MMGW is a eugenics type farce. All for more gov power over peoples' lives
-
-
Its that harp contraption in alaska thats responsible for this global change in weather patterns isnt it cal? Sneaky libs and their giant tesla coils
-
Interesting new attempt to discredit a virtual consensus of climatologists. It seems like they're just grasping at straws now.
-
need to learn how to use a dictionary.
there is NO mmgw consensus.
When there's a consensus, everyone agrees on something. If you're going to a movie with friends, you need to reach a consensus about which movie everyone wants to see.
Ever notice how people disagree about just about everything, from who's the best baseball player to how high taxes should be? Whenever there's disagreement, there's no consensus: consensus means everyone is on the same page. When you're talking about all the people in the world, it's hard to find a consensus on anything. There are just too many opinions. However, in a smaller group, reaching a consensus is possible.
-
All the people that matter agree something potentially very serious is going on. The degree ro which humans have contributed is really the only legitimate debate still going.
Howd you guys like that blast of polar ball sack freezing air last week? I was in west palm so i wouldnt know, just heard it was like 16 degrees here last week. Yeah i read back in the 80's that was gonna happen if we kept fucking with the jet stream. I remember conservative friends of mine mocking the idea by holding aerosal cans up in the air on full.
-
and btw this is pretty crass last gasp straw grasping hail mary to link GW and eugenics. It's about as intellectually low as it gets tbh. People in Europe get it, it doesn't matter your race, ethnicity or socio economic status..."everyone" is having less children. That's not eugenics. That's being responsible. If you know your land can't provide enough resources for the projected population rate a few decades out.....than asking people to have less children is simply the only option on the table. Unless they can grow crops on the moon here in like the next 10 years, our food chain is in a lot of trouble. It's already dilapidated beyond belief...
-
Consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Like, the consensus is that a backfield of Manziel and Trent Richardson won't get you very far, but Poetic G is still on that train.
-
Now you went and did it chris, Cal is gonna pull something trying to work through that one.
-
ah. It depends on a lot of things. This is SCIENCE. Kind of silly to have a global decision on
mmgw, when well over a thousand scientists disagree, yes? You want "majority rules" to mean
absolute scientific fact??? ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
Egalitarian: All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to present, and amend proposals.
They were NOT. Their studies have been hushed and banned, their grants revoked, pretty much blacklisted, excluded.
sound scientific to you? nope, not to me and others.
Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process.
Only those who agree with mmgw are allowed to be a part of the decision-making process with "mmgw".
sound completely bogus? yep. It IS bogus.
Participatory: The consensus process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers.[4]
Consent must be 'genuine and cannot be obtained by force, duress or fraud.'[8] The values of consensus are also not realized if "consent" is given because participants are frustrated with the process and wanting to move on.
There is a lot of liberal sentiment to legally harass "deniers". You liberals can claim "consensus" all you want, emotionally,
but the truth is, there is no consensus. It's a farce, by several elements of the description of "consensus".
"absolute FACT <> 51% majority in SCIENCE. No intelligent, honest human being can deny it.
-
A thousand? Still on that thousand dissenting scientists thing? Do you know what the requirement to sign that list was? It had nothing to do with actual climatology qualifications, I could have signed it, and woody, and legacy. Do you know how many scientists there are in the world that are so qualified? Hell, how many in just the US?
-
you and woody are not scientists. Look up the definition already.
There were plenty of actual science experts in the field of climatology, etc.
Admit it, Chris -
an absolute scientific fact has not anywhere near close, to 100% agreement,
and a LOT of reluctant agreement.
It's a questionable scientific theory that rejects all scientific evidence that doesn't fit.
Liberals just demand that it is true, because they have ownership of it, and it can
reap tremendous wealth and power for their liberal movement.
nah. It's bogus. May as well start a new political pseudo-science that the moon is made of cheese,
so redistribution of wealth and cheese to all the poor populations of earth.
Honestly, you could start up a petition to mine moon cheese and give it to all the hungry poor on earth,
and woody would be the first to cry and sign it....
-
Not scientists? Really? Because my name has Bachelor of Science and Master of Science after it. You can see the confusion.
To be honest, I'm tired of having this 'conversation' with you. You insist on keeping your head stuck in the sand, perpetuated by super right wing mouthpieces like the blaze and the rest, while failing to see *any* kind of reason why the big fossil fuel corporations would have any vested interest in holding back fossil fuel regulation, and throw money at their politicians to keep those regulations from coming in to force. You keep saying it's a politicised subject - well you're right, but not the way you think it is, as if the whole world is in on this scheme cooked up by US democrat nut jobs to just take money away from you and give it to everyone else.
Keep thinking what you're thinking. Keep thinking tobacco has no health implications. Keep thinking that lead is perfectly fine. Keep thinking we'll never run out of fossil fuels anyway and have to come up with alternatives in my lifetime, because you'll be dead and won't care.
-
crap. Just when we were doing fine, you go ultra-liberal apeshit pouty-pouty.
Lead - absolute scientific fact. Complete change of subject.
Fossil fuel companies.... this angry outburst is a complete change of subject.
Tobacco? Absolute scientific fact. Complete change of subject.
