Cooling in the North Atlantic

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-06-2015, 11:26 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: All climate change people should worry less about "throwing gas on the fire".  If they are that concerned then take the lead on colonization of Mars or somewhere else.   That should be the focus over whether my Big Mac comes in paper or plastic.

It would be on order of magnitude 100,000,000 fold more economical and feasible to work on the current rock we live on rather than trying to make Mars habitable.  Mars is a looooooogn term plan and even then I would argue that it is simply a testing grounds for the eventual movement of humans beyond the earth and subsequently the solar system.

[Benton]

(10-06-2015, 12:07 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: It would be on order of magnitude 100,000,000 fold more economical and feasible to work on the current rock we live on rather than trying to make Mars habitable.  Mars is a looooooogn term plan and even then I would argue that it is simply a testing grounds for the eventual movement of humans beyond the earth and subsequently the solar system.

We've got so much work to do.

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-06-2015, 12:35 PM)Benton Wrote: We've got so much work to do.

Even then we still don't know what being subjected to years or decades of low gravity will do to the human body.  The short term effects thus far are not promising.

[Vas Deferens]

(10-06-2015, 11:26 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: All climate change people should worry less about "throwing gas on the fire".  If they are that concerned then take the lead on colonization of Mars or somewhere else.   That should be the focus over whether my Big Mac comes in paper or plastic.

There are many people working on getting putting you on another planet.  Problem is modern rocketry cannot move the payload strain of your ego.

[Blutarsky]

(10-06-2015, 12:45 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: There are many people working on getting putting you on another planet.  Problem is modern rocketry cannot move the payload strain of your ego.

I bet " Modern Rocketry" moves your payload.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMYky8ajPtA






And it's either "putting" or "getting"...not both. Go ahead and whine about me attacking your grammar.

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2015, 09:31 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: Climate change in itself is 100% natural. Using your house on fire analogy... throwing a lit match into the inferno doesn't make it any worse.

If all emissions were to stop today, the planet would continue to warm for centuries.

This is the same logic used by 400 lbs chain-smokers.

"Hey, we are all going to die anyway.  Why do anything to slow it down?"

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-06-2015, 01:43 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: I bet " Modern Rocketry" moves your payload.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMYky8ajPtA

I'm not sure...........What do I........You found this how?

[StLucieBengal]

(10-06-2015, 12:07 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: It would be on order of magnitude 100,000,000 fold more economical and feasible to work on the current rock we live on rather than trying to make Mars habitable.  Mars is a looooooogn term plan and even then I would argue that it is simply a testing grounds for the eventual movement of humans beyond the earth and subsequently the solar system.

Oh I totally agree.   I just think we waste so much time and effort on climate change.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-06-2015, 12:45 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: There are many people working on getting putting you on another planet.  Problem is modern rocketry cannot move the payload strain of your ego.

Your contribution to the discussion is an insult directed towards me. Shocking lol.

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-06-2015, 02:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Oh I totally agree.   I just think we waste so much time and effort on climate change.

I am glad you agree that we should work on our climate.  Wait then you write a completely contradictory sentence.  Hmmm...Me thinks maybe sometimes you don't even know what you think...

[Vas Deferens]

(10-06-2015, 01:43 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: And it's either "putting" or "getting"...not both. Go ahead and whine about me attacking your grammar.

Nope. You're right, it's either putting or getting.  Overlooked that. Thanks

[StLucieBengal]

(10-06-2015, 02:49 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I am glad you agree that we should work on our climate.  Wait then you write a completely contradictory sentence.  Hmmm...Me thinks maybe sometimes you don't even know what you think...

Don't mind spending money on this bs ... Just needs to be private money. Not tax money.

[Vas Deferens]

(10-06-2015, 02:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Your contribution to the discussion is an insult directed towards me.   Shocking lol.

I find the 'move to mars' argument deserving of an insult, much like it is to future generations.   It's just as asinine and ignorant as the 'send all our trash to space' ideology at its core. Neither shocking or funny that our public education system left you so intellectually disadvantaged.  

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(10-04-2015, 11:08 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: Except that over thousands of years we had zero to do with the earths heating and cooling.

Except that nearly all evidence points to this being a completely pulled-out-of-your-ass statement.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-07-2015, 07:53 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Except that nearly all evidence points to this being a completely pulled-out-of-your-ass statement.

JC's right, Blutarsky. Evidence points that man has more than a zero effect on the climate. Man has a neglible effect, true, but that's still higher than zero.

[*bfine32*]

http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/the-supreme-court-sided-with-science-against-obama/

Quote:In his State of the Union Address, President Obama invited “anybody [who] wants to dispute the science around climate change . . . to have at it.”
The Supreme Court’s response? Thank you, Mr. President, for the offer. We will.
On Feb. 9, the court upheld a delay of Obama’s war on fossil fuels, which is supposed to “stop climate change,” in the form of new restrictions on factories’ greenhouse-gas emissions. Apparently a majority of the court is less confident of the “science around climate change” than Obama is.

What the hell will Bernie be able to blame Terrorisim on now?

[XenoMorph]

(10-07-2015, 07:53 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Except that nearly all evidence points to this being a completely pulled-out-of-your-ass statement.

we lived off the land for 100s of 1000s of years in the last few hundred years the industral age kicked off and we started emitting co2 at an alarming rate... a couple 100 years isnt much in the bucket of the 4 billion+ earth life span but we are contributing now.

[fredtoast]

(02-16-2016, 02:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/the-supreme-court-sided-with-science-against-obama/



What the hell will Bernie be able to blame Terrorisim on now?

Here is the non-echo chamber version of what happened.


The Supreme Court did not reject any science at all.  They did not even rule on the legitimacy of Obama's Clean Power Plan.  All they did was delay the implementation until the issue is fully argued in court.

[Millhouse]

(02-16-2016, 03:05 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: we lived off the land for 100s of 1000s of years in the last few hundred years the industral age kicked off and we started emitting co2 at an alarming rate...  a couple 100  years isnt much in the bucket of the 4 billion+ earth life span but we are contributing now.

I wonder what an alien race would think. Im guessing two things. One they need better technology asap to replace burning their fossil fuels, or two a vast majority of humans need to be eradicated asap in the major populated countries so the Earth can recover.

[Vlad]

(02-16-2016, 03:05 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: we lived off the land for 100s of 1000s of years in the last few hundred years the industral age kicked off and we started emitting co2 at an alarming rate...  a couple 100  years isnt much in the bucket of the 4 billion+ earth life span but we are contributing now.

… The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.- John Kerry

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/cop21/why-bother-john-kerry-admits-american-co2-cuts-would-be-pointless/

Since the industrial revolution, a little over a 100yrs., man has emitted 120ppm of Co2 into the atmosphere. Co2 is now hovering at 400ppm from it pre industrial level of 280ppm. Big deal. During the Carboniferous period millions of years ago, the Co2 level in the atmosphere was 7,000 ppm.

Junk science. Ten years ago this last Jan. 27 Al Gore predicted Armageddon, part of which would include a drastic rise in sea levels.
Well, we're all still here.
Hmmm.. so why haven't the sea levels risen? What else, its because of GOBAL WARMING!

The global redistribution of wealth by leftists is the force behind this hoax.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see

Wake up sheeple.