Idiotic Environmental Predictions

[Lord of Planar]

The level of intellect seems to be declining rapidly..... with these climate change deniers.....

I would claim the reverse. Those who listen to the median without understanding these sciences seem to have the declining intelligence. Especially they have to resort to name-calling over facts. calling someone a "denier" is purposely name-calling. Calling a proper skeptic, a denier, is no different than calling someone a faggot, nazi, etc.

maybe some of them need to get flooded out, or things dry out and wild fire rages and wipe them out, or Lake Mead goes completely dry....

Why are people so quick to blame this on climate change? There are normal cyclical factors that are the major variables for floods and droughts. I find most the people who suddenly follow the narrative that "climate change" is being primarily cause by us, are ignorant to reality.

Also. Have you noticed the homogenization of AGW and climate change? This is to fool people. Scientific topics should remain more specific.

Its seems to take something to impact them at the level of full devastation before they wake up.

Why do you believe this as fact?

Then they will be asking, why no one warned them before.... (that's seem to be what at play here).

Do you have a crystal ball? How do you know this?

Maybe if they close their garage door, start the car and take a nap with the car windows down, they might figure out what is being discussed about climate change.

What year of a car?

 

[watsup]

What about the economy of making USA products too expensive, buying from China who doesn't care about the CO2 issue, and destroy our economy in the process by losing more jobs?

The idea that CO2 is a problem will only be solved if other large nations play along.

You’ve said this time and again, Just another denier talking point.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It’s common usage. Why are you now trolling and baiting me?

Using the "n word" use to be common usage too. You know there are those of us who take great offense to being called a denier. Common usage or not, it is offensive.

 

[watsup]

Using the "n word" use to be common usage too. You know there are those of us who take great offense to being called a denier. Common usage or not, it is offensive.

See may answer in the Basement. I do not intend to get into a tiff with you here as I have been told not to.

 

[watsup]

Is it you intent to constantly piss people off?

You really are infuriating with calling us "deniers." It is a derogatory. Why you do is no worse than using the "N-word," call people Nazi's, etc. Would you please stop?

See post #829.

 

[watsup]

7

I would rather spend tax money on larger problems. If you want to spend money on greenhouse gas reduction, then start a non-profit with like minded people. Gather donations, and take care of it without getting into my wallet.

Also, I don't consider an investment. An investment is meant to return money of materials.

It is arguably the primary existential pollution problem in the world today and deserves the appropriate response from the nations of the world.

 

[Lord of Planar]

7


It is arguably the primary existential pollution problem in the world today and deserves the appropriate response from the nations of the world.

Then focus on the world. First world nations have made great strides in pollution reduction, and it makes little sense to spend money now, on technology that will be better in the future, when it will make an insignificant difference until the rest of the world joins in.

 

[watsup]

Then focus on the world. First world nations have made great strides in pollution reduction, and it makes little sense to spend money now, on technology that will be better in the future, when it will make an insignificant difference until the rest of the world joins in.

That makes no sense. Don’t do anything because others might not do anything? That’s of the “two wrongs don’t make a right” category. Plus are you saying thst the United States should not be a LEADER to the rest of the world. Sorry, but i disagree.

 

[Lord of Planar]

See may answer in the Basement. I do not intend to get into a tiff with you here as I have been told not to.

How about an attempt to stop offending other here please? You are bringing the offending words here. I tell people that I reserve the right to retaliate in-kind. When I offend you, its because you continually offend me.

Now, that said...

What do you have to add tho the purpose of this thread?

 

[Lord of Planar]

That makes no sense. Don’t do anything because others might not do anything? That’s of the “two wrongs don’t make a right” category. Plus are you saying thst the United States should not be a LEADER to the rest of the world. Sorry, but i disagree.

What more can we achieve? We have been reducing pollution here. It gets exceedingly more expensive to to make insignificant changes. We have tackled the greater problems already. If you are truly worried about greenhouse gasses, then you would agree we should focus on the bigger problems, as they are cheaper to address per ton of CO2 than trimming the USA CO2 output a little more.

 

[RealityNow]

I would claim the reverse. Those who listen to the median without understanding these sciences seem to have the declining intelligence. Especially they have to resort to name-calling over facts. calling someone a "denier" is purposely name-calling. Calling a proper skeptic, a denier, is no different than calling someone a faggot, nazi, etc.


