T1B

We should instead continue giving massive tax cuts to the rich while putting the balance on the nation's credit card. Very sustainable.

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:50 pm You do realize that you'll be living in a matchbox in 0 time if we're suddenly paying $13 a gallon for gas?

Oh boo hoo. Would be about time for us to stop sucking at the tit of cheap oil. Gotta pull the plug eventually.

Gotta pull the plug eventually.

Wouldn't we be plugging in?

88 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:42 pm A tax cut is just taking less from someone under the threat of imprisonment. Kind of like the mafia reducing its protection fee.

What right does industry have to exploit local resources (human and material) and extract wealth to overseas accounts?
Can you put a price on that in the form of a "tax"?

88 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:42 pm A tax cut is just taking less from someone under the threat of imprisonment. Kind of like the mafia reducing its protection fee.

We should abolish taxes and fund the government on thoughts and prayers.

88 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:11 pm We are doing that now for about a third of our population. $22.4T national debt, yo.

Nothing another round of tax cuts for the rich can't fix!

88 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:11 pm
We are doing that now for about a third of our population. $22.4T national debt, yo.

More of which you voted for than what I voted for.

Uh 20% of our oxygen supply on this planet is now on fire. Couple that with all the particulate matter that's being blown into our atmosphere and what do you know, 20% of our lungs are gone, and we're smoking cigarettes doing jack shit.
The Helheim Glacier in Greenland is calving ice chunks the size of fucking New Mexico. Nothing remotely normal about that.
Massive storms of increasing appearance an ferocity.
Nope, we've pretty much sealed the fate of this planet. I don't think my grandkids grandchildren will have much of a world to live in.
Melodramatic? Not at all. That's what's scary.

Relax.
88nazis has this all under control.

Felix wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 7:12 pm Uh 20% of our oxygen supply on this planet is now on fire. Couple that with all the particulate matter that's being blown into our atmosphere and what do you know, 20% of our lungs are gone, and we're smoking cigarettes doing jack shit.
The Helheim Glacier in Greenland is calving ice chunks the size of fucking New Mexico. Nothing remotely normal about that.
Massive storms of increasing appearance an ferocity.
Nope, we've pretty much sealed the fate of this planet. I don't think my grandkids grandchildren will have much of a world to live in.
Melodramatic? Not at all. That's what's scary.

Brazilian douchebags are practicing slash and burn ag, like they and many others have for millenia. The fact is, a slightly warmer planet with a considerable increase in CO2 levels is doing just what any 4th grader already knows it should do.

it is getting greener.

The planet has a rather robust negative feedback system that has withstood worse than we throw at it. If it didn't, we'd be either a lump of ice or on fire.

If we double CO2 again, yet more O2 producing, CO2 eating stuff will grow.

You should suck a tailpipe if it’s so benign.

88 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:37 amPeople who work for industry are in the business of selling their labor. And most industry (not commercial fisheries) purchases the resources they use. Why do you hate private property and enterprise?

So you don’t think we should allow oil, gas, and mineral extraction on public land?

I had no idea you were so anti-industry.

88 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:30 am

Kierland wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:39 pm You should suck a tailpipe if it’s so benign.

From your carbon neutral airliner?

I’m carbon negative for the year. But thanks for being a slimy prick.

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:44 pm
it is getting greener.

Link?

The planet has a rather robust negative feedback system that has withstood worse than we throw at it. If it didn't, we'd be either a lump of ice or on fire.

And “capable of supporting human life” comprises a fraction of a percent of that continuum. So, if you’re OK with rendering the planet uninhabitable by humans, then I guess your statement may have a (infinitesimal) shred of validity.

If we double CO2 again, yet more O2 producing, CO2 eating stuff will grow.

So, the more CO2 the better, right?
What can I possibly say to that but :doh:

.088 wrote:Moron thinks Greenland...

.088 wrote:Felix, you should off yourself for the good of the planet and future generations.

WOAH!!

88 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:43 pm
You are completely delusional and full of shit, per usualm. The only thing negative about you is your IQ.

Because you have any idea as to how much carbon I lock, offset, conserve and use. Go fuck yourself you nazi POS.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:01 pm

.088 wrote:Felix, you should off yourself for the good of the planet and future generations.

WOAH!!

He is a nazi. They like to off people.

88 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:51 pm
Perhaps since you do not understand how things work, you should just be quiet and read some more. And maybe dare to think for yourself instead of outsourcing it to people who have a political agenda.

Now that’s pretty fucking rich. I could throw the exact same suggestion your way but surely I’d be accused of IKYABWAI.

The difference being that I would have 95% or more of the scientific community on my side while you have an assortment right wing whackos and scientific charlatans being paid by the fossil fuel industry. Oh yeah and that famous Atmospheric Physicist DJT.

Unless, of course, you’ve actually done some legitimate peer reviewed research on your own. If so...let’s see it.

88 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:51 pm
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/nasa-sa ... and-india/

Interesting story.

Further proof that if you are interested in ACTUALLY making the environment better, you promote prosperity.

Prosperous people have the time and resources to do things that really do help, like planting a few zillion trees. Non-prosperous people are too busy trying not to starve to death to worry about such things.

Carbon based energy has allowed this prosperity. Shutting that tap will lower the number of people, especially those in the developing world, who become prosperous.

