|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” Last edited by Cliff Bowman; 05-01-2020 at 10:46 AM. Reason: Addition |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
2010 numbers: China 3.53 million metric tons of garbage that made its way to an ocean, Indonesia 1.29 million metric tons of garbage that made its way to an ocean, USA 0.11 million metric tons of garbage that made its way to an ocean.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
From the link I provided earlier: "A red flag to researchers is that many of these countries ranked very poorly on metrics of how well they handle their own plastic waste. A study led by the University of Georgia researcher Jenna Jambeck found that Malaysia, the biggest recipient of US plastic recycling since the China ban, mismanaged 55% of its own plastic waste, meaning it was dumped or inadequately disposed of at sites such as open landfills. Indonesia and Vietnam improperly managed 81% and 86%, respectively." https://www.enjuris.com/car-accident/dram-shop-law.html "Dram shop laws hold bars, restaurants and other alcohol-selling establishments responsible for serving an inebriated patron who then causes an accident. Even social hosts can be liable for this type of negligence."
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Like clothing stores who sell out of shape people spandex.
Wtf is camel toe the new cleavage...seriously
__________________
"Trolling Ebay right now" © Always looking for signed 1952 topps as well as variations and errors |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1.07 metric tonnes of US plastic waste exported to other countries. 78% went to countries with poor waste management. Check out Superfund laws. Companies that sent hazardous waste to be handled at another facility are liable for that waste. The Superfund law (officially the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA)) imposes liability on parties responsible for, in whole or in part, the presence of hazardous substances at a site. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/superfund-liability
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
You guys are taking things I'm talking about on global levels and making them specific to America. I'm also trying to say that the mentality needs to shift to see these things as serious issues and move away from thinking we have an Earth we can do whatever we want to. Again, that's not something I'm pinning on America. But America is just as guilty as having a blasé attitude toward conservation as anyone else is. That has to change locally too.
Last edited by packs; 05-01-2020 at 11:32 AM. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Edited for those looking for “safe spaces”.
Last edited by Marckus99; 05-01-2020 at 03:09 PM. |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
That certainly came out of left field .
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” Last edited by Cliff Bowman; 05-01-2020 at 04:12 PM. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
In case this is an opinion that needs my full name. JOSEPH MICHAEL BRENNAN |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We all pay a carbon tax that is based on Global warming, yet we have one of the lowest world's populations, and we are likely one of the greenest countries on the planet. All this, and our moron in charge up here, with all his other dimwited liberals, say we are in a climate emergency. We are currently paying .10c a litre more for gas/fuel than we need to be and everything else like groceries, clothing, etc, have also gone up as well. Even our own Moron leader said once upon a time, we will hardly make scratch but because the sheep feel like they are doing something good, and our moron is always pandering for votes, it was implemented.
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
#61
|
||||
|
||||
Just let the thread die, all you are going to do is conjure up Mr. TDS again with all of his nonsense.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'm sure TDS boy is a little more preoccupied with shifty eyed Shiff and a whole bunch of other corrupt Dem politicians and FBI agents to give this global warming thread much attention. https://twitter.com/i/status/1258956921907736576
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A hundred years from now such extremists will be gone, so future mankind has that going for them.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ Last edited by Runscott; 05-18-2020 at 02:56 PM. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Mankind is such a mystery. How can we ever fully understand mankind. Perhaps the best way to understand mankind is to study and analyze the word itself....mankind. It is a word made up of two smaller words.....mank and ind. But what do these two words mean ? No one knows. It is a mystery...just like mankind itself"... Jack Handey
|
#65
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 parts per million Of that, about 5% is attributable to humans (20 parts per million) Since India and China won't play, any effort to reduce CO2 will only deal with perhaps half of that (10 parts per million) The most aggressive climate proposals are to cut CO2 emissions by 25% (2.5 parts per million) Does anybody really believe reducing CO2 by 2 and one half parts per MILLION would dramatically change the climate? CO2 isn't poison- it is required for all plant life (trees, grasses, plants, vegetables, algae, etc.) Trying to reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme. |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Solar minimum/maximum and other anomalies like gravitational pull that the global warming alarmists never talk about nor is it being taught in schools.
