More Climate BS...

#826
#826
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orangeburst
#829
#829
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, McDad and Orangeburst
#832
#832
WBO said:
The point is that scientific (oh, there's that word you guys hate so much) research shows that temperature changes have never occurred this rapidly.

So yes, the climate fluctuates, but it has never been this quick, in this magnitude.
Click to expand...

Can you provide us any study that shows this?

Or are you willing to admit you were wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, UT_Dutchman, marcusluvsvols and 1 other person
#834
#834
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and AM64
#836
#836
LouderVol said:
how the heck are they going to be able to force anyone into 2/3 of their sales being a specific thing? Even if the automaker produced that ratio, and kept their total number the same, there is no way it would remain 2/3 of their actual sales.
Click to expand...


Then of course there is the HUGE PROBLEM that none of these shrub hugging morons want to discuss that the electrical GRID is not ready to support even a quarter of US cars being electric!!!

We will need what maybe 2 DOZEN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS built to support just all US passenger cars being electric....and on average ot has taken more than 20 _YEARS to just get 1 nuclear power station approved, built, and on-line. Everyone always protests and says "not in my backyard" despite nuclear having the safest history and by far the least pollution. Electric cars charged by coal plants will produce more pollution than regular cars burning dino juice. Screw these clowns. They know this is a terrible and impossible plan
 
  • Like
Reactions: HammondB3Vol, InVOLuntary, SlipKidVol and 1 other person
#838
#838
hog88 said:
Excuse me for being skeptical of the science that shows something has never happened in over 4 billion years.
Click to expand...

OK Hog, do the literal thing. Obviously there was a lot more temperature change after the earth was formed and it cooled. But look at the NASA article I listed.

I should have used the phrase "in recorded history."
 
#839
#839
marcusluvsvols said:
Then of course there is the HUGE PROBLEM that none of these shrub hugging morons want to discuss that the electrical GRID is not ready to support even a quarter of US cars being electric!!!

We will need what maybe 2 DOZEN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS built to support just all US passenger cars being electric....and on average ot has taken more than 20 _YEARS to just get 1 nuclear power station approved, built, and on-line. Everyone always protests and says "not in my backyard" despite nuclear having the safest history and by far the least pollution. Electric cars charged by coal plants will produce more pollution than regular cars burning dino juice. Screw these clowns. They know this is a terrible and impossible plan
Click to expand...

Biggly money going towards grid improvement from last year's budget.

Agreed, got to have more nuke plants. Interesting new concept being funded by Gates. Small reactors, about what you have on a nuke powered ship. Doesn't require the large containment facility and they are negotiating legislation for an accelerated group approval to expedite. Their biggest advantage is 70 years of US Navy using nuke reactors and not a single reactor accident.

Not even radiation from where the wreckage of the Scorpion is located.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh
#840
#840
WBO said:
OK Hog, do the literal thing. Obviously there was a lot more temperature change after the earth was formed and it cooled. But look at the NASA article I listed.

I should have used the phrase "in recorded history."
Click to expand...

I looked at the NASA article. Unless I'm reading the charts wrong in the first one it goes back 800,000 years and shows some pretty steep temperature spikes about every 200,000 years (give or take). The second chart goes back 2000 years and is being used to show an unprecedented spike in temperature, the two charts contradict each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, InVOLuntary, AM64 and 1 other person
#841
#841
WBO said:
Several studies. Here's a couple of places to start where you will see the analysis:

Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC — IPCC

Global Warming
Click to expand...

Your first link disagrees with you and does not claim this is the fastest we’ve seen but rather the fastest we’ve seen in a long time. Your second link agrees with you but is over a decade old. Published prior to this research I’ve linked an article to below(which is why I assume your more recent link disagrees with you).

The issue is you’re comparing changes over thousands of years to changes over decades and then falsely assuming the same rate will occur over future decades. It would be like measuring your weight in the morning, realizing you’ve lost 2-3 LBs since you went to bed and predicting you’d be back to your birth weight in the next few months. Or saying “this is a rate of 1095lbs a year and it’s unsustainable”.

For example there was no statistically measurable climate change over the roughly 1.5 decade period from 98-2012. Other studies have found some level of increase over that time frame but much smaller than over previous periods such as the 50s, 60s, etc.

Researchers show that global warming happened just as fast in the past as today
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, AM64 and hog88
#842
#842
hog88 said:
I looked at the NASA article. Unless I'm reading the charts wrong in the first one it goes back 800,000 years and shows some pretty steep temperature spikes about every 200,000 years (give or take). The second chart goes back 2000 years and is being used to show an unprecedented spike in temperature, the two charts contradict each other.
Click to expand...
2,000 years? That’s a blink of an eye in the Earth’s 4B year run…
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, InVOLuntary, AM64 and 2 others
#844
#844
WBO said:
OK Hog, do the literal thing. Obviously there was a lot more temperature change after the earth was formed and it cooled. But look at the NASA article I listed.

I should have used the phrase "in recorded history."
Click to expand...
Let’s look at 0.00005% of the sample set to draw our “scientific” conclusions?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, GroverCleveland, InVOLuntary and 3 others
#847
#847
hog88 said:
I looked at the NASA article. Unless I'm reading the charts wrong in the first one it goes back 800,000 years and shows some pretty steep temperature spikes about every 200,000 years (give or take). The second chart goes back 2000 years and is being used to show an unprecedented spike in temperature, the two charts contradict each other.
Click to expand...

The scales are so radically different that you can't really compare them, but they definitely don't show what the econuts want them to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh, GroverCleveland and InVOLuntary
#848
#848
VolStrom said:
If CO2 is the problem that every liberal nut job says it is, why do they never propose green ideas to reduce it like, plant more trees.
Click to expand...
They have. Many many programs such as what you just mentioned. And conservatives too. Even China.

However the ocean is the biggest carbon absorber.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst, GroverCleveland and EasternVol
#849
#849
VolStrom said:
If CO2 is the problem that every liberal nut job says it is, why do they never propose green ideas to reduce it like, plant more trees.
Click to expand...

One of several hindrances, found even in Republican states, is a preference for pavement and building new bu$ine$$ districts. So they enact ever more tree ordinances and HOA restrictions that discourage tree planting. Some make sense. too many don't. My personal theory is they just is, as usual, it's all about money. I live in a rural area, in a state run by Repubs, They cut down, or hack job trim your trees without permission. But won't do the same to large property owners whose trees lean against your fence, and branches force you kiss your mower's steering wheel to cut your grass. The problem isn't strictly in lib camps as too many want to claim. The other side is just as guilty.

Meanwhile, there's no such thing as climate change, as doubters insist. When there's a gully-washer, it's actually a sunny day that happens to be wet. When it's blistering hot and no wind, it's actually a cool ocean breezy day, even if you're nowhere near an ocean. Weather forecasters? Oh, don't pay attention to them, they are climate change liars and terrorists. Maybe, just maybe, Forrest Gump's mommy was right.
 
Last edited:
#850
#850
Although Weyerhaeuser is cutting down as many trees as ever and plans to increase lumber production 5% in the next few years, it says its net carbon footprint is negative—so much so that it is offering carbon dioxide storage capacity to other companies. Weyerhaeuser expects a new unit dedicated to helping other firms offset their emissions to generate $100 million a year in profit by the end of 2025.

America’s Most Prolific Logger Recasts Itself as Environmental Do-Gooder

Coming to our homes soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top