"Never run out..." Liberal pouty temper tantrum. Complete change of subject.
I thought I typed out "climate scientist". Woodypeckerhead claims to be an engineer.
You have a bach. and masters? I think a Masters Degree in Polymer Science isn't what we
are talking about, unless you think plastics are causing global warming.
I don't know what science is your specialty, Chris. If you had been a climate scientist,
I would have thought you would have said so by now. What DO you do?
Don't be getting all honked off in a liberal wingnut hissy fit on me - I just posted an article.
and, I showed you that you were wrong about claiming "scientific consensus". There is no
absolute fact that contradicts itself with thousands of scientists around the world.
The UN didn't take a vote of all scientists. And one UN official admitted that redistribution of wealth
cannot happen without acceptance of mmgw.
It's a farce of a "fact", Chris. The liberal cry of "we just have to DO something" rings hollow, when
it's a precursor to voting democratic, raising millions and billions off taxes and fees and fines
which will fund other ...stuff.
You liberals want to "DO" something? Fly around the world, go to the precious virgin rain forests of earth,
and stop the destruction of millions and millions of acres of them.
Odd, I never get tired of pointing out the truth about this.
-
Cal, god I hope you're still alive when that chicken comes home to roost...or however that old saying goes. Cause if we don't start making "minor" changes now....we're going to have a massive change in lifestyle in maybe just a decade or two.
-
ya..."sigh" and of course, we have to elect democrats so we can make those....
minor...changes.... like paying higher taxes, license fees, giant rates of electricity use,
fines for cows farting, suv driving, every motor, dark colored roofs, eating too many beans
in chili, going camping, camp fires, bonfires, wearing dark colored clothes, fireplaces,
but it's the destruction of the rain forests that gw activists don't give a crap about.
Because.... America doesn't have that problem and won't contribute $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
to the UN about it.
So, you DO something about this immediate gw crisis. Go save our rainforests.
Take Chris with you. Save us from gw. Go to the remote virgin rainforests, find out the
dirty virgin rainforest destructor army, KICK THEIR ASSES....and
STOP GW !!!!!!!!
-
save the rainforests? what are you some kind of liberal commie hippie now cal? The rainforests have been among the hipsters chief global causes now for decades.
-
I'm a tree hugger, but in a very conservative way. We have woods, so
I'm not worried about global warming.
-
ur little neck of the woods ain't gonna produce enough o2 for you though. Pretty soon we're gonna have to buy oxygen. When it gets to that point will you concede that capitalism, at least our version of it, should have been modified a bit?
-
ur little neck of the woods ain't gonna produce enough o2 for you though. Pretty soon we're gonna have to buy oxygen. When it gets to that point will you concede that capitalism, at least our version of it, should have been modified a bit?
ur little neck of the woods ain't gonna produce enough o2 for you though. Pretty soon we're gonna have to buy oxygen. When it gets to that point will you concede that capitalism, at least our version of it, should have been modified a bit?
What does capitalism have to do with it?
WSS
-
well, you are correct to a point - not only the destruction of millions and millions of acres
of virgin rainforest are being razed every year....
it's also the paving, construction of more and more fields and cleared woods.
When I was kid, we had miles of woods and farmland around us. Now, it's all developed.
No more woods. The farms all sold that were near us, housing allotments, etc, built there.
Beautiful, natural creeks are gone, where they've strip mined, reclaimed the land in one fashion or
another...
As a kid, I remember us driving throught the beautiful valley before it was all flooded to make Salt Fork
Lake. It's a big one.
All the land around us was sold to a developer - some huge one from Chicago years ago....
we would have had hundreds of houses all around us and our neighbors.
But, they wanted to increase the zoning to multi-family, etc, to reap a definate bonus profit.
A lot of us made speeches at this big meeting, and the zoning commission turned them down.
We did good. Then the company bailed on the purchase altogether. We won.
Woods, farmland, wetlands...would all have been paved and built over.
It's happening all over so much of the country. But that isn't capitalism. Socialist countries do it too.
All kinds of countries do the same thing. Plant life on our planet is being devasted.
The most dramatic destruction, though, is the virgin rainforests. Over time, surely, we will be sorry as
a human race. It has nothing to do with politics, except for the left, and the leftist UN.
The one big farmer, btw, was really po'd at all of us... he would have made at least a million
and a half bucks.
Alternate energy development is a wonderful idea. Trouble is, typical liberal knee jerk selfish responses
like "well, we have to make electricity prices skyrocket" (that's what Obamao said).... making
the elderly and poor go bankrupt.. and outlawing woodburning furnaces and fireplaces etc...
and charging big bucks for "carbon trading" (al gore and others invested heavily in this)...
if liberals are so up in arms over mmgw...why in the hell to they like carbon trading? The UN LOVES
carbon trading. That means that undeveloped countries can be paid money, so richer countries
can be allowed to run their factories, etc, and produce all the CO2 they already produce, as well as
even more of what is NOT produced by those poor countries ...
smell a rotten egg? Richer countries can "contribute to mmgw" all they want, as long as they
pay $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to poor countries......
nah. mmgw is a farce. CO2 is going up, true. Look at plant life, especially the rain forests.
Trouble is, there's no money to be accrued with that.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login