Nah, this won't have an effect on the earths climate. https://www.livescience.com/61716-su...l-warming.html https://bgr.com/2020/05/18/solar-min...-sun-activity/
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
#67
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
First: In picking China (9.3 giga tons (GT)) and India (2.2 GT) you picked the countries with the highest and third highest total CO2 emissions in 2017. You left out the country with the second highest total CO2 emissions (4.8 GT). The country with the second highest total CO2 emissions had more than twice the total of India, yet you chose India as a country that “won’t play.” Why is that? Is it because the U.S. is number 2? Second: In using total CO2 emissions per country as your metric, you are totally missing the point of the agreement that you claim China and India “won’t play” with. The agreement is supposed to allocate reductions in a fair manner. Therefore, it considers CO2 emissions per person. In looking at it this way, China drops to number 12 (6.5 tons per person) and India to number 20 (1.6 tons per person). Who’s number one you ask? Saudi Arabia (16.1 tons per person). Why didn’t you name them as a non-player? Why didn’t you name Australia (number 2 at 15.6 tons per person), Canada (number 3 at 14.9 tons per person), U.S. (number 4 at 14.6 tons per person), or South Korea (number 5 at 11.7 tons per person)? https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/eac...-co2-emissions Third: India is playing. They’re actions are compatible with keeping a limit on temperature growth to less than 2 degrees C. Whose actions aren’t you ask? Of the countries listed above, Australia and Canada are insufficient. China and South Korea are highly insufficient. Saudi Arabia and U.S. are critically insufficient. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/ Fourth: In 2017, an estimated 36.1 GT of CO2 were released into the atmosphere. China and India were responsible for (simple math – ((9.3 GT + 2.2 GT)/36.1 GT) 31.8 % of that. But yet, you attribute 50% of the problem to them? That’s bad math. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Did you know that 1 ppm of hydrogen selenide is deemed as immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)? Let’s say you could obtain $1,000,000 by entering a room with 1 ppm of hydrogen selenide in it. Let’s further say that someone said they could reduce it by 0.5 ppm before you went in. Would your response be, “No need, trying to reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.”? It’s perfectly fine not to agree with climate change. I don’t understand people who don’t agree with it, but it’s okay. What I don’t understand is, if the only why to support your denial of climate change is with misinformation, bad math, bad science, and illogical reasoning, how reasonable is your denial?
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The first article says: "But it's unlikely that we'll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported in a new study. Since the Maunder Minimum, global average temperatures have been on the rise, driven by climate change. Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much, the researchers' simulations demonstrated. And by the end of the incoming cooling period, temperatures would have bounced back from the temporary cooldown." The second article says: "There has historically been speculation regarding whether a particularly deep and extended solar minimum called the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s contributed to the Little Ice Age, which was a period of colder-than-average temperatures across both North America and Europe, but the evidence is weak. It’s more likely, some scientists suggest, that the temperature dip was linked to volcanic activity rather than a quiet solar period. Overall temperatures are believed to have dropped just 1 degree on average during that mini “ice age.”" Again, what's your point?
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Everything they spew is about man this, man that, when the truth is, many factors outside of our control affect the climate, but of course, none of that is ever talked about. The links are from alarmist sites who are disputing and downplaying what some real scientists are talking about because it goes against their narrative/agenda. As you will notice with my bolds, nothing is ever certain but rather just guesses. Just like the way it has always been. "12 years to save the planet", "NY city will be under water", "the great lakes will be dried up", "no more polar bears", "no more glaciers", "rain forests gone", "mass extinction", the list goes on and on and on and not one thing has ever come true, ever. Alarmists, like the bold above, use words like maybe, likely, we're not sure, could, might, etc, and the sheep lap that right up as fact rather than recognize those words are just guesses, speculation and conjecture. One would think, after decades of getting things wrong, one would open their eyes and say, wait a minute, you clowns have been spewing this crap forever but nothing has ever come true. But no, I guess the sheep, who are incapable of thinking for themselves, can't see that so they just keep on believing what they are fed because it fits their narrative and continues to feed their brainwashed belief system. Curious, Mike, what are your thoughts on the record breaking cold spring that many places had this year? Is that all part of global warming as well? I know the alarmists say it is all connected and that we shouldn't even consider those temps we seen, but I'm curious on your thoughts? "Record Cold Spring at Several Locations" https://www.weather.gov/abr/coldspring https://www.blogto.com/city/2020/04/...-cold-weather/ https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/articl...navik_nunavut/ https://www.freshdaily.ca/news/2020/...pring-weather/
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
