MMGW
-
Defeatist? I would say realist. Yes we can certainly punish ourselves in order to punish China and India. You suppose someone else might think to take advantage of that by purchasing all their stuff from them?
Not to mention that we're talking about guys like you and me and woody and everybody who flatly refuse to take any action until we are forced to by the Great and Powerful Obama.
But to the journey and the one step gag you are correct. Digging to the Center of the Earth begins with a tablespoon of dirt.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Why would anyone dig with a tablespoon?
Also, props to working "The great and powerful Obama" into your last few posts.
So you propose outlawing meet? Or at least forcing the prices so high that none but the richest Americans can afford it? And almost no one in the developing countries, correct?
Woooooh broseph, slow down. I don't think he said any of those things. I am not sure why a tax = making it not affordable.
Those people woody. Not you, I don't think you take anything seriously beyond calling people idiots.
Oh man, you got me....
-
Why would anyone dig with a tablespoon?
Also, props to working "The great and powerful Obama" into your last few posts.
So you propose outlawing meet? Or at least forcing the prices so high that none but the richest Americans can afford it? And almost no one in the developing countries, correct?
Woooooh broseph, slow down. I don't think he said any of those things. I am not sure why a tax = making it not affordable.
Those people woody. Not you, I don't think you take anything seriously beyond calling people idiots.
Oh man, you got me....
Why would anyone dig with a tablespoon?
It's a metaphor
Woooooh broseph, slow down. I don't think he said any of those things. I am not sure why a tax = making it not affordable.
He actually answered that question himself in the negative, so I think we can assume it was tongue in cheek.
-
Woodrow asked me who is bothering me about it. The president is one of those people and I think I explained why. Of course Woody is an........
WSS
-
Hahahah, my bad, he answered it literally the next line, lol. Yep yep yep, my bad.
I know it is a metaphor, but it is a dumb one. It should be a shovel full or something. Your first dig in wouldn't be a tablespoon
-
Woody must be exhausted by now, with his two sentence, half assed replies. Nappy time woody. Here's your bottle.
-
Woody must be exhausted by now, with his two sentence, half assed replies. Nappy time woody. Here's your bottle.
Woody must be exhausted by now, with his two sentence, half assed replies. Nappy time woody. Here's your bottle.
Oh my god! So much content! I can't handle it!
I would never be able to post something that on topic and well thought out!
-
Defeatist? I would say realist. Yes we can certainly punish ourselves in order to punish China and India. You suppose someone else might think to take advantage of that by purchasing all their stuff from them?
Not to mention that we're talking about guys like you and me and woody and everybody who flatly refuse to take any action until we are forced to by the Great and Powerful Obama.
But to the journey and the one step gag you are correct. Digging to the Center of the Earth begins with a tablespoon of dirt.
WSS
Defeatist? I would say realist. Yes we can certainly punish ourselves in order to punish China and India. You suppose someone else might think to take advantage of that by purchasing all their stuff from them?
Not to mention that we're talking about guys like you and me and woody and everybody who flatly refuse to take any action until we are forced to by the Great and Powerful Obama.
But to the journey and the one step gag you are correct. Digging to the Center of the Earth begins with a tablespoon of dirt.
WSS
Of course nothing's going to happen overnight, but we need to start somewhere, setting an example. Once the rest of the world is doing its part (in what, 20? 50? years?) then the pressure on the emerging nations to cut back on the emissions and the rest will be great, and we could start taking legal action via the UN. Perhaps a little heavy handed, but perhaps necessary.
-
I think it's very strange, how so many fall in line with the alleged concern over this theory..like certain posters...ahem... believe that mmgw is a
wonderful do gooder kind of thing, a valiant "save the planet" rally cry that they buy into so fully.
Meanwhile, it really has huge, underlying ulterior motives driving it. That's why the mmgw boogers
want do desperately to quelch any and all debate, discussion to the contrary of their theory.
