MMGW is a eugenics type farce. All for more gov power over peoples' lives
-
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.
-
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.
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.
Do I need to explain what adjectives are?
-
I believe Chris is right, we could have signed it. I know I've looked through lists that count engineers (and others even further from a climatologist).
And hell, Chris is just comp Sci
(right?)
-
-
-
that list did have some legitimate signees but they padded the living fuck out of the list with people who had no business commenting on climatology. I think there's some psychologists on that list if I remember this correctly. I mean just gtfo with this shit. I don't want the other side padding their shit either, I want an honest legitimate debate followed by more research rinse repeat....and I want it now. I'm tired of partisan discourse on this. It really makes me not stand my species. Like listening to this shit proves to me the human race as is has very little business on this planet.
-
but on the flip side, they are not all climate scientists, either.
check this out:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
-
but on the flip side, they are not all climate scientists, either.
check this out:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
but on the flip side, they are not all climate scientists, either.
check this out:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
what the hell is that? Look I get it not everyone's a master hand writer, but FFS if you're gonna put something like this out and want people to take it seriously you can't have the word physics scrawled on there like it was done by a 5 year old. Cause that's exactly what the next suspicion is, that somebody had a bunch of kids fill out these forms.
Ok second, beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments with increasing Co2? Doesn't o2 go down as Co2 goes up? What exactly is the animal kingdom, us included in that, supposed to do when o2 starts plummeting?
-
Meanwhile liberals want to deny mmgw non-believers their free speech rights.
Yes, when you disagree with them, you shouldn't have free speech rights.
But, if they disagree with you, well, you had damn well never deny them their
free speech rights, because it's in the Constitution - 1st Amendment.
And that is how most liberals roll. It's very much like a cult.
-
Cal pls tell me what we're all gonna do for oxygen as Co2 rises. I'm serious I'd like to know.
-
grow plants, stop the destruction of forests and prairies. Photosynthesis is your friend.
http://www.gardenguides.com/116130-highest-oxygen-producing-house-plants.html
-
-
So per your own links it says pollution is pretty much the major cause of the loss of o2 ratio. And the burning of fossil fuels is the worlds leading driver of air pollution. Have we come full circle now cal?
-
you've changed the subject again.
Air pollution <> mmgw
air pollution happens with volcanic eruptions, and
forest fires via lightning.
-
So like Chris said, him and I (and some other's here) could have signed that.
A few notes
1) 39 actual climatologists...
2) 3,000 in "Medicine"? Why would they matter?
3) 10k+ engineers. I love my homies, but the vast majority aren't suited to be experts on climate science
-
Including yourself.
By the way, were still decades away from total destruction? That's what they were saying decades ago.
:neutral_face: -
So per your own links it says pollution is pretty much the major cause of the loss of o2 ratio. And the burning of fossil fuels is the worlds leading driver of air pollution. Have we come full circle now cal?
So per your own links it says pollution is pretty much the major cause of the loss of o2 ratio. And the burning of fossil fuels is the worlds leading driver of air pollution. Have we come full circle now cal?
The amount of o2 isn't really an issue. CO2 rising is the bad thing, but it's rising by a few hundred parts per million, while oxygen makes up about 21% of the air we breath, over 200,000 parts per million.
We won't choke to death because of CO2 (at least not on a global level).
-
Including yourself.
By the way, were still decades away from total destruction? That's what they were saying decades ago.
Including yourself.
By the way, were still decades away from total destruction? That's what they were saying decades ago.
I wouldn't expect you to quote me as an expert on climate change. I am able to interpret what the vast majority of every qualified individual says though.
Also, who said there would be total destruction by now?
-
Including yourself.
By the way, were still decades away from total destruction? That's what they were saying decades ago.
I wouldn't expect you to quote me as an expert on climate change. I am able to interpret what the vast majority of every qualified individual says though.
Also, who said there would be total destruction by now?
I wouldn't expect you to quote me as an expert on climate change. I am able to interpret what the vast majority of every qualified individual says though.
Also, who said there would be total destruction by now?
These guys?
WSS
-
They're time tables may have been off, but what these guys were saying in the 80's about cold weather is coming to pass. They were routinely mocked by conservatives...."but it's global WARMING so how could it get colder gtfo of here and gimme an aerosol can so I can empty it for no particularly good reason".
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