Question for believers in man made climate change

[Redfish]

AGW is the lefts religion. Just fill in all the holes with "man" instead of "god."
Faith, it does a body good

Humans affecting climate, same as we affect everything, is not a stretch. Magical all powerful beings are a stretch.

"my faith is better than yours!"

You’re right, humans have never affected or changed anyhing.

Ok, slow down, lose the talking points, and THINK for a minute or two.

Yes, humans affect things, we have polluted our air and water. China and India are polluting big time as we speak. But none of that has CHANGED the climate of our planet.

So, once more. Why do you need the fake link to climate in order to fight pollution?

If you think we need to dumb down the conversation to make a difference, then that’s an interesting point. But people don’t care about pollution either. Look at how many people want the EPA to stop existing. Look how many people rallied around building a pipeline under a source of drinking water in North Dakota, even though they’ll never see a cent or benefit whatsoever from that pipeline. They just wanted it built to stick it in the face of people worried about water being polluted.

The EPA has gotten too big and too powerful. Stupid useless regulations need to be repealed. That pipeline did not affect the drinking water in any way. the USA is criss crossed with pipelines, its the safest way to move oil, and like it or not, our economy runs on oil, coal, and gas.

The biggest fighters of pollution are the fossil fuel industries, and they have made tremendous gains in reducing the pollution from use of oil and gas. and yes, some government regulations are needed to continue the progress in reducing pollution. But that's not the point of my thread.

why cant liberals agree to fight pollution without a fake link to climate? not one of you has been able to come up with an answer. At least you stayed, the rest ran away.

 

[BlackFlag]

Humans affecting climate, same as we affect everything, is not a stretch. Magical all powerful beings are a stretch.

"my faith is better than yours!"

You’re right, humans have never affected or changed anyhing.

Ok, slow down, lose the talking points, and THINK for a minute or two.

Yes, humans affect things, we have polluted our air and water. China and India are polluting big time as we speak. But none of that has CHANGED the climate of our planet.

So, once more. Why do you need the fake link to climate in order to fight pollution?

If you think we need to dumb down the conversation to make a difference, then that’s an interesting point. But people don’t care about pollution either. Look at how many people want the EPA to stop existing. Look how many people rallied around building a pipeline under a source of drinking water in North Dakota, even though they’ll never see a cent or benefit whatsoever from that pipeline. They just wanted it built to stick it in the face of people worried about water being polluted.

The EPA has gotten too big and too powerful. Stupid useless regulations need to be repealed. That pipeline did not affect the drinking water in any way. the USA is criss crossed with pipelines, its the safest way to move oil, and like it or not, our economy runs on oil, coal, and gas.

The biggest fighters of pollution are the fossil fuel industries, and they have made tremendous gains in reducing the pollution from use of oil and gas. and yes, some government regulations are needed to continue the progress in reducing pollution. But that's not the point of my thread.

why cant liberals agree to fight pollution without a fake link to climate? not one of you has been able to come up with an answer. At least you stayed, the rest ran away.

Because it’s not fake.

 

[RealDave]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

I'm sorry but let me know when you idiots start believing in science.

Without that I'm wasting my time & you'll always be stupid.

More CO2 => more greenhouse effect => higher temps.

PROVEN FACT

 

[RealDave]

Humans affecting climate, same as we affect everything, is not a stretch. Magical all powerful beings are a stretch.

"my faith is better than yours!"

You’re right, humans have never affected or changed anyhing.

Ok, slow down, lose the talking points, and THINK for a minute or two.

Yes, humans affect things, we have polluted our air and water. China and India are polluting big time as we speak. But none of that has CHANGED the climate of our planet.

So, once more. Why do you need the fake link to climate in order to fight pollution?

If you think we need to dumb down the conversation to make a difference, then that’s an interesting point. But people don’t care about pollution either. Look at how many people want the EPA to stop existing. Look how many people rallied around building a pipeline under a source of drinking water in North Dakota, even though they’ll never see a cent or benefit whatsoever from that pipeline. They just wanted it built to stick it in the face of people worried about water being polluted.

