It’s our fault that 60% of the floating garbage in the oceans comes from China and five other backwards countries through their carelessness and their choice to do so? Good Lord. ETA: I have no doubt that will work in court for the next guy who is arrested for illegally dumping and telling the judge and jury, “It’s not my fault! You need to charge Home Depot, McDonald’s, Kroger, and Walmart because they are the ones who sold me the packages.”

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.

"It's kind of ignorant and biased to think that we don't contribute anything to the problem" = "It’our fault"?? Good Lord indeed.

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."

Like clothing stores who sell out of shape people spandex.


Wtf is camel toe the new cleavage...seriously

https://www.plasticpollutioncoalitio...gement-in-2018

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

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.

Edited for those looking for “safe spaces”.

That certainly came out of left field :eek:.

In the 70’s the smog was so bad in LA you couldn’t see the sun. Ok maybe not that bad. Rivers so polluted they caught fire. In the past 50 years fish came back. Rivers and streams allow spawning again. We no long just dump or spew deadly toxins at will. Maybe America isn’t perfect but we’ve made huge strides. Our consumption of fossil fuels will always be a sore point but we have no other viable solution. Our CO2 output actually went down this past decade. Unless India, China and the Soviet Union start limiting their pollution any strides we make will be a mere drop in the ocean. Greta didn’t dare confront those countries or she would have been skinned alive. Hell, she was practically run out on a rail in Canada. Doubt she’ll be making any trips north of the boarder soon.

In case this is an opinion that needs my full name. JOSEPH MICHAEL BRENNAN

That is what is so frustrating up here!
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. :mad:

Just let the thread die, all you are going to do is conjure up Mr. TDS again with all of his nonsense.

LOL. :D

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. :rolleyes:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1258956921907736576

Irv, you're right. The idea that all environmental events are 'one time' examples related entirely to the period where they occur, is nonsense. It's also ironic that some people feel that emergency changes in behavior must be made today for the good of future mankind, when the problems they describe are cyclical and future mankind will end up in the same boat regardless how their ancestors behave. Tthere are exceptions of course, but in general we just aren't as important as we might need to believe.

A hundred years from now such extremists will be gone, so future mankind has that going for them.

"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

Totally agree. Here's how I frame it, using stats everybody agrees with, and math so simple everyone can understand:

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.

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. :D

https://www.livescience.com/61716-su...l-warming.html

https://bgr.com/2020/05/18/solar-min...-sun-activity/

You start strong then devolve into misinformation with crooked framing.
Good start. The 2018 worldwide average CO2 level was 407.4 ppm.
Begin the descent. A total WAG number. What is the source of this? Do you realize that at the beginning of the industrial revolution (around the mid-1700s) the concentration was about 280 ppm. That’s an increase of 127 ppm over a 270 year period. How do you know that only 20 ppm of that 127 ppm increase was to due human activity?
Total nonsense. There are so many things wrong with that one statement, I don’t know where to begin. But I’ll try.

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.
More nonsense based on bad assumptions and bad math.
False argument. Show me one article that says reducing CO2 levels by 2.5 ppm would dramatically change the climate. We’ve seen an increase of 127 ppm over the last 270 years. The climate hasn’t changed “dramatically.” It is changing though.
Again, where to begin? Let’s go with an analogy.
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?

Irv, do you read the articles you link to? If so, what's your point?

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?

.

I'm sorry you have a hard time figuring things out, Mike. The purpose of those links was to show you something that is never talked about when it comes to climate change/global warming.
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/

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.

Was in Antarctica in late January and early February ( pics in last page of Around the World thread). I did see some green ice :)

Exactly! Zero to do with the climate/global warming and everything to do with global socialism.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22069768

You seem to be saying that since CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are so low, it can't be a problem. Yet, I showed you how a minuscule change in concentration can have drastic consequences. You blew that off because CO2 isn't a poison. It may not be a poison but it does help trap heat in the atmosphere. Therefore, any increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will result in more heat being trapped in the atmosphere. I'm sure even you won't deny that.

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.

More very bad math. If I understand what you're saying, you seem to be sticking with the 20 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. You're then taking that times a supposed 68.2% reductions in CO2 emissions and coming up with 13.64 ppm. Is that correct?

The Paris Climate Agreement's goal was limit CO2 emissions so that the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations would not cause a 2 degrees C temperature rise above the pre-industrial average temperature. The ultimate goal is to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C. The plan was to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide by 20%. Yep, 20%. Each country was to come up with their own goals. The US pledged (and has since withdrawn) to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions to 17% of 2005 emission levels by 2020. We further pledged to reduce GHG emissions to 26-28% of 2005 emissions by 2025. From what I read, the pledges came up short and scientists thought the reduced CO2 emissions would result in a 2.5 or 2.7 C (I forget which) increase in the average world wide temperature.

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.

No, it was in response to you saying "reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.” Tiny numbers do matter. And in regard to your love of CO2 and how good it is, you do realize that it can kill you, right? It might take a concentration of about 10%, but it can kill.

Go back and read an earlier post (I think around 49) where I address the highlighted myth.

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?

Exactly. Nothing to worry about.

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.

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

Yeah, I apologize. I have a hard time following illogical ramblings that have no point. My bad.

So, the links you posted to are about "something that is never talked about." If it's something never talked about, why are there sites you can link to discussing it? Furthermore, the links are downplaying what "real" scientists are talking about. Again, you claimed nobody is talking about these subjects. But apparently some "real" scientists are talking about it. And even though some "real" scientists are talking about it, you link to "alarmists" who are downplaying the "something." What is the point of anything you say or link to. That's right, there is no logical point. All you can do is call people who don't agree with you names.


