Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[billsfan89]

22 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...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???..........

 

The predictions around the observable and testable idea that carbon retains more heat than oxygen (thus spewing carbon into the atmosphere might cause changes in the climate) have started to come true. Stronger and larger storms, more droughts, more extreme flooding, highest average temperatures year after year, reducing ice caps and so many other predictions have come true at or near the timetables that were in the models. I don't see you mocking the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed but the idea carbon retains more heat than oxygen is suddenly up for debate?

[billsfan89]

22 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

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.  

 

The science is settled on the fact that carbon does retain more heat than oxygen. The predictions that were made have mostly come true (just because some of the most extreme predictions didn't come true at the timetables that were offered doesn't invalidate the many other ones that did.)

 

The science is very much settled (as settled as science can be) that human cabon emissions are very much altering the climate. To what degree and what timetable these changes will occur is up for debate. 

 

In my opinion the idea that any action that might have some short term impact on the economy is not worth doing is very short sighted. If you invest in a nuclear and renewable power infrastructure and phase out gas powered cars for electric ones with taxes on fossil fuels and other avenues that creates an economic engine that benefits the  nation for decades both in terms of economic value and the value the environment has to the economy.

 

Environmental science was a relatively new science when they were trying to clean up rivers and get lead out of gas but we listened to it right?

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

8 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The predictions around the observable and testable idea that carbon retains more heat than oxygen (thus spewing carbon into the atmosphere might cause changes in the climate) have started to come true. Stronger and larger storms, more droughts, more extreme flooding, highest average temperatures year after year, reducing ice caps and so many other predictions have come true at or near the timetables that were in the models. I don't see you mocking the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed but the idea carbon retains more heat than oxygen is suddenly up for debate?

 

...so after BILLIONS of years with Mother Nature tolerating us, we are all of a sudden in "crisis/panic" mode?.......you really expect me to take the protesting "Chicken Little Fickle" gang SERIOUSLY?......same ones who get 50 weeks paid vacation to travel the "protest circuit"??...........this is really a TOP PRIORITY that faces us?.......good Lord we're in deeper s&%t than I thought...how sad................

[Wacka]

51 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The science is settled on the fact that carbon does retain more heat than oxygen. The predictions that were made have mostly come true (just because some of the most extreme predictions didn't come true at the timetables that were offered doesn't invalidate the many other ones that did.)

 

The science is very much settled (as settled as science can be) that human cabon emissions are very much altering the climate. To what degree and what timetable these changes will occur is up for debate. 

 

In my opinion the idea that any action that might have some short term impact on the economy is not worth doing is very short sighted. If you invest in a nuclear and renewable power infrastructure and phase out gas powered cars for electric ones with taxes on fossil fuels and other avenues that creates an economic engine that benefits the  nation for decades both in terms of economic value and the value the environment has to the economy.

 

Environmental science was a relatively new science when they were trying to clean up rivers and get lead out of gas but we listened to it right?

Real science is NEVER settled about anything. There is no consensus. A hypothesis  is put forth and  reproducible experiments are done to confirm or deny the hypothesis. Climate "science" is none of this.

[row_33]

1 minute ago, Wacka said:

Real science is NEVER settled about anything. There is no consensus. A hypothesis  is put forth and  reproducible experiments are done to confirm or deny the hypothesis. Climate "science" is none of this.

the same “crowd” behind climate change was into phrenology and trepanning and Marxism as a science in years past

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by row_33

[Warren Zevon]

 

[Azalin]

8 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The science is very much settled (as settled as science can be) that human cabon emissions are very much altering the climate. To what degree and what timetable these changes will occur is up for debate.

 

 

No, your second sentence contradicts your first. More study, possibly a lot more, is needed before we know definitively what kind of effect humanity is having on the climate. Consequently, one shouldn't assume that we're not having some kind of effect, and that it wouldn't do us good to pursue newer and better means of generating energy.

 

Also you used the example of cleaning up waters, etc again to make your point. Again, I remind you that all we had to do was use our own eyes to see the very obvious results of chemical pollution in our lakes and rivers. Yes, the science was new back then, but it hadn't become politicized as an issue yet and it didn't rely largely on doomsday predictions or computer models to sell it to the public.