The EPA has gotten too big and too powerful. Stupid useless regulations need to be repealed. That pipeline did not affect the drinking water in any way. the USA is criss crossed with pipelines, its the safest way to move oil, and like it or not, our economy runs on oil, coal, and gas.

The biggest fighters of pollution are the fossil fuel industries, and they have made tremendous gains in reducing the pollution from use of oil and gas. and yes, some government regulations are needed to continue the progress in reducing pollution. But that's not the point of my thread.

why cant liberals agree to fight pollution without a fake link to climate? not one of you has been able to come up with an answer. At least you stayed, the rest ran away.

That pipeline has yet to be built you stupid shit. Running a pipeline over an important aquifer is just plain STUPID.

The biggest polluters ARE the fossil fuel industries. They have to fight the pollutiion they create. How about they don't pollute in the first place.

The link to fossil fuels to climate change is the burning of them that releases greenhouse gases.

 

[RealDave]

No

My goal is to introduce sensible reductions in our current carbon output

Steve McQueen is turning over in his grave watching his picture being used by a left wing idiot.

Your fish is vomiting.

 

[Redfish]

"my faith is better than yours!"

You’re right, humans have never affected or changed anyhing.

Ok, slow down, lose the talking points, and THINK for a minute or two.

Yes, humans affect things, we have polluted our air and water. China and India are polluting big time as we speak. But none of that has CHANGED the climate of our planet.

So, once more. Why do you need the fake link to climate in order to fight pollution?

If you think we need to dumb down the conversation to make a difference, then that’s an interesting point. But people don’t care about pollution either. Look at how many people want the EPA to stop existing. Look how many people rallied around building a pipeline under a source of drinking water in North Dakota, even though they’ll never see a cent or benefit whatsoever from that pipeline. They just wanted it built to stick it in the face of people worried about water being polluted.

The EPA has gotten too big and too powerful. Stupid useless regulations need to be repealed. That pipeline did not affect the drinking water in any way. the USA is criss crossed with pipelines, its the safest way to move oil, and like it or not, our economy runs on oil, coal, and gas.

The biggest fighters of pollution are the fossil fuel industries, and they have made tremendous gains in reducing the pollution from use of oil and gas. and yes, some government regulations are needed to continue the progress in reducing pollution. But that's not the point of my thread.

why cant liberals agree to fight pollution without a fake link to climate? not one of you has been able to come up with an answer. At least you stayed, the rest ran away.

Because it’s not fake.

spoken like a true disciple of the prophet algore who recently said "the earth is colder because its getting warmer".

yes, there is proof that the climate is changing, it always has been changing. There is zero proof that acts of man are causing it.

 

[RealDave]

No

My goal is to introduce sensible reductions in our current carbon output

Taxes do not reduce carbon output, so I assume you don't support the carbon tax or cap and trade?

Cap & Trade is a valuable tool in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We are still under a cap & trade that HW Bush put into effect to fight Acid rain & it was very successful.

I wish you morons would get better informed.

 

[Redfish]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

I'm sorry but let me know when you idiots start believing in science.

Without that I'm wasting my time & you'll always be stupid.

More CO2 => more greenhouse effect => higher temps.

PROVEN FACT

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere, it has been at that same level for millions of years. That has been proven scientifically. YOUR science is bullshit aimed at controlling what YOU can and cannot do.

 

[RealDave]

No

My goal is to introduce sensible reductions in our current carbon output

What you do with almost each post is make yourself look nuttier and nuttier. We are not producing carbon. Carbon is a non metallic element found in the earths crust. Please though don't stop. We need as many people as possible to see why we must never elect another left tard ever again.

Sorry, but when you burn coal, you release the CARBON into the atmosphere.

My God you people are dumber than Trump.

 

[Redfish]

"my faith is better than yours!"

You’re right, humans have never affected or changed anyhing.

Ok, slow down, lose the talking points, and THINK for a minute or two.

Yes, humans affect things, we have polluted our air and water. China and India are polluting big time as we speak. But none of that has CHANGED the climate of our planet.

So, once more. Why do you need the fake link to climate in order to fight pollution?

