The Hoax of Record Temperatures

[Flopper]

Who cares?

You want to spend tens of trillions of dollars to stop the climate from changing. I care.

When it occurred previously, it changed the way of life.

It changed without us causing it? How do you know we can stop what's happening now?

I don't wanna change the way of my life. I wanna eat. I wanna keep the roof over my head. That sorta stuff

You don't think wasting tens of trillions of dollars and reworking our world economy is going to change your way of life? Impact your food and housing and that sorta stuff?

We don't know if we can stop the changes in climate. Years of research and studies has established greenhouse gasses as the cause. So it is very likely reducing those greenhouse gases will mitigate the damage but we don't know if we can do enough to stop it.

If I see a little smoke coming out my house and I call the fire dept, the firemen may be able to save the whole house, or maybe only part of it. However, doing nothing and watching the house burn down is not a sensible thing to do. The same is true for climate change, doing nothing is not a sensible option.

The cost of mitigating climate change is high but the cost dealing with the damages will be much higher in both dollars and lives.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We don't know if we can stop change climate. Years of research and studies has established greenhouse gasses as the cause. So it is very likely reducing those greenhouses will mitigate the damage but we don't know if we can do enough to stop it.

If I see a little smoke coming out my house and I call the fire dept, the firemen may be able to save the whole house, or maybe only part of it. However, doing nothing and watching the house burn down is not a sensible thing to do. The same is true for climate change,do nothing is not a sensible option.

So it is very likely reducing those greenhouses will mitigate the damage but we don't know if we can do enough to stop it.

Especially when others are adding much more CO2 than we are reducing.

However, doing nothing and watching the house burn down is not a sensible thing to do.

How sensible is wasting trillions for no net benefit?

 

[Cougarbear]

We don't know if we can stop change climate. Years of research and studies has established greenhouse gasses as the cause. So it is very likely reducing those greenhouse gases will mitigate the damage but we don't know if we can do enough to stop it.

If I see a little smoke coming out my house and I call the fire dept, the firemen may be able to save the whole house, or maybe only part of it. However, doing nothing and watching the house burn down is not a sensible thing to do. The same is true for climate change, doing nothing is not a sensible option.

The cost of mitigating climate change is high but the cost dealing with the damages will be much higher in both dollars and lives.

How are you going to reduce greenhouse gases? CO2 occurs naturally. CO2 is necessary for life to exist. The more there is the more plant life and animal life there is. What this also means is more mankind there is as well. And that’s what the population control liberals want decreased. You could decrease CO2 but as long as the population increases, you still won’t be happy because that’s not the liberal’s goal.

 

[Leo123]

Yeah, 'last year on this day it was 80 degrees, this year it's 90 degrees so it's the 'hottest on record.'

 

[Flopper]

The old denial act routine. Getting old. It doesn’t work anymore. We are on to you. Over time, we would expect temperatures to increase. Why? Because everyone knows the sun is increasing in size and this getting closer to all planets.
So, there is like 194 countries. China and India make up like 3 billion people. Yet, they are by far greater polluters of the world. We have been decreasing pollution and CO2. Yet, you claim that is getting worse. Not by the U.S. in fact, it’s the rest of the world that is doing any harm if any to the environment. Yet, Democrats blame the U.S. for hotter temperatures and more CO2 in the air. Stupid Democrats.

There is grain of truth in what saying but just a grain.
Countries that produce the most Greenhouse gases are:

• China — 9,877.
• United States — 4,745.
• India — 2,310.
• Russia — 1,640.
• Japan — 1,056.
• Germany — 644.
• South Korea — 586.
• Iran — 583.

Although the US is 2nd in production of greenhouse gases today, most greenhouse gases have been produced by the US and it is the total amount of greenhouse gases that is effecting our climate.

The US is a world leader. If we outlaw the sale of gasoline power vehicles in 2040, it will have a profound impact on world production. The US is leading the world in fusion reactor research and development. Scientist expect in the 2nd half of this century we will be able to build large scale fusion powered electric generation plants.