So, if someone disagrees with you, they're "sheep." They're "incapable of thinking for themselves." And I guess, what, anyone who agrees with you is a genius and clearly able to think for their self? More pointless, juvenile name calling.

That last quote pretty much sums you up. There are countless sites that discuss your question. If you had the slightest bit of curiosity you could investigate it yourself. But you don't. You don't want to upset your bliss. Even though I know you won't look at it, here's one:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...ld-weather.htm

You sure it wasn't a large lime popsicle?

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"

Nothing like fear mongering on a non-related issue to deny climate change.

Good, clear thinking there guys!

And what makes you sure of this?

You sound like the great philosopher, Alfred E. Neuman, "What, me worry?"

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. :eek:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iubpN72D6AI

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

None. All my money is tied up in global socialism.:rolleyes:

So, presenting math and science to you to show that global warming is real means I'm a sheep who can't think for myself, I'm brainwashed, gut hooked, delusional, crazy. Scientists lie and have an agenda. But you, you know the "truth." By the proclamation of Irv, any scientist that doesn't believe in the "truth" of Irv isn't a real scientist but is a liar and is pushing a hidden agenda. So sayeth Irv! In order to not be brainwashed, delusional, crazy sheep, we must all blindly agree with the "truth" of Irv! So sayeth Irv!!

Baaaaa!!

Yes, especially when I asked you your own thoughts but instead of doing so, you provide me with a link to an alarmist website that has been proven over and over again to be nothing but a funded biased/fake climate news site. You would have been further ahead to post an article from the National Enquirer.

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!!.............:rolleyes:

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?

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.

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.

The following organizations all believe humans are causing adverse climate change. According to you, they are all "ridiculous" or pushing "a socialist agenda." Hmmm, interesting. American Foresters are potentially socialists. Who knew? Could you please go through the list and let us know which are simply ridiculous and which are dangerously pushing a socialist agenda?

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.

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.

'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.

You can try to change the subject all you want, but you and others have been arguing that climate change is a hoax/schtick/lie. That it's "ridiculous."

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.

Trying to change the subject again I see.

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. :rolleyes:

Don't forget, I'm just a sheep. Not a single original thought by me in this entire thread. When I refuted your bad math earlier I luckily found a website that had already refuted your post. Saved me from having to think for myself. :rolleyes: Also, I'm surprised that you would value my opinion over the opinion of people who actually work in the field of climate change. :rolleyes:

Since you didn't go back to post 49, let me post it again:

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?

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.

What irony indeed!

Oooh, I’m a Captain now!! Last time I was only a Mr. I’m moving up in the world!!!

Let’s examine this belief of yours, shall we? When did I enter this thread? Post 22 where I clearly addressed the movie which was the only subject the OP wrote about in the first post. The OP wanted everyone to see the movie. Someone with your name even responded to my post in Post 23. In Post 26 I again talked about the movie. Another belief shot to hell.

Then why did you and Dale start talking about the hoax of climate change?

When did this thread veer into a discussion of climate change? Post 4. “Biggest scam of the last fifty years.” Please note who wrote that. Is he a relative of yours? What made me think Post 4 was about climate change and not the movie? Post 8, “You got it, Cliff. I've never believed in Global Warming”. Please note who wrote that, the OP. When did climate change next come up? Post 10, ”a lifelong leftist who has bought into everything about climate change.” Oops, there’s your relative again. We have to wait all the way until Post 11 when we are regaled with this,” Start with a big lie that will get everyone, (or most) on board, with Global warming.” The OP again. As I said above, I didn’t enter the thread until Post 22, well after you and the OP were discussing climate change. Did I “spew” forth anything that claimed climate change is real in that post? No. I merely corrected you two who appeared to be saying the movie (the subject of the first post) said climate change is a hoax. After all, the subject of the thread was the movie and you two were acting like it was saying climate change is wrong. The movie does no such thing. In Post 26 I again talked about the movie. Did I defend or attack climate change in any posts up to this point? No. If I’m wrong, please point out where I said anything about climate change being real before Post 26. In Post 28 you didn’t admit you were claiming the movie denied climate change, but you did say, “It [the movie] has nothing to do with if global warming is real or not.” At that point I was ready to walk away. I even ignored Dale (the OP) in Post 30 where he directly asked me, “Do you not see, right from the get go from Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to everything in between to current day, has all been designed to gut hook, manipulate and fool you into believing Man Made Global warming?” I also ignored some other swipes at climate change after that. I jumped in (Post 50) to counter the myths that only certain impoverished Asian countries are causing the “waste islands” in the oceans (a misdirection of the main subject not started by me, but perpetuated by YOU in Post 37). I jumped in (Post 49) to counter the myth that scientists were claiming a global cool down in the 70s. Again, a misdirection not started by me. I even ignored your juvenile attempt to goad me back in to the thread in Post 61 with, “Just let the thread die, all you are going to do is conjure up Mr. TDS again with all of his nonsense.”

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!”?

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.

Here is Post 22, I don't see anything that addresses what the movie or the thread is about: greed, destruction, deceit.

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.

"For instance, someone could make a movie that says the planet is in grave danger and the best way to solve the problem is through population control and less material consumption. To bolster this talking point, they denigrate green energy by attacking the people behind green energy and showing waste associated with making green energy. They conveniently do not discuss the waste associated with the production of other forms of energy, the malfeasance of people behind the other forms of energy, and the fact that solar panels, for instance, will generate a net reduction in CO2 emissions versus non-renewable sources of energy. Nor do they claim that climate change is a hoax. They think it is a real and present danger."

If you don't see the text in bold as being about the movie, you're blind.

If you are "absolutely convinced" that this is to punish any single person, you are absolutely wrong. Climate change was an issue long before "The Orange Meanie" came along and will continue to be long after he's gone.

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!!