Explanation of the Green New Deal in The New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/c...s-answers.html "The goal of the Green New Deal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change while also trying to fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice." Now, does "trying to fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice" sound more like hard climate science, or liberal social engineering? In a nutshell, this is what the whole man made global warming movement is all about. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Was in Antarctica in late January and early February ( pics in last page of Around the World thread). I did see some green ice
|
#73
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22069768
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
#74
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
And linking to an article by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about won't help your case. How do I know he doesn't know what he's talking about? "And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions." Really? CO2 in the atmosphere is typically talked about in terms of concentration in parts per million by volume (ppmv). CO2 emissions are typically talked about in tons per year. So he's saying, of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, humans cause a percentage of the tons per year of CO2 emissions. What does that even mean? It's just something that someone thinks sounds good. Nothing more. Quote:
Quote:
And no, I don't agree with any of your math. Like the article you cite, you throw numbers around recklessly without regard to their units or to their relationship. Quote:
Quote:
Finally, some facts to chew on. Consider the atmosphere like a bank. You put money in the bank, it will increase unless you take some out. We put CO2 in the atmosphere, it will increase unless some is taken out. And yes, some is taken out. It has been estimated that approximately 40% is taken up by plants, the oceans, etc. Therefore, of the estimated 36.1 GT emitted in 2017, 21.6 GT actually stayed in the atmosphere. It is still there today along with the 2018, 2019, 2016, 2015, etc emissions. Based on the weight of the atmosphere, 1 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to about 7.8 GT of CO2. So, the CO2 concentration increased 2.7 ppm based on net 2017 emissions (21.6 GT/(7.8 GT/ 1 ppm)). This is a little higher than the average ppm increase over the last decade, 2.3 ppm per year. So we're not off by much. So consider an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere of more than 2 ppm each and every year. Nothing to worry about?
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In Minnesota, the temperature often varies by 100 degrees over a 6 month period, from hitting sub-zero temps in January to topping 100 for a few days in July. During some days, the temperature can vary as much as 40 degrees, from night to day. And yet, a 1 or 2 degree change, spread over 100 years or longer, is going to cause extinctions and dramatically change the planet? Come on. If a frog can adapt to a 100 degree change in its environment over a 6 month period, one or two degrees spread over 100 years (and fifty or more generations of frogs) isn't going to affect them at all. That's just silly. I'm sure the difference between the recent mini ice age and today was a bigger change, and life adapted. Furthermore, ice ages cause a lot more death and turmoil to life forms than warmth, generally. |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Well
I have learned to blame everything on El Nino.
Cold winter...must be El Nino Hot summer...El Nino My drive-through order screwed up...El Nino |
#77
|
||||
|
||||
Yeah, I apologize. I have a hard time following illogical ramblings that have no point. My bad.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...ld-weather.htm
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And that brings to mind some lyrics by Frank Zappa. I'm not a Zappa fan, but the lyrics have stayed with me: "And she said, with a tear in her eye Watch out where the huskies go, And don't you eat that yellow snow"
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#79
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Good, clear thinking there guys!
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#80
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You sound like the great philosopher, Alfred E. Neuman, "What, me worry?"
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#81
|
||||
|
||||
Just how much money do you have invested in solar and wind companies, Mike?
Do you honestly believe, like the link you posted, what you are reading is factual and written by real scientists without an agenda? Do you not even find it just a little bit suspect that the alarmist movement even tries to justify record cold weather as being part of global warming? No offense, but you sound as brainwashed, gut hooked, delusional and crazy as Bill Nye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iubpN72D6AI
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
#82
|
||||
|
||||
Video of Dr David Deming's statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rj00BoItw
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Baaaaa!!
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#84
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It's OK, Mike. You keep on believing one day some of the 41 predictions, (so far), that have never come true, will, and instead of using real empirical evidence, rely on the computer modelling instead like you and all the other alarmists like to do. "The Science is settled" Just ask Obama, Al Gore, Bill Nye or David Suzuki. They know!!.............
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Can you please succinctly discuss the reasons why you don't support clean living? I feel like there are principles you could adopt in your daily life that would be good for you regardless of their effect on climate. Why not recycle? Why not support efforts to create clean, breathable air? What is more important than clean drinking water?
Last edited by packs; 05-29-2020 at 11:00 AM. |
#86
|
||||
|
||||
I support all of that because it is logical and true. I do recycle consistently. Plastics in the oceans, for example, are a real problem that needs a solution.