If you think we need to dumb down the conversation to make a difference, then that’s an interesting point. But people don’t care about pollution either. Look at how many people want the EPA to stop existing. Look how many people rallied around building a pipeline under a source of drinking water in North Dakota, even though they’ll never see a cent or benefit whatsoever from that pipeline. They just wanted it built to stick it in the face of people worried about water being polluted.

The EPA has gotten too big and too powerful. Stupid useless regulations need to be repealed. That pipeline did not affect the drinking water in any way. the USA is criss crossed with pipelines, its the safest way to move oil, and like it or not, our economy runs on oil, coal, and gas.

The biggest fighters of pollution are the fossil fuel industries, and they have made tremendous gains in reducing the pollution from use of oil and gas. and yes, some government regulations are needed to continue the progress in reducing pollution. But that's not the point of my thread.

why cant liberals agree to fight pollution without a fake link to climate? not one of you has been able to come up with an answer. At least you stayed, the rest ran away.

That pipeline has yet to be built you stupid shit. Running a pipeline over an important aquifer is just plain STUPID.

The biggest polluters ARE the fossil fuel industries. They have to fight the pollutiion they create. How about they don't pollute in the first place.

The link to fossil fuels to climate change is the burning of them that releases greenhouse gases.

you are fully indoctrinated in the religion of AGW. Do they issue membership cards? Do they automatically draft money from your bank account? Do you help pay the prophet algore"s utility bills on his 20,000 sq ft mansion?

your ignorance is amazing.

 

[alang1216]

It happens every time. When confronted with the truth, the libs always disappear from the thread.

It happens every time. When confronted with the science, the right ignores the science and raises a straw man.

You're right, pollution is bad but it doesn't change the climate. You're also right that climate is ALWAYS changing. Where you're wrong is saying science blames pollution for global warming. It doesn't. What is says is that we are extracting carbon from where it is locked up in the ground, as coal and oil, and converting it to carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. What you should understand that it is irrelevant if GW is natural or man-made, the effects will be the same and they will be tragic for humanity.

 

[forkup]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

Firstly, climate denial is a serious issue only in the US, so when you say 60 percent of humans. You mean only Republicans,who aren't even 60 percent of the US.
Secondly. If I accept your premise, then I have to ask why would you reject clean air and water because you don't agree on climate change? Something that is being done by your party as we speak. Coal polutes the air it creates smog yet you accept Trump promoting it. Why if you are for clean air?

 

[RealDave]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

I'm sorry but let me know when you idiots start believing in science.

Without that I'm wasting my time & you'll always be stupid.

More CO2 => more greenhouse effect => higher temps.

PROVEN FACT

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere, it has been at that same level for millions of years. That has been proven scientifically. YOUR science is bullshit aimed at controlling what YOU can and cannot do.

The amount of CO2 has increased. Quit lying & being such a fucking moron.

I don't know but I think any sane person would think that you can help reduce the CO2 concentrations by putting less into the atmosphere so the planet can get caught up removing it from the atmosphere.

'How fucking dumb can you get to say that man spewing this shit into the atmosphere for over 100 years added nothing. Just how God damn stupid are you?

 

[Redfish]

No

My goal is to introduce sensible reductions in our current carbon output

What you do with almost each post is make yourself look nuttier and nuttier. We are not producing carbon. Carbon is a non metallic element found in the earths crust. Please though don't stop. We need as many people as possible to see why we must never elect another left tard ever again.

Sorry, but when you burn coal, you release the CARBON into the atmosphere.

My God you people are dumber than Trump.

when cows fart they release methane gas into the atmosphere. Ban cows, NOW!! Can you imagine the damage done by dinosaur farts?

you are really too ignorant to participate intelligently in this discussion. all you contribute is failed talking points.

 

[Redfish]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

Firstly, climate denial is a serious issue only in the US, so when you say 60 percent of humans. You mean only Republicans,who aren't even 60 percent of the US.
Secondly. If I accept your premise, then I have to ask why would you reject clean air and water because you don't agree on climate change? Something that is being done by your party as we speak. Coal polutes the air it creates smog yet you accept Trump promoting it. Why if you are for clean air?

see, you still don't get it. I fully support and demand that we stop polluting air and water. You don't need to make climate claims in order to get the vast majority of humans to support those efforts.