Because the theory, and acceptance of it, is imperative to accomplish their economic ends. It was
never about reality of gw, or gc, fluctuations of global climate.
It is about transferring wealth from those countries who are wealthy, to poor countries...' rulers.
Extortion racket. Read on, Chris - do you see any poor countries asking wealthy nations
for millions of trees to plant to combat CO2? Nope. Do you see any countries with vast rainforests...
stopping the destruction of said rain forests to combat CO2? Nope. Their rainforests are being cut down
for MONEY. And they can't use tree seedlings for MONEY, so they do not care. Read up on it.
Seriously, Chris. I am now bothering you, because Steve said I am responsible for saving our planet
from nonsense......
*******************************
UN climate talks fall apart as 132 countries storm out | The Daily Callerdailycaller.com/.../epic-fail-un-climate-talks-fall-apart-as-132-countries-s...Nov 20, 2013 - Poor countries pulled out of the United Nations climate talks during a fight over transferring wealth from richer countries to fight global warming.Poor Countries Push Rich Nations To Do More On Climate Change ...www.npr.org › News › WorldNov 20, 2013 - Delegates to the U.N. climate change conference in Poland from many of the world's poorer nations are asking wealthier countries to pay ...Climate Change Alarm Is A U.N. Extortion Racket - Investors.comnews.investors.com › IBD EditorialsNov 21, 2013 - The global warming scare isn't about saving the planet. It's about transferring wealth from rich countries to poor countries and providing jobs ...Rich vs. poor: Divide deepens over who should pay for climate changewww.nbcnews.com/.../rich-vs-poor-divide-deepens-over-who-should-pa...Nov 20, 2013 - Delegates talk during a break in a plenary session at the 19th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ...U.N. climate change talks: it's really all about the moneycanadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59608Dec 2, 2013 - U.N. climate change talks: it's really all about the money, economy, finance, ... Delegates from developing countries, such as Ecuador's lead ... -
Defeatist? I would say realist. Yes we can certainly punish ourselves in order to punish China and India. You suppose someone else might think to take advantage of that by purchasing all their stuff from them?
Not to mention that we're talking about guys like you and me and woody and everybody who flatly refuse to take any action until we are forced to by the Great and Powerful Obama.
But to the journey and the one step gag you are correct. Digging to the Center of the Earth begins with a tablespoon of dirt.
WSS
Of course nothing's going to happen overnight, but we need to start somewhere, setting an example. Once the rest of the world is doing its part (in what, 20? 50? years?) then the pressure on the emerging nations to cut back on the emissions and the rest will be great, and we could start taking legal action via the UN. Perhaps a little heavy handed, but perhaps necessary.
You think we have 50 years? Well if so I'd say you are outside the range of predictions that I've seen posted by the guys who are really into this. Anyway I think we've already started. I do common sense things. I replace as many lite's as I can with LED. Recycle? Sure why not? But keep your eye on the population from 1900 to now and then look at the projection. If we are going to have twice as many people as we do now they will watch twice as many cars. If those cars are getting 30 miles to a gallon instead of 26 like they are now... Eating twice the meat drinking twice the water... Well do the math.Of course nothing's going to happen overnight, but we need to start somewhere, setting an example. Once the rest of the world is doing its part (in what, 20? 50? years?) then the pressure on the emerging nations to cut back on the emissions and the rest will be great, and we could start taking legal action via the UN. Perhaps a little heavy handed, but perhaps necessary.
PS you're a college grad or alumni right? When did you start to study and earnest for your finals? The day before? Like most of us... I remember learning my lines between my scenes! Haha
WSS
-
You think we have 50 years? Well if so I'd say you are outside the range of predictions that I've seen posted by the guys who are really into this. Anyway I think we've already started. I do common sense things. I replace as many lite's as I can with LED. Recycle? Sure why not? But keep your eye on the population from 1900 to now and then look at the projection. If we are going to have twice as many people as we do now they will watch twice as many cars. If those cars are getting 30 miles to a gallon instead of 26 like they are now... Eating twice the meat drinking twice the water... Well do the math.Of course nothing's going to happen overnight, but we need to start somewhere, setting an example. Once the rest of the world is doing its part (in what, 20? 50? years?) then the pressure on the emerging nations to cut back on the emissions and the rest will be great, and we could start taking legal action via the UN. Perhaps a little heavy handed, but perhaps necessary.