But the whole man made CO2 is cooking the planet schtick is at best, ridiculous, and at worst, a lie designed to frighten people, especially children, to push a socialist agenda. CO2 is not a pollutant - it is plant food. And a better argument can be made that there is not enough of it rather than too much. If the "green" movement stuck to real problems and proposed logical solutions, and if they left the political agenda out of it, I'd probably be one of them. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
That is such a small part of the whole that I can't see why you would dismiss everything because you have an issue with one thing. I'm not sure if we agree but I don't think there is anything negative about cutting emissions. Why would you choose to breathe them in? I don't think there is anything negative about curtailing pipelines either. Water is a precious resource.
Just one last point from me: CFC's were banned in 1996 due to the damage they were doing to the ozone layer. Their negative effect on the ozone layer is fact. I would think a depleted ozone layer, and certainly no ozone layer at all, will have an impact on the climate of the planet. I think that demonstrates that man can affect the kind of change we're talking about, even if not specifically through the actions in question. So, with all due respect, I can't agree with anyone who says man's actions can't affect climate change. Last edited by packs; 05-29-2020 at 02:04 PM. |
#88
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1. American Academy of Pediatrics 2. American Anthropological Association 3. American Association for the Advancement of Science 4. American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) 5. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians 6. American Astronomical Society 7. American Chemical Society 8. American College of Preventive Medicine 9. American Fisheries Society 10. American Geophysical Union 11. American Institute of Biological Sciences 12. American Institute of Physics 13. American Medical Association 14. American Meteorological Society 15. American Physical Society 16. American Public Health Association 17. American Quaternary Association 18. American Society for Microbiology 19. American Society of Agronomy 20. American Society of Civil Engineers 21. American Society of Plant Biologists 22. American Statistical Association 23. Association of Ecosystem Research Centers 24. Botanical Society of America 25. California Academy of Sciences 26. Crop Science Society of America 27. Ecological Society of America 28. Environmental Protection Agency 29. Federation of American Scientists 30. Geological Society of America 31. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America 32. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 33. National Association of Geoscience Teachers 34. National Association of State Foresters 35. National Center for Atmospheric Research 36. National Council of Engineers Australia 37. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand 38. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 39. National Research Council 40. National Science Foundation 41. Natural Science Collections Alliance 42. New York Academy of Sciences 43. Oklahoma Climatological Survey 44. Pew Center on Global Climate Change 45. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics 46. Scripps Institution of Oceanography 47. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 48. Society of American Foresters 49. Soil Science Society of America 50. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 51. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 52. Woods Hole Research Center Sh!t is used as plant food and is not a pollutant. You obviously want more of that also since you (and especially Irv) seem to spend a lot of time peddling it.
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#89
|
||||
|
||||
The title of this thread is: The real, unseen side of The Green New Deal. This is a specific piece of proposed legislation. The New York Times quotes from the text of The Green New Deal:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/c...s-answers.html The goal of the Green New Deal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change while also trying to fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice. You can pretend really really hard that the part I have bolded is science and not a political agenda if you want. As far as all those organizations you list, that is what has been consistent in your posts. You keep referring to other peoples' opinions, rather than thinking for yourself. Had you been my classmate in 6th grade, in 1970, you, like me, would've been afraid of global COOLING, because that's what all those scientists were insisting was happening. And people who didn't believe them then were stupid. Somehow you, and they, are able to conveniently forget all the times they have been so dramatically wrong with their predictions, while insisting their NEXT predictions will be right. So far, they just never are. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
'the green new steal' and 'how to make a tree hugger cry'
i have shared this video with every tree hugger i could, many cried. the deep state used the left and greenies to perform another hoax, one of many. what people missed from the docu-film is that, our tax money is used to build those tree burning plants, obviously to scam a tree hugger, you cannot call the plants what they are, 'tree burning plants' they do not burn trees according to the liars involved and the brainwashed green new stealers, who believe the group think, they burn 'bio-mass' = WRONG! this is another example and proof the media is fake news. also the idea that there is a left and a right, in politics, nope, wrong again, they are all crooks shouting, 'look over there' 'we are good', THEY are bad, do not look at our wealth, i never had a job,' 'i earned it'... someone in the thread shared shared a meme, also, not true, greta is not a high schooler, she is diagnosed retarded, and 'home schooled' and about aoc, also repeating her lies, she was not a bartender, she was fired from that job after a few days or hours according to some people. she could not make any mixed drinks, just ask her for an any drink recipe, standing behind a bar does not make you a bartender, she was actually a waitress, and always has been! among her many lies, i can go on...they are deforesting america to burn the trees for energy, as the docu-film shows, they are actually creating MORE pollution just shipping the trees to get burned. again, show the movie to a tree hugger or enviromentalist, the green new deal is another new world order lie. ask any of them, 'CO2 is the problem', 'too much C.O.2 is causing global warming' = what is the only thing that eats CO2 to survive? TREES! they are actually making the CO2 problem worse with every tree they burn. according to gibbs, one of the people behind the docu-films, they had hours of footage they did not use. they left out a lot of stuff, i wonder what.
