Environment and the right

[no fat chicks]

Carbon isn't a necessary component for all life? Are you not a carbon-based lifeform? Is carbon dioxide not necessary for the growth of plants and trees? This is not a controversial statement. The benefits of carbon dioxide are uncontroversial, scientific facts. The harms are speculative and unproven, and grow more doubtful with each predicted and impending doom that never comes to pass.

A recent study was done on the net positives of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You won't read at all, and you certainly won't read it before you pass judgement, but I'll leave it here for anyone who is an objective observer, instead of a religious fanatic. (Because that's what you are.)

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

Funny how you're willing to cite something that falls in line with your beliefs right away but anything that runs counter is thrown away as propaganda. . .
What about the fact that besides trapping heat increase in co2 will make the ocean too acidic for most shellfish?

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Carbon isn't a necessary component for all life? Are you not a carbon-based lifeform? Is carbon dioxide not necessary for the growth of plants and trees? This is not a controversial statement. The benefits of carbon dioxide are uncontroversial, scientific facts. The harms are speculative and unproven, and grow more doubtful with each predicted and impending doom that never comes to pass.

A recent study was done on the net positives of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You won't read at all, and you certainly won't read it before you pass judgement, but I'll leave it here for anyone who is an objective observer, instead of a religious fanatic. (Because that's what you are.)

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

I read it but it's not convincing in the least , will you read this article that debunks many of the claims ?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/

The founder of the group who wrote your link states plainly that ". The only thing we will not be actively engaged in is what are the causes of the temperature changes on the planet" , so they aren't looking at what the cause of global warming is , okay good to know .



Nigel Lawson said that the Global Warming Policy Foundation “will certainly be actively involved in monitoring what is being said, in correcting errors where there are errors. The only thing we will not be actively engaged in is what are the causes of the temperature changes on the planet: how much is CO2, how much is solar radiation, how much is cosmic rays. We won't be getting into all that.”

The average age of the Trustees at the time of the group's formation was 74, 7fucking4 , they don't have skin in this game do they .

Do you agree that increased carbon in the atmosphere could have some benefits but overall be a negative ?

 

[Starman]

I read it but it's not convincing in the least , will you read this article that debunks many of the claims ?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/

The founder of the group who wrote your link states plainly that ". The only thing we will not be actively engaged in is what are the causes of the temperature changes on the planet" , so they aren't looking at what the cause of global warming is , okay good to know .



Nigel Lawson said that the Global Warming Policy Foundation “will certainly be actively involved in monitoring what is being said, in correcting errors where there are errors. The only thing we will not be actively engaged in is what are the causes of the temperature changes on the planet: how much is CO2, how much is solar radiation, how much is cosmic rays. We won't be getting into all that.”

The average age of the Trustees at the time of the group's formation was 74, 7fucking4 , they don't have skin in this game do they .

Do you agree that increased carbon in the atmosphere could have some benefits but overall be a negative ?

Sure, but there is no evidence of it. Obama could also be a hardcore conservative. Trump could be a secret Russian agent. There's lots of things that could be true, but aren't. I think Santa Claus could be real. He eats my cookies, leaves me gifts, once sent me a signed letter, and even gets tracked by NORAD.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Sure, but there is no evidence of it. Obama could also be a hardcore conservative. Trump could be a secret Russian agent. There's lots of things that could be true, but aren't. I think Santa Claus could be real. He eats my cookies, leaves me gifts, once sent me a signed letter, and even gets tracked by NORAD.

There is plenty of evidence that climate change is real you just choose not to see it , there is ample evidence that Santa does not exist but you appear to be hanging onto that fairy tale just as you are with the shiny happy myth that climate change either isn't happening or isn't our fault .

Why not just err on the side of caution and switch to cleaner , renewable energy sources , creating tons of jobs in the process ?

 

[Starman]

There is plenty of evidence that climate change is real you just choose not to see it , there is ample evidence that Santa does not exist but you appear to be hanging onto that fairy tale just as you are with the shiny happy myth that climate change either isn't happening or isn't our fault .

Why not just err on the side of caution and switch to cleaner , renewable energy sources , creating tons of jobs in the process ?

There is no evidence of man-made climate change.

As for erring on the side of caution... laughable. Why not reorient the entire global economy based on the rantings and ravings of rabid, leftwing pagans?

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

There is plenty of evidence that climate change is real you just choose not to see it , there is ample evidence that Santa does not exist but you appear to be hanging onto that fairy tale just as you are with the shiny happy myth that climate change either isn't happening or isn't our fault .

Why not just err on the side of caution and switch to cleaner , renewable energy sources , creating tons of jobs in the process ?

Yes, the climate changes. Always has, always will. But, everything will be ok little buddy. Just don't buy in to the doom and gloom they are selling you. You will lead a better life and be happier, instead of always being so scared...

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

pagans

I'm usually not too far off from your stances. But I resent that statement... I'm offended and need a safe space now lol
Hail Odin!!!!

 

[Starman]

I'm usually not too far off from your stances. But I resent that statement... I'm offended and need a safe space now lol
Hail Odin!!!!

I have nothing wrong with pagans as a general rule. My disdain is for the earth-worshipping atheist hippies who sacrifice their children on the altar of planned parenthood.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Further and further down the conspiracy rabbit hole you go, looks like you've really lost it LOL. Why can't they overturn the consensus with data even though it's been done countless times in the past?

@Starman

Can you answer my question above?

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Yes, the climate changes. Always has, always will. But, everything will be ok little buddy. Just don't buy in to the doom and gloom they are selling you. You will lead a better life and be happier, instead of always being so scared...