PS you're a college grad or alumni right? When did you start to study and earnest for your finals? The day before? Like most of us... I remember learning my lines between my scenes! Haha
WSS
You think we have 50 years? Well if so I'd say you are outside the range of predictions that I've seen posted by the guys who are really into this. Anyway I think we've already started. I do common sense things. I replace as many lite's as I can with LED. Recycle? Sure why not? But keep your eye on the population from 1900 to now and then look at the projection. If we are going to have twice as many people as we do now they will watch twice as many cars. If those cars are getting 30 miles to a gallon instead of 26 like they are now... Eating twice the meat drinking twice the water... Well do the math.
You are not even including into the countries that basically went from being nearly 3rd world countries 30-40 years ago to industrial powerhouses(india and china for example). Honestly until we find a legit way to replace fossil fuels such as oil in our most used transportation cars/trucks nothing is really going to change. People still need to move from point A to point B, and so does goods/merchandise.
-
I think it's very strange, how so many fall in line with the alleged concern over this theory..like certain posters...ahem... believe that mmgw is a
wonderful do gooder kind of thing, a valiant "save the planet" rally cry that they buy into so fully.
Meanwhile, it really has huge, underlying ulterior motives driving it. That's why the mmgw boogers
want do desperately to quelch any and all debate, discussion to the contrary of their theory.
Because the theory, and acceptance of it, is imperative to accomplish their economic ends. It was
never about reality of gw, or gc, fluctuations of global climate.
It is about transferring wealth from those countries who are wealthy, to poor countries...' rulers.
Extortion racket. Read on, Chris - do you see any poor countries asking wealthy nations
for millions of trees to plant to combat CO2? Nope. Do you see any countries with vast rainforests...
stopping the destruction of said rain forests to combat CO2? Nope. Their rainforests are being cut down
for MONEY. And they can't use tree seedlings for MONEY, so they do not care. Read up on it.
Seriously, Chris. I am now bothering you, because Steve said I am responsible for saving our planet
from nonsense......
*******************************
UN climate talks fall apart as 132 countries storm out | The Daily Callerdailycaller.com/.../epic-fail-un-climate-talks-fall-apart-as-132-countries-s...Nov 20, 2013 - Poor countries pulled out of the United Nations climate talks during a fight over transferring wealth from richer countries to fight global warming.Poor Countries Push Rich Nations To Do More On Climate Change ...www.npr.org › News › WorldNov 20, 2013 - Delegates to the U.N. climate change conference in Poland from many of the world's poorer nations are asking wealthier countries to pay ...Climate Change Alarm Is A U.N. Extortion Racket - Investors.comnews.investors.com › IBD EditorialsNov 21, 2013 - The global warming scare isn't about saving the planet. It's about transferring wealth from rich countries to poor countries and providing jobs ...Rich vs. poor: Divide deepens over who should pay for climate changewww.nbcnews.com/.../rich-vs-poor-divide-deepens-over-who-should-pa...Nov 20, 2013 - Delegates talk during a break in a plenary session at the 19th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ...U.N. climate change talks: it's really all about the moneycanadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59608Dec 2, 2013 - U.N. climate change talks: it's really all about the money, economy, finance, ... Delegates from developing countries, such as Ecuador's lead ...I think it's very strange, how so many fall in line with the alleged concern over this theory..like certain posters...ahem... believe that mmgw is a
wonderful do gooder kind of thing, a valiant "save the planet" rally cry that they buy into so fully.