 

[Leo123]

How are you going to reduce greenhouse gases? CO2 occurs naturally. CO2 is necessary for life to exist. The more there is the more plant life and animal life there is. What this also means is more mankind there is as well. And that’s what the population control liberals want decreased. You could decrease CO2 but as long as the population increases, you still won’t be happy because that’s not the liberal’s goal.

I think it was never about reducing CO2 or the 'climate' it was always about power and control.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is grain of truth in what saying but just a grain.
Countries that produce the most Greenhouse gases are:

• China — 9,877.
• United States — 4,745.
• India — 2,310.
• Russia — 1,640.
• Japan — 1,056.
• Germany — 644.
• South Korea — 586.
• Iran — 583.

Although the US is 2nd in production of greenhouse gases today, most greenhouse gases have been produced by the US and it is the total amount of greenhouse gases that is effecting our climate.

The US is a world leader. If we outlaw the sale of gasoline power vehicles in 2040, it will have a profound impact on world production. The US is leading the world in fusion reactor research and development. Scientist expect in the 2nd half of this century we will be able to build large scale fusion powered electric generation plants.

If we outlaw the sale of gasoline power vehicles in 2040, it will have a profound impact on world production.

It will have zero impact. Unless you're trying to damage our economy.

 

[Leo123]

There is grain of truth in what saying but just a grain.
Countries that produce the most Greenhouse gases are:

• China — 9,877.
• United States — 4,745.
• India — 2,310.
• Russia — 1,640.
• Japan — 1,056.
• Germany — 644.
• South Korea — 586.
• Iran — 583.

Although the US is 2nd in production of greenhouse gases today, most greenhouse gases have been produced by the US and it is the total amount of greenhouse gases that is effecting our climate.

The US is a world leader. If we outlaw the sale of gasoline power vehicles in 2040, it will have a profound impact on world production. The US is leading the world in fusion reactor research and development. Scientist expect in the 2nd half of this century we will be able to build large scale fusion powered electric generation plants.

There is no proof that GHGs cause existential global warming.

 

[Cougarbear]

There is grain of truth in what saying but just a grain.
Countries that produce the most Greenhouse gases are:

• China — 9,877.
• United States — 4,745.
• India — 2,310.
• Russia — 1,640.
• Japan — 1,056.
• Germany — 644.
• South Korea — 586.
• Iran — 583.

Although the US is 2nd in production of greenhouse gases today, most greenhouse gases have been produced by the US and it is the total amount of greenhouse gases that is effecting our climate.

The US is a world leader. If we outlaw the sale of gasoline power vehicles in 2040, it will have a profound impact on world production. The US is leading the world in fusion reactor research and development. Scientist expect in the 2nd half of this century we will be able to build large scale fusion powered electric generation plants.

And, does switching to battery powered vehicles really reduce CO2 and other gases? Where does electricity come from? Where do the minerals to run car batteries come from? You assume there will be a reduction of CO2 and pollution. Where are you going to bury all the dead batteries? Do you know how expensive they are and they don’t last that long either. Another liberal who thinks money grows on trees. But, what the heck! This is a way to quietly kill off the poor and non-essential people like good little communists. You simple refuse to take out your ideas to their logical conclusions as life no as you can kill off 90% of the world’s population.

 

[Cougarbear]

I think it was never about reducing CO2 or the 'climate' it was always about power and control.

For that to become a reality, 90% of the world’s population has to be killed off. It’s always been about communist power and control. It’s simply been repackaged from Population Control to Global Warming to Climate Change to CO2 to let’s starve the poor around the world.

 

[Cougarbear]

There is no proof that GHGs cause existential global warming.

But they will keep trying to say it is without scientific proof.

 

[Flopper]

So it is very likely reducing those greenhouses will mitigate the damage but we don't know if we can do enough to stop it.

