Rob's House Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 15 minutes ago, ALF said: That it needs to be seriously studied and at the least make common sense changes to error on the side of caution. If there ends up being no global warming , cleaner air and water are good. That's a more honest response than I expected. So we're admitting that there is no consensus that this is necessarily a problem, just that there is enough concern to look into it further. The next question is what is a "common sense" change that will appreciably reduce carbon emissions.
ALF Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, Rob's House said: That's a more honest response than I expected. So we're admitting that there is no consensus that this is necessarily a problem, just that there is enough concern to look into it further. The next question is what is a "common sense" change that will appreciably reduce carbon emissions. Not removing environmental rules in place before Trump took office 85 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html
Rob's House Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, ALF said: Not removing environmental rules in place before Trump took office 85 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html Which one of those rules reduced global carbon emissions in a meaningful way?
ALF Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Rob's House said: Which one of those rules reduced global carbon emissions in a meaningful way? If I were a scientist I might be able to answer . I'll just stay with error on the side of caution , cleaner air and water are good no matter what .
Gary M Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 On 11/2/2019 at 1:01 AM, bbb said: It seems that every older rich person in NYS lives 6+ months out of the year in Florida for tax purposes. Most of them with a NYS pension of one form or another. 1
GG Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 9 hours ago, Hedge said: Thanksgiving is cancelled. Wonder if the origin of the article comes from the dangers of global warming or that the writers & editors hate their families? 26 minutes ago, ALF said: Not removing environmental rules in place before Trump took office 85 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html Didn't we already address this?
Keukasmallies Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Gary M said: Most of them with a NYS pension of one form or another. Among the many impacts of such a lifestyle, it appears one big impact is the fact that doing just that shows very good business sense on the part of the individual.
Chef Jim Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 This has been mentioned time and time again. Even if we spent a trillion dollars a day to clean up the planet/air the world’s biggest offenders of polluting the planet will keep on doing just that and our trillion dollars a day will barely move the needle. So yes. Clean up the litter and water so we have a cleaner environment but there is little we can do to reverse what is happening. Mother Nature will do her thing. We have very little control IMO.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 1 hour ago, ALF said: That it needs to be seriously studied and at the least make common sense changes to error on the side of caution. If there ends up being no global warming , cleaner air and water are good. This attitude makes you an easy mark for duplicitous politicians and activists that may not have your best interests in mind. The flip side of the rejection of the man made climate change manifesto is not: 1. Let's poison the water! 2. Let's deplete the ozone! 3. Let's breathe dirty air! 4. F future generations and screw the children! Likewise, any adage that starts with "if we can save one..." has been used against well-intentioned simpletons since the beginning of time. I'd ask the following question: Given the ongoing tragedy of the abuse of children from all walks of life, and given that reasonable people agree that the abuse of a child is horrific, would you support random welfare checks on every home in America? They would be carried out by armed law enforcement, 24x7 mandatory access, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. The raids may not uncover abuse in every home (though we could flush out lots if abusive parents serving their children hamburgers), it would reflect a very cautious approach to a problem we all acknowledge. If there ends up being no abuse, well, who loses? 1
Azalin Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 39 minutes ago, GG said: Didn't we already address this? Yes, that exact same link. It seems to have really made an impression. 1
3rdnlng Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 4 hours ago, ALF said: That it needs to be seriously studied and at the least make common sense changes to error on the side of caution. If there ends up being no global warming , cleaner air and water are good. I thought it was already seriously studied?
KRC Posted November 6, 2019 Posted November 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: I thought it was already seriously studied? No. Not enough people have lined their pockets on studied global warming cooling climate change crisis. It needs more money study.
Koko78 Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 12 hours ago, ALF said: That it needs to be seriously studied and at the least make common sense changes to error on the side of caution. If there ends up being no global warming , cleaner air and water are good. This type of argument, I'd wager, would get far more support than the "HOW DARE YOU!!!!!111" and "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN 12 YEARS" bullschiff histrionics that climate whacknuts are trying to force on everyone.
DC Tom Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 8 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: I thought it was already seriously studied? No, it's not seriously studied because THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED AND THERE'S CONSENSUS!!!!!!
3rdnlng Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No, it's not seriously studied because THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED AND THERE'S CONSENSUS!!!!!! I see, the science was settled on less than serious studies.
B-Man Posted November 9, 2019 Posted November 9, 2019 On 11/5/2019 at 2:51 PM, ALF said: 11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering' caused by climate change It's not the first time thousands of academics united to urge people to take action on climate change. More than 16,000 scientists from 184 countries published a letter in 2017, warning that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course." https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/world/climate-emergency-scientists-warning-intl-trnd/index.html 11,000 SCIENTISTS? JUST KIDDING Earlier this week, the world’s news media reported breathlessly that 11,000 scientists had issued a report contending that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” NBC News, to cite just one example, described a “study” produced by an “international consortium of more than 11,000 scientists.” This screen shot of a Google search illustrates the coverage: Actually, there was no study, there was just a press release. And it wasn’t 11,000 scientists, it was 11,000 random people who put their names on a web page. But today’s reporters are so biased and so incompetent that when it comes to “climate change,” they will swallow anything. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/11000-scientists-just-kidding.php 2 2
Hedge Posted November 9, 2019 Posted November 9, 2019 (edited) <br /> They had to use a drone to catch it at the right angle for this picture. From ground level it blends in with the rest of the feces. Edited November 9, 2019 by Hedge 1 1
B-Man Posted November 10, 2019 Posted November 10, 2019 Now TIME is reporting on how asthma inhalers are ‘choking the planet’ https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/11/09/now-time-is-reporting-on-how-asthma-inhalers-are-choking-the-planet/
Azalin Posted November 10, 2019 Posted November 10, 2019 On 11/8/2019 at 9:00 PM, B-Man said: 11,000 SCIENTISTS? JUST KIDDING Earlier this week, the world’s news media reported breathlessly that 11,000 scientists had issued a report contending that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” NBC News, to cite just one example, described a “study” produced by an “international consortium of more than 11,000 scientists.” This screen shot of a Google search illustrates the coverage: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/11000-scientists-just-kidding.php This is exactly the kind of crap that is undermining progress on solving what might actually be a serious issue. They put forth complete bull$#%@ and call it science. And people like Alf lap it up and use it to condescend to others.
Recommended Posts