Meanwhile, it really has huge, underlying ulterior motives driving it. That's why the mmgw boogers
want do desperately to quelch any and all debate, discussion to the contrary of their theory.
Because the theory, and acceptance of it, is imperative to accomplish their economic ends. It was
never about reality of gw, or gc, fluctuations of global climate.
It is about transferring wealth from those countries who are wealthy, to poor countries...' rulers.
Extortion racket. Read on, Chris - do you see any poor countries asking wealthy nations
for millions of trees to plant to combat CO2? Nope. Do you see any countries with vast rainforests...
stopping the destruction of said rain forests to combat CO2? Nope. Their rainforests are being cut down
for MONEY. And they can't use tree seedlings for MONEY, so they do not care. Read up on it.
Seriously, Chris. I am now bothering you, because Steve said I am responsible for saving our planet
from nonsense......
*******************************
Standard list of google results.I think it's strange that "certain posters...ahem..." continue to disregard the science without even attempting to disagree with its findings in any way, and instead talk about how it's all made up by politicians. I couldn't care less what politicians are saying about it, I'm interested in what the science says, and it says we're going to burn! That was a joke, btw. The science of it has been researched basically endlessly, by people far more qualified to do so than you or I, and conclusions drawn that the vast majority of scientists agree with.
I wouldn't doubt for a second that people are trying to manipulate findings for their own personal gain, because that's the nature of people. For example, if you're the head of a large coal company, you might want to deny that there's any problem with burning it - while on the other hand investing in research on clean energy because you want to corner that market first, but not lose income in the mean time. Is it possible that people are using it to scare people in to giving them money? Probably. But I don't care about that, like I say, I'm interested in the science, not the politics, and the science is there to back it up.
As to the articles about poor countries cutting down rainforests etc, it's myopic capitalism at its best. The best thing in the short term for that country is to cut down the trees, sell the wood, plan crops/build things to get more money. Are you suggesting that we should follow the lead of the developing countries when it comes to global science, rather than they should follow our lead? What was it you were saying about the minority ruling the majority?
You think we have 50 years? Well if so I'd say you are outside the range of predictions that I've seen posted by the guys who are really into this. Anyway I think we've already started. I do common sense things. I replace as many lite's as I can with LED. Recycle? Sure why not? But keep your eye on the population from 1900 to now and then look at the projection. If we are going to have twice as many people as we do now they will watch twice as many cars. If those cars are getting 30 miles to a gallon instead of 26 like they are now... Eating twice the meat drinking twice the water... Well do the math.
PS you're a college grad or alumni right? When did you start to study and earnest for your finals? The day before? Like most of us... I remember learning my lines between my scenes! Haha
WSS
The flipside of developing countries that are becoming more industrialised and modern, therefore emitting more greenhouse gases is that the population growth slows down and, as we've seen in some developed countries, even start to become negative. That being said, it is a very real concern, and not just in terms of emissions. There are all sorts of issues with how to feed everyone, where everyone will live etc.
I don't believe that in 100 years cars will be using any kind of fossil fuel for power, and hopefully we'll have some sort of reliable clean energy capable of providing base usage capacity; plus, you'd like to think that by then, we won't be denying any problems, and people will be much more receptive to using things like solar panels and the rest.
Yes, I have a joint degree in Maths and CompSci, and a masters in finance. Generally, I allowed a couple of days per exam, which I found was sufficient, because the exam format was highly predictable and the questions formulaic. And yeah, there was no small amount of cramming after a morning exam in time for the afternoon exam!
-
I most certainly agree about society's becoming less and less procreative as they progress. There will always be more cockroaches in the world then border collies. But the cockroaches still need to eat drink travel shit etc. And yes we will eventually find cleaner easier methods of powering things than fossil fuels. But I disagree that it's a reluctance to use solar panels and so forth. They are just costly and not very efficient so far. Someday they will be and someday everyone will have them. As I've mentioned before we could replace all of our lighting with LED but when you cut down the cost by 90 percent you cut down the available money to pay thousands of people by 90 percent. In this instance I somewhat agree with Obama when he said the technology was taking the place of human labor. It most certainly is.