I've been well informed on this subject science the the lead up to the Kyoto protocols back in 96 , you on the other hand continue to demonstrate and wear your ignorance like a badge of honor , if you want to do your best impression of an ostrich and stick your head in the sand I can't stop you , eventually you'll likely come around .

 

[Starman]

@Starman

Can you answer my question above?

I did. You just didn’t like the answer. No one can overturn the “consensus” you think you have in regards to global cooling / global warming / climate change / climate catastrophe because it isn’t based on logic or reason. It’s a religion, and you’re all fanatics. You’re like Jehovah’s Witnesses with your constant and continued failed doomsday predictions. No matter how many times you’re wrong, you go back, revise your data, recalculate, and shit out your next date for apocalyptic, existential doomsday disaster.

I’ve answered all of your infantile, ill-intentioned, deluded, dishonest questions. You still haven’t answered my first and only question, which I predicted from the beginning you would not.

Again, and as always, call me when the polar icecaps have melted, and coastal cities are under water. Then we’ll talk.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I did. You just didn’t like the answer. No one can overturn the “consensus” you think you have in regards to global cooling / global warming / climate change / climate catastrophe because it isn’t based on logic or reason. It’s a religion, and you’re all fanatics. You’re like Jehovah’s Witnesses with your constant and continued failed doomsday predictions. No matter how many times you’re wrong, you go back, revise your data, recalculate, and shit out your next date for apocalyptic, existential doomsday disaster.

I’ve answered all of your infantile, ill-intentioned, deluded, dishonest questions. You still haven’t answered my first and only question, which I predicted from the beginning you would not.

Again, and as always, call me when the polar icecaps have melted, and coastal cities are under water. Then we’ll talk.

Of course data can overturn the consensus of man-made global warming, it's right on the name:

1) Global warming - show data that the world is not on a warming trend
2) Man made - if you can't show that, show that the warming is caused by another source other than man

That is all someone has to do, Exxon's data could not do this and it instead re-enforced the AGW theory. That's why they support AGW now along with Shell, Petrona, BP, Aramco, Total and all the other oil giants mentioned.

Also what question are you talking about?

 

[1pedestrian]

The environment will be completely destroyed anyway when the Sun becomes a red giant.

Suck it up, environmentalists!

 

[hiphopnazi]

Only a theory.

A non affiliated group/board/department of scientists in all environmental fields, adequately funded no matter which side in is in office. Who implement environmental policies and serving members have term limits.

Even that sounds impossible for me being everything is so closely linked to the government and it'll be corrupted in a matter of years.

If impossible, fuck it let the world burn!

 

[hillelslovak87]

There is no evidence of man-made climate change.

As for erring on the side of caution... laughable. Why not reorient the entire global economy based on the rantings and ravings of rabid, leftwing pagans?

What would you consider evidence of man-made climate change?

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

I've been well informed on this subject science the the lead up to the Kyoto protocols back in 96 , you on the other hand continue to demonstrate and wear your ignorance like a badge of honor , if you want to do your best impression of an ostrich and stick your head in the sand I can't stop you , eventually you'll likely come around .

Well informed, like the blatant lies you were telling in the last thread we both discussed in?

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Well informed, like the blatant lies you were telling in the last thread we both discussed in?

What you call " lies " most people including 95% of climate scientists call facts .

 

[Bamboozled]

Patently false , the US with its relatively small population is the second largest polluter on the planet.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-in-one-chart/

I think you have some valid points but haven't given an actual reason as to why you believe them. It's pretty basic too. Think critically why we're such big polluters for a second. It is a problem from the past, but its not like we aren't spearheading the change to natural gas to slow pollution then moving onto the next environmentally safe option after. Btw, I'm not going to give you the answer to this.

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

What you call " lies " most people including 95% of climate scientists call facts .

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? The last thread we conversed in, you tried to pass off lies as facts. Even posted a link(which proved yourself wrong).

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

I think you have some valid points but haven't given an actual reason as to why you believe them. It's pretty basic too. Think critically why we're such big polluters for a second. It is a problem from the past, but its not like we aren't spearheading the change to natural gas to slow pollution then moving onto the next environmentally safe option after. Btw, I'm not going to give you the answer to this.

I believe in mmcc for many reasons , I look around where I live and see the forests of the interior of British Columbia being decimated by the mountain pine beetle , this started in the 90's , the beetles have always been there but it no longer gets cold enough in the winter to kill them off .
https://vancouversun.com/news/local...beetle-to-a-landscape-of-pests-in-b-c-forests

Then there is the fact that local farmers gardeners can grow things they couldn't historically, this is happening everywhere
https://e360.yale.edu/features/redrawing-the-map-how-the-worlds-climate-zones-are-shifting

The permafrost is thawing :

In Bethel, Alaska, walls are splitting, houses are collapsing, and the main road looks like a kiddy rollercoaster. In the coastal town of Kongiganak, sinking cemeteries prevent Alaskans from burying their dead in the ground. The village of Shishmaref, located on an island five miles from the western Alaska mainland, has eroded so much that it is contemplating total relocation. These communities are being plagued by permafrost that is thawing.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/11/thawing-permafrost-matters/

Then there is the Arctic
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The year 2019 saw an early melt onset and high sea surface temperatures during summer in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The September minimum extent ended up tied with 2007 and 2016 for second lowest in the satellite record. Autumn freeze up was slow. In December, the Chukchi Sea finally completely refroze, Hudson Bay iced over, and sea ice extended south into the Bering Sea. The year 2019 still ended up with low extent in the Bering Sea. Taking a longer view, the defining feature of the decade of the 2010s was consistently low Arctic sea ice extent compared to long-term averages.



I could go on an on , the evidence is endless and undeniable which is why 95% of climate scientists agree .

No one ( especially in this thread ) has made a cogent argument to the contrary.