John Adams Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 On 12/27/2019 at 6:02 PM, Foxx said: this is why "you climate nazi's" are mostly ignored. Yeah, because I post here so much about climate issues. Try not to be a moran in 2020. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 52 minutes ago, John Adams said: Yeah, because I post here so much about climate issues. Try not to be a moran in 2020. You know who else didn't post much about climate issues? Hitler! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 it got pretty heat intense over in Iraq yesterday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 1 hour ago, John Adams said: Yeah, because I post here so much about climate issues. Try not to be a moran in 2020. Moran? Beating on the Irish again? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 18 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: Moran? Beating on the Irish again? Irish is not what he calls it. He calls it "Frank". Like a wiener. He relishes the idea of it going into a bun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 2 hours ago, RochesterRob said: Moran? Beating on the Irish again? Your a moran to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 10 minutes ago, John Adams said: Your a moran to. yeah but at least he has brian. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Those same Russians that pranked Schiff for brains now got Maximus Waters.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 On 1/2/2020 at 7:28 PM, TH3 said: Well Bob....the point is this: The article linked is a list of cherry picked examples of people crying wolf over some environmental issues that did not come to fruition. I think you and the poster of that article can thank all the environmental “alarmists” alarming over lead paint, lead gas, DDT, sulfates and lead in coal exhaust, all the crap that was poured into the Great Lakes that is now a memory, the health hazards of smoking, seatbelts and airbags, fluoride, asbestos, ozone depletion, catalytic converters, coal ash, black lung disease, acid rain, the EPA, clean water standards, clean air standards...and thousands of other environmental rules and laws....all amazing taken care of while the economy flourishes. So go boating out on Lake Ontario....and thank an alarmist....they have a good batting average of being on to something....... Well obviously, if you question a global carbon tax, you supported children eating bowls of lead paint chips while hanging out the door of 1964 Ford Falcon as the acid rain fell on their alabaster skin as their parents smoked a pack of lucky strikes and swigged from the bottle of cheap whiskey on a leisurely drive to Lake Erie so the kids could play Marco Polo in the PCB contaminated water. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Well obviously, if you question a global carbon tax, you supported children eating bowls of lead paint chips while hanging out the door of 1964 Ford Falcon as the acid rain fell on their alabaster skin as their parents smoked a pack of lucky strikes and swigged from the bottle of cheap whiskey on a leisurely drive to Lake Erie so the kids could play Marco Polo in the PCB contaminated water. It wasn't a Ford Falcon, it was a 1964 Cadillac Fleetwood and they smoked Tareytons, not Lucky Strikes. Get it right! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: It wasn't a Ford Falcon, it was a 1964 Cadillac Fleetwood and they smoked Tareytons, not Lucky Strikes. Get it right! Look at you rich boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 16 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Look at you rich boy. Your parents couldn't even afford a filter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Your parents couldn't even afford a filter. But I was loved, other than the 24x7 exposure to carcinogens, I was loved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Well obviously, if you question a global carbon tax, you supported children eating bowls of lead paint chips while hanging out the door of 1964 Ford Falcon as the acid rain fell on their alabaster skin as their parents smoked a pack of lucky strikes and swigged from the bottle of cheap whiskey on a leisurely drive to Lake Erie so the kids could play Marco Polo in the PCB contaminated water. Good times... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 On 1/2/2020 at 4:47 PM, Azalin said: Everything in your list of examples is an issue that was changed due to empirical evidence of its harm to both people and nature . Humanity's effect on global climate change is based on computer models and incomplete/inaccurate data, not to mention that the issue has become politicized to the point where nobody believes anything that "the other side" does. It's based off the proven and observable fact that carbon traps heat at a higher rate than oxygen. If you take carbon that was sitting in the ground in liquid or solid form and burn it; you take it up into the atmosphere and you are increasing the ratio of carbon in the atmosphere. When you have a gas that retains heat more in the atmosphere due to decades of industrial use of it, it is going to cause changes to the environment. This isn't a theoretical idea, yes the projections can vary (I do not like the