But back to my long standing and probably insufferable opinion the deadly effects of global warming have been greatly exaggerated by those who tend to profit from attempts to curtail it.
If we could take a look through the crystal ball 100 years from now I think we'd be surprised that the earth is still here and that we are just powering whatever kind of shit we rely on by some other means. I also expect there to be an entirely new set of crises for everyone to hyperventalate over.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Chris,
The science is also there to disprove mmgw. Sun activity correlates to gw. The problem is, only the science
that expedites mmgw is allowed on the major stage.
Scientists with expert studies cannot get their work published, or acknowleged. It's blacklisted.
Why is that, if you really believe it's all objective science? Why the angry denial of the science that
shows other causes of warming...and cooling?
It is because the mmgw have that ulterior motive for harping mmgw. You can't get the mmgw wonks to
talk about the destruction of our world's rainforests. It's sick. Trees use CO2. So, what the hell?
If the mmgw scientists won't talk about the destruction of rainforests, but they continue to back
mmgw as a rich to poor nation wealth flow political environment, because that is where the gov
grants come from...
that is greed, self-interest all too often. Far too many scientists have insisted that their names be
taken off the mmgw-supporting rolls. It's all a bunch of nonsense, Chris. It's a theory, that the UN,
and gov's latched onto, to raise $$$$$$$$$$$, and justify further government control of pretty much
anything, and the resultant "justification" to control and TAX any activity.
But, "don't eat meat because cows fart and methane causes gw" ROF,LMAO !
-
-
Farmers fight cow farts to protect the climate | Environment | DW.DE ...
-
www.dw.de/farmers-fight-cow-farts-to-protect-the.../a-16702813
Mar 27, 2013 - When they belch and fart, they release methane, a powerful ... The UN has called for a tax on cattle emissions in order to reduce the ...
-
HowStuffWorks "Do cows pollute as much as cars?"
-
science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/methane-cow.htm
Cow flatulence produces the greenhouse gas methane, which is linked to ... 10 Wacky Forms of Alternative Energy · TreeHugger.com: Using Garlic to Fight Cow Farts ... In 2003, the government of New Zealand proposed a flatulence tax, which ...
Proposed Cow "Gas" Tax Angers Farmers - Huffington Post
-
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../proposed-cow-gas-tax-ange_n_148682.htm...
Dec 5, 2008 - Many call it a "cow tax" and say the EPA proposed it. .... not stop theircows from farting and belching. the proposed NAIS will hurt us enough if it ...
Agricultural emissions research levy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
-
I most certainly agree about society's becoming less and less procreative as they progress. There will always be more cockroaches in the world then border collies. But the cockroaches still need to eat drink travel shit etc. And yes we will eventually find cleaner easier methods of powering things than fossil fuels. But I disagree that it's a reluctance to use solar panels and so forth. They are just costly and not very efficient so far. Someday they will be and someday everyone will have them. As I've mentioned before we could replace all of our lighting with LED but when you cut down the cost by 90 percent you cut down the available money to pay thousands of people by 90 percent. In this instance I somewhat agree with Obama when he said the technology was taking the place of human labor. It most certainly is.
But back to my long standing and probably insufferable opinion the deadly effects of global warming have been greatly exaggerated by those who tend to profit from attempts to curtail it.
If we could take a look through the crystal ball 100 years from now I think we'd be surprised that the earth is still here and that we are just powering whatever kind of shit we rely on by some other means. I also expect there to be an entirely new set of crises for everyone to hyperventalate over.
WSS
I most certainly agree about society's becoming less and less procreative as they progress. There will always be more cockroaches in the world then border collies. But the cockroaches still need to eat drink travel shit etc. And yes we will eventually find cleaner easier methods of powering things than fossil fuels. But I disagree that it's a reluctance to use solar panels and so forth. They are just costly and not very efficient so far. Someday they will be and someday everyone will have them. As I've mentioned before we could replace all of our lighting with LED but when you cut down the cost by 90 percent you cut down the available money to pay thousands of people by 90 percent. In this instance I somewhat agree with Obama when he said the technology was taking the place of human labor. It most certainly is.
