Jump to content

Global warming err Climate change HOAX


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

 

 

 

IT’S AS IF ALL THE GREEN PANACEAS ARE FAILURES:

 Driving electric cars won’t make a dent in global carbon emissions, and may even increase pollution levels.

 

You know what works? Nuclear power and fracking.

 

 

 

 

 

PEOPLE WILL NOT STAND FOREVER FOR BEING TOLD THEY MUST STARVE IN THE DARK IN THE CAUSE OF SOME NEBULOUS “ENVIRONMENTAL GOOD”: 

 

 Ten observations about the French protests.

 

 

 

.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 out of 10 dentist's concur that plaque build up is the leading cause for climate change. They all concur that ....

3 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

If you use the search function, you will see this topic has been covered elsewhere.

 

I thought his place was the Wild West. I’ve deleted 7-8 threads, not just those on the topics mentioned in Azalin’s post. I don’t delete to be mean—I just do it when it’s spun way off topic or devolved into just an attack thread (not just on me but others). Which that one did. 

 

I’m proud that deleting a thread about building positive online community brought us all together. We can work on the positivity but ... baby steps!

 

With love and kisses to you all and Season’s Greetings to everyone except LSH who doesn’t want to celebrate the earth’s revolution around the Sun.

 

 

Such statements are also a detriment to the existence of man and his ability to transcend the astroplane of consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Quote

 

A growing number of Americans, including most Republicans, now believe in climate change https://cnn.it/2E9x5Gi 

 

 

 

.

Always have...................

I also believe in microbiology.

 

I don’t walk around with a mask and gloves on 24/7 to avoid germs, even though I could get the flu and die any day.

 

The climate change debate is about perspective and probability.

 

The alarmists understand neither.

 

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:
The climate change debate is about perspective and probability.

The alarmists understand neither.

 

Don't forget that the only way to stop climate change is to radically redistribute the world's financial resources. If we had only learned that lesson over the past 10,000 years (or so) of human civilization.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

About two-thirds of voters are concerned about the recent federal government report warning of potential dire consequences for the United States due to climate change, according to a new poll.

POLITICO/Morning Consult poll published Thursday found that two-thirds of voters are either very or somewhat concerned about the findings of the report. 

Another 58 percent of voters also agree that climate change is caused by human activity, the poll found. 

 

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/419998-poll-two-third-of-voters-concerned-about-trump-administration

 

Ya, ya. They will care more about having to actually do something, like pay higher gas taxes to try and make even a minimal dent in the problem. Nothing is going to change until Florida is destroyed or something.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/419998-poll-two-third-of-voters-concerned-about-trump-administration

 

Ya, ya. They will care more about having to actually do something, like pay higher gas taxes to try and make even a minimal dent in the problem. Nothing is going to change until Florida is destroyed or something.  

 

Well, let's nuke Florida and get it over with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I say we take off and nuke the state from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

The side benefit is not having to hear friends tell me how nice it is in February at 80 degrees and sunny. I don't call them up in hurricane season and gloat about my weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I would, but their phones are out.

Would you just have to mail them and us letters calling us idiots after such an EMP went off?

 

By the way,. It's cute that 3rd is dumb and doesn't know what happens from a nuculur bomb in orbit 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

Would you just have to mail them and us letters calling us idiots after such an EMP went off?

 

By the way,. It's cute that 3rd is dumb and doesn't know what happens from a nuculur bomb in orbit 

Baaa baaa black sheep, you racist you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2018 at 8:34 AM, Tiberius said:

POLITICO/Morning Consult poll published Thursday found that two-thirds of voters are either very or somewhat concerned about the findings of the report. 

Another 58 percent of voters also agree that climate change is caused by human activity, the poll found. 

That does it!!!! When 2/3 of voters, and another 58% agree, we MUST also agree!!! 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Cinga said:

That does it!!!! When 2/3 of voters, and another 58% agree, we MUST also agree!!! 

 

2/3 of Americans are now worried because the presentation of the data became more alarmist?    THERE WAS NOTHING NEW IN THE "REPORT!"  :wallbash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cinga said:

That does it!!!! When 2/3 of voters, and another 58% agree, we MUST also agree!!! 

We already do, and then some.  2/3 + 58% = 124.666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666% agreeing.  My rounding might be slightly off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

We already do, and then some.  2/3 + 58% = 124.666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666% agreeing.  My rounding might be slightly off.

124%, must be counting votes in Chicago or Philadelphia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

California Becomes 1st State to Require Solar Panels on New Homes. Here's How It Will Reduce Utility Costs
 

The California Building Standards Commission on Wednesday unanimously upheld a May 9 decision to require solar panels on homes up to three stories. The requirement goes into effect Jan. 1, 2020.
 

Currently, just 9% of single-family detached homes in California have solar panels. But as the state pushes toward decreasing greenhouse gas emissions—and with a 2045 goal to transition to a fully renewable energy grid devoid of fossil fuels—this rule will help accelerate that progress. Aside from energy efficiency, solar panels reduce ozone-damaging household emissions, most of which come from natural gas-generated electricity.
 

</snip>
 

The fine print in a different article:
 

California officially becomes first state to require solar panels on new homes
 

Nobody spoke Wednesday in opposition, but the commission received about 300 letters opposing the mandate because of the added cost, the Orange County Register reported.
 

Energy officials estimate the provisions will add $10,000 to the cost of building a single-family home — about $8,400 from adding solar and about $1,500 for making homes more energy efficient. But those costs would be offset by lower utility bills over the 30-year lifespan of the solar panels, officials said.
 

</snip>
 

Homeowners will have two options that eliminate upfront costs of adding solar: leasing the solar panels or signing a power purchase agreement that pays for the electricity without buying the panels, said Drew Bohan, executive director of the energy commission.
 

One solar-industry representative said the net savings from adding solar power will be about $40 a month or nearly $500 a year.
 

</snip>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

California Becomes 1st State to Require Solar Panels on New Homes. Here's How It Will Reduce Utility Costs
 

The California Building Standards Commission on Wednesday unanimously upheld a May 9 decision to require solar panels on homes up to three stories. The requirement goes into effect Jan. 1, 2020.
 

Currently, just 9% of single-family detached homes in California have solar panels. But as the state pushes toward decreasing greenhouse gas emissions—and with a 2045 goal to transition to a fully renewable energy grid devoid of fossil fuels—this rule will help accelerate that progress. Aside from energy efficiency, solar panels reduce ozone-damaging household emissions, most of which come from natural gas-generated electricity.
 

</snip>
 

The fine print in a different article:
 

California officially becomes first state to require solar panels on new homes
 

Nobody spoke Wednesday in opposition, but the commission received about 300 letters opposing the mandate because of the added cost, the Orange County Register reported.
 

Energy officials estimate the provisions will add $10,000 to the cost of building a single-family home — about $8,400 from adding solar and about $1,500 for making homes more energy efficient. But those costs would be offset by lower utility bills over the 30-year lifespan of the solar panels, officials said.
 

</snip>
 

Homeowners will have two options that eliminate upfront costs of adding solar: leasing the solar panels or signing a power purchase agreement that pays for the electricity without buying the panels, said Drew Bohan, executive director of the energy commission.
 

One solar-industry representative said the net savings from adding solar power will be about $40 a month or nearly $500 a year.
 

</snip>

 

California also can't figure out why housing is unaffordable...  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...