[bbb]

1 hour ago, Gary Busey said:

 

 

 

 

[BigBillsFan]

The main reason I don't believe in "climate change" is not scientific, it's pragmatic. If the people who profit from it the most live on islands with private jets or near the ocean in mansions than that tells you everything you need to know. They wouldn't want to be in a house which will be underwater so quickly and pollute so much with their AC units and gas emissions.

 

My other reasons are just as pragmatic:

-If you add profit incentive to science you'll get the results you want

-Banks invest well and they wouldn't loan on houses which are bad investments like coastal properties

-If your models haven't found to be true why should we believe your future prognosis

-If you don't ban the goods of other countries who pollute more than others you're a liar

 

The Hollywood chants of "Trump bad" on climate change yet they follow and praise China for marketshare is all I ever need to see. 

 

Once I see calls to ban Chinese imports for pollution I'll believe they're serious, until then it's all a joke for profit masquerading as virtue. I'm not saying climate change is false, but if you look at the salesmen for their religion they are mercenary profiteers who don't believe their own hype by their actions. 

 

The real crisis is pollution and how it affects us today with birth defects, cancer, etc.. That I'm fully onboard with. 

[B-Man]

 

 

To replace gas taxes, Oregon and Utah ask Electric Vehicles to pay for road use.

 

“The large print giveth and the small print taketh away.”

 

 

 

 

.

[Buffalo_Gal]

12 hours ago, bbb said:

 

 

 

 

 

[SydneyBillsFan]

19 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

 

You beat me to it.

 

Arson and greenies who have more interest in protecting the loose dry leaves and twigs (which apparently are the natural habitat of the furry-arsed wombat), than human lives.

 

F*** I hate greenies.

[Warren Zevon]

25 minutes ago, SydneyBillsFan said:

 

You beat me to it.

 

Arson and greenies who have more interest in protecting the loose dry leaves and twigs (which apparently are the natural habitat of the furry-arsed wombat), than human lives.

 

F*** I hate greenies.

 

Pave it all, right?

[TH3]

On 1/5/2020 at 1:26 PM, billsfan89 said:

 

The predictions around the observable and testable idea that carbon retains more heat than oxygen (thus spewing carbon into the atmosphere might cause changes in the climate) have started to come true. Stronger and larger storms, more droughts, more extreme flooding, highest average temperatures year after year, reducing ice caps and so many other predictions have come true at or near the timetables that were in the models. I don't see you mocking the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed but the idea carbon retains more heat than oxygen is suddenly up for debate?

You realize that you are arguing with the equivalent of the flat earth society.... 

[Foxx]

24 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Pave it all, right?

because that is exactly what he said. oye!

 

what is wrong with responsible forestry management?

Edited January 7, 2020 by Foxx

[4merper4mer]

23 minutes ago, TH3 said:

You realize that you are arguing with the equivalent of the flat earth society.... 

Solution: Communize

[Gary M]

6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

because that is exactly what he said. oye!

 

what is wrong with responsible forestry management?

 

You mean "common sense" brush control. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

54 minutes ago, SydneyBillsFan said:

 

You beat me to it.

 

Arson and greenies who have more interest in protecting the loose dry leaves and twigs (which apparently are the natural habitat of the furry-arsed wombat), than human lives.

 

F*** I hate greenies.

I have always read that Australia was pretty good about clearing to prevent bushfires. It is sad that the greenies got involved, and listened to. Thousands of dead animals, millions of acres of burnt land, houses gone, not to mention people dead... and all because proper fire prevention was not followed. The arsonists should be prosecuted for murder. The greenies? Accessories.

 

[Foxx]

right... it's the camels, stupid.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1214531659464400896

 

[Warren Zevon]

20 minutes ago, Foxx said:

because that is exactly what he said. oye!

 

what is wrong with responsible forestry management?

 

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if he cited any evidence in Australia that greenies who have more interest in protecting the loose dry leaves and twigs (which apparently are the natural habitat of the furry-arsed wombat) has impacted the fires in a negative way.