But back to my long standing and probably insufferable opinion the deadly effects of global warming have been greatly exaggerated by those who tend to profit from attempts to curtail it.
If we could take a look through the crystal ball 100 years from now I think we'd be surprised that the earth is still here and that we are just powering whatever kind of shit we rely on by some other means. I also expect there to be an entirely new set of crises for everyone to hyperventalate over.
WSS
The cash won't disappear from the economy, it'll just be spread out. It will mean some businesses going bust, for sure, which sucks for them, but it's a capitalist evolution - the most efficient wins. If you find a way to mass produce the LED lightbulbs and still be profitable, then you drive your competition out of business. It's happened with things like butchers, green grocers and the rest. You can see it with places like Walmart that are trying to sell everything they possibly can, to corner every market, and they will because they're big enough that they can make the appropriate economies of scale.
It will mean that cash is funnelled into other areas, dependent on what you want to spend your spare dough on - holidays, technology etc.
I'm inclined to agree that there are some sensationalists that will tell you that the oceans will boil, the planet will turn to dust - and there'll be people telling us it's God's will as well and that it's the rapture! - but there are effects we're seeing now, like the freak weather everywhere. Massive cold in north america, massive heatwave in Australia (up to almost 130F), it's already happening.
-
Got squirrels in your city? On your farm? Why, you need to pay a gw tax !
(so we can buy votes with it, and the UN can achieve it's goal to make
poor nations rich)
Rabbits fart, I suppose. Deer probably fart. Pigs, horses...chipmunks....
And yet, posters still valiantly say we have to stop CO2 from existing...
yeah. That should pretty much kill a lot of plants and trees on the earth....
that USE CO2 for food....
More and more, scientists are saying that it needs to stop, this mmgw movement.
Now, the very cold is being blamed for the future hotness. Up is down, down is up, left is right
and right is left, backwards is forewards and...
all in the name of liberal political correctness. But hold all the science that shows that
mmgw is only a theory. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$
I posted it, but it is gone because you know who deleted it....
-
Chris,
The science is also there to disprove mmgw. Sun activity correlates to gw. The problem is, only the science
that expedites mmgw is allowed on the major stage.
Scientists with expert studies cannot get their work published, or acknowleged. It's blacklisted.
Why is that, if you really believe it's all objective science? Why the angry denial of the science that
shows other causes of warming...and cooling?
It is because the mmgw have that ulterior motive for harping mmgw. You can't get the mmgw wonks to
talk about the destruction of our world's rainforests. It's sick. Trees use CO2. So, what the hell?
If the mmgw scientists won't talk about the destruction of rainforests, but they continue to back
mmgw as a rich to poor nation wealth flow political environment, because that is where the gov
grants come from...
that is greed, self-interest all too often. Far too many scientists have insisted that their names be
taken off the mmgw-supporting rolls. It's all a bunch of nonsense, Chris. It's a theory, that the UN,
and gov's latched onto, to raise $$$$$$$$$$$, and justify further government control of pretty much
anything, and the resultant "justification" to control and TAX any activity.
But, "don't eat meat because cows fart and methane causes gw" ROF,LMAO !
Chris,
The science is also there to disprove mmgw. Sun activity correlates to gw. The problem is, only the science
that expedites mmgw is allowed on the major stage.
Not in any meaningful way. The sun has been getting slightly warmer over the last 150 years, but if anything has been getting cooler over the last 35 years.
Scientists with expert studies cannot get their work published, or acknowleged. It's blacklisted.
Why is that, if you really believe it's all objective science? Why the angry denial of the science that
shows other causes of warming...and cooling?