Why are people so quick to blame this on climate change? There are normal cyclical factors that are the major variables for floods and droughts. I find most the people who suddenly follow the narrative that "climate change" is being primarily cause by us, are ignorant to reality.

Also. Have you noticed the homogenization of AGW and climate change? This is to fool people. Scientific topics should remain more specific.


Why do you believe this as fact?


Do you have a crystal ball? How do you know this?


What year of a car?

you are certainly in your right to have your thoughts...

You trying to make abstract association as if that validates your comment against acknowledgment of "denier's" ... if that makes you feel better, then good for you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

you are certainly in your right to have your thoughts...

You trying to make abstract association as if that validates your comment against acknowledgment of "denier's" ... if that makes you feel better, then good for you.

Does anyone like being labeled in manners that are derogatory?

Think about why you use the term.

Now do you agree or disagree precipitation is cyclical?

Yes, flooding gets worse, because we have constricted the natural flow of rivers and streams.

Yes, droughts get worse, because we have more people using the same supply of water.

In the end though, these last decades of the pundits claiming AGW is the cause of the droughts and flooding, we have remained within the normal highs and lows of the cyclical precipitation patterns.

 

[Nickyjo]

Why can I not find any exposure of the big lie on climate change in Science or Scientific Anerican magazines? Why do all the other conservative parties in the developed world accept the science, the exception being part of the GOP? Why don't skeptics get themselves to Glasgow next fall and organize people to demonstrate against all this foolishness?

My suspicion is that you got nothin'.

 

[watsup]

How about an attempt to stop offending other here please? You are bringing the offending words here. I tell people that I reserve the right to retaliate in-kind. When I offend you, its because you continually offend me.

Now, that said...

What do you have to add tho the purpose of this thread?

See post #829.

 

[watsup]

What more can we achieve? We have been reducing pollution here. It gets exceedingly more expensive to to make insignificant changes. We have tackled the greater problems already. If you are truly worried about greenhouse gasses, then you would agree we should focus on the bigger problems, as they are cheaper to address per ton of CO2 than trimming the USA CO2 output a little more.

See post #833.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why can I not find any exposure of the big lie on climate change in Science or Scientific Anerican magazines? Why do all the other conservative parties in the developed world accept the science, the exception being part of the GOP? Why don't skeptics get themselves to Glasgow next fall and organize people to demonstrate against all this foolishness?

My suspicion is that you got nothin'.

I have a subscription to Science. Also some Nature publications. The papers within them do not push the narrative. Pundits lie about what the papers say.

 

[Lord of Planar]

See post #829.

OK. Nothing to add to the purpose of the thread.

Goodbye.

 

[watsup]

I have a subscription to Science. Also some Nature publications. The papers within them do not push the narrative. Pundits lie about what the papers say.

That is simply not true. I have repeatedly shown you articles in Science magazine that shows their full support of the AGW narrative. Hiding your head in the sand in that regard only undermines what little credibility you have left.

 

[watsup]

OK. Nothing to add to the purpose of the thread.

Goodbye.

I hope you mean that goodbye!

 

[Threegoofs]

How about an attempt to stop offending other here please? You are bringing the offending words here. I tell people that I reserve the right to retaliate in-kind. When I offend you, its because you continually offend me.

Now, that said...

What do you have to add tho the purpose of this thread?

What a whiner!

You’re a denier.

Does the IPCC represent the mainstream scientific position on the topic of AGW?

your answer proves you’re a denier.

 

[Threegoofs]

I have a subscription to Science. Also some Nature publications. The papers within them do not push the narrative. Pundits lie about what the papers say.

My employer pays a boatload of money to ensure I have access for free.

‘Science’ mag is the mouthpiece of the AAAS. They’re quite clear on what the papers say…. AGW is a massive problem that needs to be adddressed.

 

[Hafnium1979]

I am sorry you do not understand the real problem!

I actually probably understand the energy resource bit quite a bit more than you do.

 

[longview]

I actually probably understand the energy resource bit quite a bit more than you do.

Your answers do not indicate that!
People do not like the truth, but humans effectively eat oil! Without the benefit of high density energy storage found in products made from oil, half of the people alive today, would not be alive next year.
A sustainable future must include a solution with equal or better capability than fuel products made from oil!

 

[Hafnium1979]

Your answers do not indicate that!

I see you have forgotten our conversation about seismic data and oil exploration.

 

[longview]

I see you have forgotten our conversation about seismic data and oil exploration.

Not at all, those were not related to energy resources!