Especially when others are adding much more CO2 than we are reducing.

However, doing nothing and watching the house burn down is not a sensible thing to do.

How sensible is wasting trillions for no net benefit?

And if we don't spend those trillions, there will be even more greenhouse gases to drive the earth's temperature even higher.

 

[jc456]

We don't know if we can stop change climate. Years of research and studies has established greenhouse gasses as the cause

Cause of what?

 

[Leo123]

And if we don't spend those trillions, there will be even more greenhouse gases to drive the earth's temperature even higher.

That is not scientifically proven.

 

[Leo123]

Cause of what?

Greenhouse gases cause plants to grow and emit more oxygen.

 

[jc456]

And if we don't spend those trillions, there will be even more greenhouse gases to drive the earth's temperature even higher.

Cross country? Hahaha do you hear your lying self?hahaha

 

[Flopper]

How are you going to reduce greenhouse gases? CO2 occurs naturally. CO2 is necessary for life to exist. The more there is the more plant life and animal life there is. What this also means is more mankind there is as well. And that’s what the population control liberals want decreased. You could decrease CO2 but as long as the population increases, you still won’t be happy because that’s not the liberal’s goal.

Ignoring the politics in your post, the CO2 is neither good nor bad. Nature via the carbon cycle regulates the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. Most carbon is stored in rocks and sediments, while the rest is stored in the ocean, atmosphere, and living organisms. These are the reservoirs, or sinks, through which carbon cycles. The ocean is a giant carbon sink that absorbs carbon. Marine organisms from marsh plants to fish, from seaweed to birds, also produce carbon through living and dying. Over millions of years, dead organisms can become fossil fuels. When humans burn these fuels for energy, vast amounts of carbon dioxide are released back into the atmosphere. Lost of 1/3 of our forest which absorb CO2 aggerates the problem. This excess carbon dioxide, 37 billion tons each year accumulates in the atmosphere and changes our climate — increasing global temperatures, causing ocean acidification, and disrupting the planet’s ecosystems.

 

[jc456]

Greenhouse gases cause plants to grow and emit more oxygen.

And demofks think that’s bad and evil! Remember, kamala said the plan out loud, depopulate!

 

[Leo123]

Ignoring the politics in your post, the CO2 is neither good nor bad. Nature via the carbon cycle regulates the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. Most carbon is stored in rocks and sediments, while the rest is stored in the ocean, atmosphere, and living organisms. These are the reservoirs, or sinks, through which carbon cycles. The ocean is a giant carbon sink that absorbs carbon. Marine organisms from marsh plants to fish, from seaweed to birds, also produce carbon through living and dying. Over millions of years, dead organisms can become fossil fuels. When humans burn these fuels for energy, vast amounts of carbon dioxide are released back into the atmosphere. This excess carbon dioxide changes our climate — increasing global temperatures, causing ocean acidification, and disrupting the planet’s ecosystems.

More CO2 creates more plants and therefore more oxygen. More plants will sequester more Carbon in greater quantities.

 

[Cougarbear]

Ignoring the politics in your post, the CO2 is neither good nor bad. Nature via the carbon cycle regulates the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. Most carbon is stored in rocks and sediments, while the rest is stored in the ocean, atmosphere, and living organisms. These are the reservoirs, or sinks, through which carbon cycles. The ocean is a giant carbon sink that absorbs carbon. Marine organisms from marsh plants to fish, from seaweed to birds, also produce carbon through living and dying. Over millions of years, dead organisms can become fossil fuels. When humans burn these fuels for energy, vast amounts of carbon dioxide are released back into the atmosphere. This excess carbon dioxide changes our climate — increasing global temperatures, causing ocean acidification, and disrupting the planet’s ecosystems.

This sounds about as scientific as gender neutral nonsense. CO2 is essential for life. And you changed from CO2 to a topic of C only. Good job. NOT!