Anyone can publish a paper - you mean it doesn't get picked up by mainstream news? That's not related.
It is because the mmgw have that ulterior motive for harping mmgw. You can't get the mmgw wonks to
talk about the destruction of our world's rainforests. It's sick. Trees use CO2. So, what the hell?
I agree, we need to stop the deforestation, and attempt to reverse it. Unfortunately, this isn't a money-making policy, and at a time like this, giving money away to other countries is almost a guaranteed vote loser. This upsets me too.
If the mmgw scientists won't talk about the destruction of rainforests, but they continue to back
mmgw as a rich to poor nation wealth flow political environment, because that is where the gov
grants come from...
that is greed, self-interest all too often. Far too many scientists have insisted that their names be
taken off the mmgw-supporting rolls. It's all a bunch of nonsense, Chris. It's a theory, that the UN,
and gov's latched onto, to raise $$$$$$$$$$$, and justify further government control of pretty much
anything, and the resultant "justification" to control and TAX any activity.
This is an interesting topic, and it's a bit of a hot button thing over here as well. I might start a slightly controversial topic on the matter. In america, cities have rules set by the state. The state has rules set by the country. Why shouldn't the country have rules set by the world? Just basic rules, probably, because there will always be issues that are specific to each area. But to that end, why bother having countries in the first place?
But, "don't eat meat because cows fart and methane causes gw" ROF,LMAO !
It contributes, in however small a way.
-
A scientific theory. An important distinction.
Who on here has said we need to "stop CO2 from existing"?
What proof do you have of this conspiracy to shut down any views conflicting from the vast majority?
Also, it is climate change. Cold weather disproves nothing
-
Got squirrels in your city? On your farm? Why, you need to pay a gw tax !
(so we can buy votes with it, and the UN can achieve it's goal to make
poor nations rich)
Rabbits fart, I suppose. Deer probably fart. Pigs, horses...chipmunks....
And yet, posters still valiantly say we have to stop CO2 from existing...
yeah. That should pretty much kill a lot of plants and trees on the earth....
that USE CO2 for food....
More and more, scientists are saying that it needs to stop, this mmgw movement.
Now, the very cold is being blamed for the future hotness. Up is down, down is up, left is right
and right is left, backwards is forewards and...
all in the name of liberal political correctness. But hold all the science that shows that
mmgw is only a theory. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$
I posted it, but it is gone because you know who deleted it....
Got squirrels in your city? On your farm? Why, you need to pay a gw tax !
Uhhhh...
(so we can buy votes with it, and the UN can achieve it's goal to make
poor nations rich)
Generic politics blaming...
Rabbits fart, I suppose. Deer probably fart. Pigs, horses...chipmunks....
Uhhhh...
And yet, posters still valiantly say we have to stop CO2 from existing...
Nope, nobody's saying that.
yeah. That should pretty much kill a lot of plants and trees on the earth....
that USE CO2 for food....
*sigh* More doesn't mean better. We'll never stop CO2 from existing, it's a naturally occurring substance. We just need to rein in how much of it we're emitting.
More and more, scientists are saying that it needs to stop, this mmgw movement.
Back to your petition?
Now, the very cold is being blamed for the future hotness.
Do you even read what's written? You're a developer, I assume you must have some understanding of statistics. Basically, the distribution of temperatures is getting wider - volatility is increasing - while the average temperature rises gradually. Maybe you didn't notice the comment about it being ridiculously hot in Australia at the moment? Or Argentina? It's understandable to connect 'global warming' with 'it must be getting hotter everywhere' but that's just not how it works.
Up is down, down is up, left is right
and right is left, backwards is forewards and...
Uhhhh...
all in the name of liberal political correctness. But hold all the science that shows that
mmgw is only a theory. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$
Uhhhh...
I posted it, but it is gone because you know who deleted it....
Well it certainly wasn't me.
Right, I'm off, finished at work. I'll be back in the morning for round 137 of "the science is real" versus "it's all made up by politicians"
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