just like the current madness in the u.s., especially in illinois and chicago, the governor of illinois is funneling millions of your tax dollars, the 'covid aid relief' funds through businesses he owns and some charities he started. the governor and mayor of chicago, i call #lockdownnazi's... chicago beaches are still closed and not opening soon. all other cities have opened beaches to a degree, even NYC, the worst hit with covid, our leaders say it is all due to 'the science', since when in a free country do we take 'ORDERS' from public SERVANTS? several countries never locked down. ever been to japan? the cities there are bigger and more crowded than you can imagine, they did not lockdown, it has nothing to do with a virus that is less dangerous than the flu fyi: you can pay a scientist to say anything you want, for example, are eggs good and/or safe to eat? just look up what 'scientists' say about that, and the FAKE research they use to prove it! in school i was going to get a science degree, i even went on several 'field research trips' i was a scientist! lol we did a lot of 'research' too, we had the 'latest tech' = freezers full of beer and booze! we had 'cases of supplies' = several cases of vodka, whiskey, etc, etc. we did a lot of 'research' lounging at a beach resort, partially funded by the school, and government grants = your tax dollars. the science class i was in had 8 guys for every 2 girls. on the every field trip, we had up to 8 girls for every guy, and i can tell you for a fact the professor was banging some of them, i can tell you for a fact, we did no research, and i can tell you someone did write a 'research paper' documenting what we did = all lies because we did nothing! and yes, you guessed, it was peer-reviewed! does anyone recall the research trip that went to the south pole to prove the ice cap was gone? remember what happened to that ship? it STUCK in the ice! did you know that ship had some great supplies, store rooms and coolers full off booze and several pounds of assorted pills and drugs were found when the ship was finally recovered after everyone on board was rescued and removed from the 'research vessel' = a charter cruise ship! it was nothing more than a taxpayer funded party cruise! turn off the tv and read a book, may i recommend 'profiles in corruption' it shows you how some politicians and their families are super-rich and many of them never did a days work in their lives. it shows how they are all so rich, yes, you guessed, they raise your taxes to line their wallets. read the book for proof, if you want a copy i will send you a digital one, i actually bought several copies of the printed book but gave them all away already, i am going to buy multiples of this docu-fim too, and give those away too. |
#91
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You even said, "In a nutshell, this is what the whole man made global warming movement is all about." Not the "Green New Deal" but the whole man made global warming movement. You'd be telling a lie if you now want to claim you were only talking about the Green New Deal. Quote:
You said: "But the whole man made CO2 is cooking the planet schtick is at best, ridiculous, and at worst, a lie designed to frighten people, especially children, to push a socialist agenda." I listed those organizations because I was curious as to which are simply ridiculous and which are pushing a socialist agenda. Those are your words. So, which are ridiculous and which are pushing a socialist agenda? You seem to be an expert on ferreting out people's hidden agenda. Quote:
Quote:
Who's "they?" Not the scientists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0...8FA33&index=37 An excellent paper in the American Meteorological Society (2008) https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...2008BAMS2370.1 A couple highlights: "One way to determine what scientists think is to ask them. This was actually done in 1977 following the severe 1976/77 winter in the eastern United States. "Collectively," the 24 eminent climatologists responding to the survey "tended to anticipate a slight global warming rather than a cooling" (National Defense University Research Directorate 1978)." A survey was done on literature published in the '70s. The survey looked for "papers projecting climate change on, or even just discussing an aspect of climate forcing relevant to, time scales from decades to a century." It found 71 papers. "The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming." The other 20 were neutral. Six times as many scientists in the '70s were predicting warming versus cooling. Who is this "they" that "have been so dramatically wrong with their predictions"? And, what were their predictions?