alarmist doom predictions but there does need to be a sense of urgency) but this is a real observable issue not some projection based off of incomplete science. Every time there is an environmental issue such as acid rain there is always a side lobbying that it is no big deal or the science isn't settled. If anything the fact that oil and natural gas are limited resources should provide enough urgency to kick the dependence on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 22 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: It's based off the proven and observable fact that carbon traps heat at a higher rate than oxygen. If you take carbon that was sitting in the ground in liquid or solid form and burn it; you take it up into the atmosphere and you are increasing the ratio of carbon in the atmosphere. When you have a gas that retains heat more in the atmosphere due to decades of industrial use of it, it is going to cause changes to the environment. This isn't a theoretical idea, yes the projections can vary (I do not like the alarmist doom predictions but there does need to be a sense of urgency) but this is a real observable issue not some projection based off of incomplete science. Every time there is an environmental issue such as acid rain there is always a side lobbying that it is no big deal or the science isn't settled. If anything the fact that oil and natural gas are limited resources should provide enough urgency to kick the dependence on them. ...so how many BILLIONS of years has Mother Nature accommodated us?.....any idea what may be her beef now triggering this incessant, doomsday "sky is falling crap"?.....the proven scientific data???.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 24 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: If anything the fact that oil and natural gas are limited resources should provide enough urgency to kick the dependence on them. I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with this. We're nearly 250 pages into this thread, and just about every imaginable argument on the subject has been offered and dissected. All I can add for the moment is that with something as large as Earth's atmosphere and the relatively new science of climatology, the most unscientific approach to take is one that claims that "the science is settled". That couldn't be further from the truth, and anyone who makes that claim, whether denier or alarmist, is wrong. I have no problem with supporting the development of new or alternative energy sources, but I am against any energy policies or taxes that have a negative impact on the economy, especially ones based on knee-jerk reactionary environmental claims. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 18 hours ago, billsfan89 said: ... If anything the fact that oil and natural gas are limited resources should provide enough urgency to kick the dependence on them. i guess you have not heard of the abiotic theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 I posted this in another thread in response to a post about Joe Biden's answer to a question about plastic bags. My response belongs here. Absolutely ban plastic bags under a certain millage. Go back to paper bags and give a boost to the logging industry. Clear cut strips of land for help in forest fire protection and selectively cut or "thin out" remaining forests. This is a much more environmentally friendly approach than the last environmentally friendly approach by short seeing, so called environmentalists who promoted the use of plastic bags to reduce logging. Trees are a renewable resource and we should treat them as such while simultaneously improving our environment and reducing the amount and extent of forest fires. Sometimes the solutions to problems are just plain common sense and pretty simple. Quote Edit Options 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 5, 2020 Share Posted January 5, 2020 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS NOBODY IS ASKING: Are you ready for environmental reparations to fund the Green New Deal? The leftists participating in the weekly Fire Drill Fridays want to eliminate the fossil fuel industry and take all the money from the energy industry companies. They tout wealth redistribution from fossil fuel companies as the piggy bank to fund the Green New Deal. In other words, take the profits of capitalism and give the money to a socialist takeover of the energy sector. Sound good? A woman named Tamara To’L, described as an Environmental Strategist delivered an aggressive message to the crowd. She conflated climate change and racism as she tried to get the crowd fired up. “Shout out if you want to destroy fossil fuel capitalists.” That sounds almost like inciting violence, doesn’t it? “Let me hear your vigor for ending racism while you do it.” “We need to make them pay today.” Her speech sounded like an all-purpose rant as she vented about people “who look like her” and her local roots. Her proposal is to redistribute “trillions” of dollars to pay for the Green New Deal. Jane Fonda, the founder of these weekly protests, sat behind Tamara on the stage and nodded her head in approval, yelling along with the crowd in response. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts