Page #7
Pages: #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 ...#26|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
I am not the only 1 that is potentially manipulated. YOU ARe MUCH MORE susceptible than I am.
only registered users can see external links
It's about the same guy!
His statements about wildfires doesn't refute climate change.
only registered users can see external links
Their article explains how the science of Patrick Brown got over-hyped and that his findings did "found, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that climate change has in fact increased wildfire risk in the recent past and will increase it even more in the near future. The paper is well-reasoned, not obviously overhyped, and peer-reviewed. It echoes many other recent studies with similar findings. Brown even stands by it." Note that the science isn't overhyping anything, but the article writing about it did overhype his science. It doesn't say what they say it says. That's why you should read the articles itself and not trust anyone's opinion on them.
Here is what Patrick Brown says about it himself (the most trustworthy sourse):
only registered users can see external links
Other source provide another answer to the narrative that climate scientists are manipulating their data.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
So, you've got one scientist, that refutes himself what was said about him.
I've got him and every other scientist on my side. I've told you before that secondary climate change effects are harder to substantiate. That's because other factors are obviously acting upon them. Wildfires are indeed dependent on preventative measures and stupid people who set fire to forests unfortunately exist. Those are factors in research like Brown's, looking further in the chain of causality
(CO2 increase -> temperature increase -> droughts -> wildfires).
Here is Patrick Brown explaining his research.
only registered users can see external links
Starting from 9:00, he explains that wildfires are multi-causal events and everything he explains afterwards is completely consistent with the claims of climate change,
that all other serious climate scientists support.
That was you being susceptible to the lying media. They claimed something
that you liked, but it turned out that they were twisting a science article to claim
something it doesn't claim, and that scientist himself is refuting them.
So tell me,why is it, that it is perfectly ok for wealthy democrats to out to the desert and BURN all kinds of stuff in a towering inferno leave their literal SHIT in the desert, but then, want cow farts caught in jars to save the environment?
is hypocrisy a good word to use for this?
Get some information from honest sources sometimes.
It's corporate media. Have I ever told you to trust corporate media?
I always clearly state that you can trust the liberal corporate media about 50%
of the time and be sure that right-wing corporate media lie at least 90% of the time.
Also, MSN is just reposting 'news' from other sources.
This was a Daily Mail article, which is clearly right-wing biased media.
Now, that doesn’t mean the average global temperature won’t stagnate or even drop for several years. But when the data collected is observed over the lengths of decades, it will still be warming over all.
It’s just like stocks. The average of good stocks just don’t rise and rise and rise. The drop at times and recover.
So, as the species that has contributed to the accelerationnof the natural warming trend the Earth is already undergoing, we owe it to ourselves to always look into and develop ways to reduce our impact.
No matter what our best efforts result in, and no matter if everything we’ve built could disappear in a split second, the Earths climate will continue to grow warmer on average.
Even if we make an impact after spending trillions of dollars to achieve a small dent in the problem, a super-volcanic eruption or a space-borne impactor strike would efase our efforts like they weren’t even there.
But don’t ever expect me to buy an electric vehicle. I’d rather walk. And I’ll be 63 in a few weeks.
Were you there?
No, scientists told you. So, how do you decide when to accept science and when not?
What data and models did you use to convince yourself that they are wrong?
Or have you just decided that they must be wrong, because you don't like it?
Your data has no more credibility than scientific data that does NOT support the climate narrative
Check the link
Are YOU sure you are getting the WHOLE truth?
only registered users can see external links
But, of course you believe an article with just another anecdote,
that is not refuting any of the facts. How does this convince you?
Just blame it on 'poor fire management' and not the heat records
that get broken every single year. Hear is some of that 'data':
only registered users can see external links
Clear enough? If not, why not?
To manage that Canadian forest, they need every single Canadian.
About 10 hectares per man, woman and child, sounds manageable, right?
A bit difficult for the parts that are 100 miles away from civilization though.
You see the whole world baking, burning and drowning and you believe them saying "Don't believe your lying eyes!".
How many 'natural' disasters do you need to see, before you start to understand?
Just as you imply we can fix the climate with a tax and a bicycle, I am implying the people can manage their resources like the forest and not LOOSE them totally..
California is a good example of lost woodlands due to greenie weenie Sierra club types not wanting to cut a tree limb.
The cause of that is of course not natural, but of human origin.
That's why I put it between quotation marks, as you surely noticed.
But you didn't answer the question, how many record heatwaves, droughts, floods, mudslides and wildfires does it take, for you to recognize that it isn't caused by just natural processes anymore?
only registered users can see external links
Sure, a house on the coast can get blown apart by a hurricane and it will be under water in 50-100 years. No one says that the sea level will rise that high in 10 years.
If you actually READ what science is claiming, you would know that.
only registered users can see external links
It's around the year 2100 that the sea level will start to become a problem, for them.
However for countries like mine, The Netherlands, which is mostly under sea level,
it demands costly investments in strengthening coastal protection, already today.
Meanwhile, the coast is a nice place to be, when it's fucking 120 °F outside.
The wealthy can buy 100 or 1000 of those houses. They don't have to care about
where they buy one of them, to live there in the summer, unlike YOU.
And if the house survives, they can always sell that house again, to some Texan,
fleeing Texas heat, who doesn't believe in climate change.
They cannot take their wealth with them in the grave, just like you.
But unlike you, they can waste money, to live where they want, when they want.
