they live off taxpayer funded government grants from liberals.

 

[LaDexter]

Antarctica had dinosaurs on it 70 million years ago.

Do you think those dinos lived on top of 2 miles of ice at -60F???

If not, what caused AA to cool?

 

[Slade3200]

Im breathing just fine... There may be a few wingnuts chained to trees doing what you speak of but who gives a shit about that... they don't represent the mass majority of environmentally conscious people.

Science isnt about democracy. The fabrication and skewing of temperatures is not science. Its fraud science and a black eye to real science.

I agree, anybody that has falsified scientific reports should be exposed and discredited. Any that publishes a report should be critiqued and challenged... That is the scientific method and how we improve our knowledge. But you can't find a few bad apples and say the whole bunch is ruined. There has been an overwhelming amount of studies and reports that support the threats that climate change brings. Some of the projections may have been off but analysis of causes and historical data has not.

OK, lets assume that you and the "scientists" like algore are correct. What exactly and specifically do you want humanity to do about it?

First stop the pointless fight and attacks denying the science and accusing it a fraud. Then work together to better understand the cause/effects/and consequences. Then put our energy into reducing the aggrovating factors and finding alternative ways to live in a cleaner way that is better for our habitat. The debate about what is too much when it comes to infringing on our businesses and lifestyle is still an important and necessary element in the conversation. But let's at least get there.

much of the data has been proven fraudulent. why do you suppose anyone would falsify climate data? Could there be a financial motive? Ya think?

Sure there could be, it's fair to expose and investigate. But I don't think that applies to the majority of the studies and data that has been collected from researchers around the world over the past few decades.

 

[LaDexter]

But I don't think that applies to the majority of the studies and data

Why do you think you are too chicken to answer the question

WHY does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?


Don't you have a left wing tippy toppiest "top climate scientist" you can parrot an "answer" from?

 

[Slade3200]

But I don't think that applies to the majority of the studies and data

Why do you think you are too chicken to answer the question

WHY does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?


Don't you have a left wing tippy toppiest "top climate scientist" you can parrot an "answer" from?

I don't know the answer to that question. I'm sure you got one that you want to share though. Go ahead

 

[LaDexter]

90% of Earth ice on land mass Antarctica
7% of Earth ice on land mass Greenland

Hence, 97% of Earth's ice is on the two land masses closest to a pole....

and land moves....

So, if Earth had two polar oceans, how much ice would Earth have???

 

[Slade3200]

90% of Earth ice on land mass Antarctica
7% of Earth ice on land mass Greenland

Hence, 97% of Earth's ice is on the two land masses closest to a pole....

and land moves....

So, if Earth had two polar oceans, how much ice would Earth have???

How much? Get to the point please

 

[LaDexter]

Earth has 2 "AC" units, Arctic and Antarctic, each with setting from 0 = off to 10 = maxCOOL

Right now, the Arctic is set at 1 and the Antarctic is set at 9. AA is on average 50F colder than A, and puts 9 times the ice into the oceans, some 46 times the H2O the Mississippi dumps in the Gulf.

Earth climate change is 99% about WHERE LAND IS....