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#92
|
||||
|
||||
What irony. I had made the decision to not participate in this thread anymore but when I saw these from Captain TDS I had to respond. Unless I missed a post of yours, and I don’t believe I did, when have you ever addressed the subject of this thread? It is about scumbag millionaires and billionaires profiting from a green energy scam by clearcutting whole forests and destroying the animals living in them in order to line their own pockets and give the false impression that they are actually doing something good. ETA: If you want to spew your MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND I WILL MAKE YOU SUBMIT! crap then start your own thread.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” Last edited by Cliff Bowman; 05-29-2020 at 07:46 PM. Reason: Addition |
#93
|
||||
|
||||
What irony indeed!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, when did I begin my defense of climate change? Post 67. 67. Why did I write Post 67? In direct response to Post 65. Let that sink in when considering what you wrote, “If you want to spew your MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND I WILL MAKE YOU SUBMIT! crap then start your own thread.” Why do you insinuate that I hijacked this thread? That is ironic. Furthermore, “MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND I WILL MAKE YOU SUBMIT!” Please, oh please, explain to me why my posts are “I WILL MAKE YOU SUBMIT!” and the others aren’t? What? Is it First Amendment rights only for those who believe like you do? Everyone else needs to STFU? You don’t like what I’m writing and so therefore it is “I WILL MAKE YOU SUBMIT!”? What exactly is it that makes you become unhinged enough to “spew” that my counterarguments to other posts should be considered “I WILL MAKE YOU SUBMIT!”?
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#94
|
||||
|
||||
Just as I figured, you still refuse to address the whole point of this thread, millionaires and billionaires profiting off of the sickening clearcutting of forests in the USA and rain forests worldwide and the devastation to the animals living in those forests all in the false pretext that they are actually doing something noble. Good job. When I said it was the biggest hoax of the last fifty years I wasn't referring to whether or not climate change was real, I was referring to the scumbags making obscene profits off of it.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#95
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#96
|
||||
|
||||
I am absolutely convinced that you and people like you see Climate Change as a way of punishing, weakening, and controlling the people that you hate, the ones that voted for The Orange Meanie. There 7.6 billion people on earth and you are obsessed with 63 million of them. Do I believe that everything is fine on this planet of 7.6 billion people and that there aren't changes that must be done? Absolutely not. But what you and others like you see Climate Change as are two things, to gain more power and become even more wealthy, and in your particular case to use it as a tool against those that you have a hatred for. The photo is of your hero trying to get onto the wrong private jet, I guess if you fly on one every day you lose track of which one is yours.
__________________
“interesting to some absolute garbage to others.” —- “Error cards and variations are for morons, IMHO.” |
#97
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If you don't see the text in bold as being about the movie, you're blind.
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#98
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
How in the world do you equate my thinking that we are adversely affecting the earth's climate to it's because i want "to gain more power and become even more wealthy." Please explain how I can get more power and wealth from thinking we are adversely affecting the earth's climate. Although honestly, I have no interest in more power but I wouldn't mind more wealth so I can get the '52 Topps Mantles that I want. Furthermore, how is my thinking that we are adversely affecting the earth's climate equate to me using "it as a tool against those that I have hatred for." What does that even mean? Using my thoughts as a tool?? Lastly, I don't have hatred for you or for the people who voted for "The Orange Meanie." Do you hate everyone who doesn't agree with you on every subject? That's the only way I can fathom why you "spew" such nonsense. And I don't hate you for that, but I do pity you for it. Tell you what, since you've gone off the deep end and I seem to be causing you much pain and anguish with math, science, and logic, I'll leave this thread for now and let you and Dale get back to your circle jerk fest. Happy? Baaa!! Baaa!!
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Green Tint New Deal | JollyElm | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 0 | 10-10-2019 05:25 PM |
Ted Williams Real Deal? | Case12 | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 3 | 12-27-2018 11:16 AM |
Real or Fake? Deal or No Deal? | KMayUSA6060 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 10-02-2016 09:13 AM |
The real deal. what do u think? | GrayGhost | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 8 | 05-19-2012 08:24 AM |
If this is real it is THE best deal EVER on eBay | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 9 | 12-02-2002 11:24 PM |