And because it doesn't affect them, the wealthy who make their money from oil,
are spreading lies for you, that their business doesn't affect YOU.
A cheap solution to pollution? for starters, find a fuel that burns that won't make holes in the atmosphere over florida and anywhere else rockets are launched.
A country like Norway just invests into renewable energy PUBLICLY, resulting in government control over abundant cheap green energy, which they can sell to the rest of Europe. This already gives them a massive return on investment. The question is; does that require taxing their people to bankruptcy? In Norway, the average single worker faced a net average tax rate of 27.3% in 2022. The US average tax rate is 30.5%. Guess not!
Norway also increased the national debt, to pay for these investments, but they still kept it under 40% of GDP (less than a third the debt/GDP of the USA). They had a very low debt, because Norway didn't just give away their oil resources to oil companies, to enrich their owners. They kept it under public ownership, providing state income and a massive pension investment fund, worth $ 1444 billion, for its people. Now the massive green energy infrastructure is paying off their debt again and providing lots of jobs. They are the 7th richest country in the world, while producing 98% of its electricity from renewables.
A fuel that burns cleanly is natural gas. It doesn't make holes in the atmosphere, but it keeps adding carbon dioxide to the climate change problem. In the US, now 95% of the natural gas production requires fracking. That requires lots of acidic chemicals and those are polluting lots of your water sources. For example, together with their lead pipes, which get corroded from that acid, that caused the Flint Michigan water crisis, which I hope you heard about.
are absolutely your worst choice.
--------------------------------------- added after 11 hours
Read the story of Flint and tell me where the Democrats are involved.
They mostly blame Republican Governor Rick Snyder and his administration for this.
only registered users can see external links
If you don't want to pay taxes, or only use it for the military, than the government doesn't have money to replace lead water pipes, which are ancient history in my country. The whole world used lead pipes, but modern countries spend money to replace old plumbing (plumbum is latin for lead).
If you deregulate and cut funding to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), than they cannot enforcer the local governments to invest in the infrastructure and other things you need for safe drinking water.
Did you agree with the Democrats' Infrastructure bill? No, you didn't.
You are angry for the government not doing their jobs, but you are also angry about the government requiring money for that.
Now you found one area with one problem, caused by a Republican, but you disregard the problems being caused all over America, by Republican priorities of low taxes, cutting spending, deregulation and privatization of public utilities.
Why would the left want to scare you?
I wouldn't want to spend money on solar panels and wind turbines, if there was
no problem. It will be very expensive for me to electrify my home and my car.
I would prefer to spend my money on fun things, but I choose to spend it on this
very important thing. And I accept higher taxes for that same important thing.
What 'socialist' purpose would be served, by doing that?
I want free education, free healthcare, a living wage, affordable housing, affordable food, a fulfilling work-life balance and lots of other stuff that improves people's lives.
None of these goals are served, by inventing some problem and then spending money on solving that fictional problem, instead of spending that money on serving my goals.
So why?
Like I've said, "ostrich"
I do believe I was stating my opinon Ananas2xLekker. I need no government or corporation to think for me unlike you.
We don't see libtards doing illegal shit, we see Trump break the law daily,
ten times before breakfast, and then we see Republicans coping, by denial,
conspiracy theories and weak whataboutisms, which fall flat every time.
There was a real Republican conspiracy to steal the election that Biden won,
and finally the law is catching up to them. All those traitors should go to prison
for a long long time.
Every single idea in your head originates from right-wing pundits, who's only job
is to lie to you, so you'll keep voting in favor of corporate interests.
only registered users can see external links
Climate change happened ALONG time ago.
This is no longer a crackpot idea brought forth in the last half of the twentieth century. Now there concrete proof that the climate is changing at a rate not seen before. Why question it?
A couple friends came by yesterday and we were discussing this subject and they compared the climate change thing being pushed by kerry,biden and others to be like Y2K. Remember that scam. The government and private industry had the whole country scared to death the world was going just implode at midnight december 31. I was pumping gas in my car at 12:04 january 1st 2000. Very little if anything happened.
That is part of the reason why alot of us don't follow this climate thing.we simply don't trust the government or the folks pushing this narrative.
same type people pushing it.
Remember a short time ago if you were antivax you were the lowest of the low? Well now it is slowly coming out that the "vaccine" was bad ,just as we thought it was
BTW. Y2K was brought to the world's attention by the banking and investment industry as every date notation like 01/01/00 (January 1, 2000) would, perhaps, shut down the system. Now we use four digits for the year. I remember the government said, at the time, that everything would work out. Of course, people didn't believe the government. Hmmm, reminds me of someone.
What would you expect to see, if climate change was man-made?
Do you accept that humans have almost caused the extinction of the white rhinoceros?
Why? Have no species gone extinct ever before?
Is no fire ever arson, because fires can happen 'naturally'?
Live and live well and by the time the end comes, it will be some dumb sumbitch with a nuke.
Kinda like when I got hit by a truck It didn't matter if I had been eating well and jogging 3 miles a day or not ,I still got hit by a fucking truck. The climate is going to change, the earth is going to explode .And you still aint told me if the ice age will be before or after the warming?
I remember the global cooling thing when i was in school.
Then after college it became global warming.
Now it is climate change.
They use that term because Regardless of what happens, it is changing! So they pegged it!
I think you should get out of your house more often.
Oh, I am sure you forgot about that fairy tale
New Comment Go to top