 

[RealDave]

You’re right, humans have never affected or changed anyhing.

Ok, slow down, lose the talking points, and THINK for a minute or two.

Yes, humans affect things, we have polluted our air and water. China and India are polluting big time as we speak. But none of that has CHANGED the climate of our planet.

So, once more. Why do you need the fake link to climate in order to fight pollution?

If you think we need to dumb down the conversation to make a difference, then that’s an interesting point. But people don’t care about pollution either. Look at how many people want the EPA to stop existing. Look how many people rallied around building a pipeline under a source of drinking water in North Dakota, even though they’ll never see a cent or benefit whatsoever from that pipeline. They just wanted it built to stick it in the face of people worried about water being polluted.

The EPA has gotten too big and too powerful. Stupid useless regulations need to be repealed. That pipeline did not affect the drinking water in any way. the USA is criss crossed with pipelines, its the safest way to move oil, and like it or not, our economy runs on oil, coal, and gas.

The biggest fighters of pollution are the fossil fuel industries, and they have made tremendous gains in reducing the pollution from use of oil and gas. and yes, some government regulations are needed to continue the progress in reducing pollution. But that's not the point of my thread.

why cant liberals agree to fight pollution without a fake link to climate? not one of you has been able to come up with an answer. At least you stayed, the rest ran away.

Because it’s not fake.

spoken like a true disciple of the prophet algore who recently said "the earth is colder because its getting warmer".

yes, there is proof that the climate is changing, it always has been changing. There is zero proof that acts of man are causing it.

Two things you are too stupid to get.

1) GLOBAL means more than looking at cold temps in the NE.

2) Climate change due to global warming changes weather patterns. Some areas may get warmer & some may get cooler.

My weight is constantly changing therefore that 5 pounds I put on over the weekend had nothing to do with the 20 Big Macs I ate.

 

[Slade3200]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

I think the goal is to reduce pollution and keep a cleaner environment. The man made climate change narrative gives an importance and urgency to their argument. It is too bad that the conversation always becomes a debate about that point when, as you said, I think most people would support fighting pollution, which is the ultimate goal.

My question to you is why do you try so hard to fight the narrative of man made climate change? There seems to be a lot of scientific data supporting it to some degree and very few debunking it, yet you choose to take the side of the very few... Is that ideological or are you a climate scientist who has been convinced by conducting your own tests?

 

[Redfish]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

I'm sorry but let me know when you idiots start believing in science.

Without that I'm wasting my time & you'll always be stupid.

More CO2 => more greenhouse effect => higher temps.

PROVEN FACT

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere, it has been at that same level for millions of years. That has been proven scientifically. YOUR science is bullshit aimed at controlling what YOU can and cannot do.

The amount of CO2 has increased. Quit lying & being such a fucking moron.

I don't know but I think any sane person would think that you can help reduce the CO2 concentrations by putting less into the atmosphere so the planet can get caught up removing it from the atmosphere.

'How fucking dumb can you get to say that man spewing this shit into the atmosphere for over 100 years added nothing. Just how God damn stupid are you?

NO, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has not increased. It has been .039% for millions of years and remains at that level today. Look it up, then you can ask your question to yourself, "just how God damn stupid are you?"

 

[LaDexter]

My goal is to introduce sensible reductions in our current carbon output

even thought, according to the two and only two measures of atmospheric temperature we have, temperatures in the atmosphere have not warmed at all despite rising Co2....

Co2 does nothing to Earth temperature, so why are Democrats obsessed with it???

 

[RealDave]

No

My goal is to introduce sensible reductions in our current carbon output

What you do with almost each post is make yourself look nuttier and nuttier. We are not producing carbon. Carbon is a non metallic element found in the earths crust. Please though don't stop. We need as many people as possible to see why we must never elect another left tard ever again.

Sorry, but when you burn coal, you release the CARBON into the atmosphere.

My God you people are dumber than Trump.

when cows fart they release methane gas into the atmosphere. Ban cows, NOW!! Can you imagine the damage done by dinosaur farts?

you are really too ignorant to participate intelligently in this discussion. all you contribute is failed talking points.

Our climate is based on animals & the gas released.

I contribute by pointing out how stupid your posts are.