And where was all that peer reviewed research 40 years ago?

Oh, yeah. That's right, it was talking about how we needed to curb carbon emissions, before we plunged into an ice age.

You can't make this shit up folks. Pretty well explains why they've abandoned "AGW" for "Climate Change". They're covered no matter what.

There is one thing that has remained constant. "Peer reviewed research" tends to get more attention when it can produce a chicken little scenario. If their research amounts to "nothing to see here folks, carry on", people do just that and their budgets get cut.

88 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:55 pm
Again, you lie.

And again you do a great job of describing your own take.

increase in a few hundred parts per billion of CO2

You’re off by a factor of about 1,000 but don’t let that get in the way of your disingenuous ranting.

OK, he said billion, when he should have said million. It changes nothing.

When you are measuring on a scale of a million, a few hundred isn't that much, even if it is doubling. In fact, since we have pretty much doubled it and things aren't all that different, there is no reason to think that another doubling would be catastrophic. Many scientists with all sorts of fancy letters on the end of their name say that further increases will have diminishing effects. You have to buy into the positive feedback theory, something that would have likely made this place uninhabitable eons ago, to believe otherwise.

IF there is appreciable warming, it will be greater at higher lattitudes. More shit will grow in the vast forests of Eurasia and North America. Equatorial regions will be effected less. Seems like a worthy trade off.

And looking at that graph, we see that the 20th century is when we really get serious about lobbing CO2 into the atmosphere. We also see that this century is bookended by warming periods, but a big chunk of it, right in the middle has moderate cooling. This moderate cooling gets going shortly after the blip in CO2 that happens around 1925. It continues right through the middle of the century despite acceleration in the rate of CO2 concentration increase.

88 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:41 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:10 pm

88 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:43 pm
You are completely delusional and full of shit, per usualm. The only thing negative about you is your IQ.

Because you have any idea as to how much carbon I lock, offset, conserve and use. Go fuck yourself you nazi POS.

You cannot offset carbon. If I want to kick you in the pills, can I do so if I pay someone not to kick someone else in the pills to net it to zero? If so, tell me where to send my check.

Your offsets are liberal horse shit that makes you rationalize putting 0.6 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere so you can go to Kauai and still feel like you are better than every other person on the plane. Think about it. You are paying a company that is in the business of planting trees to plant trees. What the fuck would they do otherwise? Be a company that is in the business of planting trees that does not plant trees? I’m glad you throw your money in the toilet like an idiot. I might start a carbon offset business and take some of your guilt payments. Win win. You feel like Uber dude. And I get money from dumbasses. You are a fraud. Stop lying to yourself.

I’m not paying people to plant trees you fucking land raping twit.

“Man's activities are certainly contributing to an increase in greenhouse gases such as CO2 in the atmosphere, and that increase is likely increasing the global mean temperature to some degree.”

From climate denying tard to, well maybe. You really are a fucking shitty chemist.

She was a jackbooted thug.

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:22 pm “Man's activities are certainly contributing to an increase in greenhouse gases such as CO2 in the atmosphere, and that increase is likely increasing the global mean temperature to some degree.”

From climate denying tard to, well maybe. You really are a fucking shitty chemist.

What exactly is your point?

No one can deny that we have raised CO2 levels by burning shit. And no one seriously denies that it has SOME effect on the temp. And it is undeniable that temps raised a bit during the 20th century as a whole.

Where the debate lies is...

Is a warmer world a bad thing?

Of the warming that has taken place, how much are we responsible for.

Damn right you aren’t a chemist. You are barely a functioning adult. What you have done is take a complex issue and throw up your hands because you don’t like the fact that your kleptocratic overloads are pollution junkies. Every single time I ask you about the pollution involved in burning FF and you squirm and dodge and don’t just say: yeah it’s bad we need to stop. Why? Because you are a fucking pos that hates your kids. Now take your shit for brains fallacies and shove them up your ass, once the wife stops pegging you you fucking tard.

88 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:58 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:19 pmI’m not paying people to plant trees you fucking land raping twit.

You are wishing on a star, while pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Just stop lying to yourself. You like to do whatever it is that you do, and its OK. But you cannot fly to Kauai and also be a steward of the environment on the same terms you intend to impose on others. You are an intellectual fraud.

Because you say so. STFU you stupid slimy fuck. Carbon is carbon it’s a simple plus minus equation. Just cause you can’t do simple math doesn’t mean I can’t.

Because you are a FF pimping moron. You actually can switch, if you want to, but you are a greedy stupid kleptocratic tard who likes to give lip service to your masters oil soaked cock. What a whiny little defeatist tard you are.

88 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:09 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:03 pm

88 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:58 pm
You are wishing on a star, while pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Just stop lying to yourself. You like to do whatever it is that you do, and its OK. But you cannot fly to Kauai and also be a steward of the environment on the same terms you intend to impose on others. You are an intellectual fraud.

Because you say so. STFU you stupid slimy fuck. Carbon is carbon it’s a simple plus minus equation. Just cause you can’t do simple math doesn’t mean I can’t.

You are so dumb on so many levels. It is not a plus minus equation. If you put CO2 into the atmosphere, there is no minus that you can point to that takes it back out. Do you have a CO2 Hoover that removes the CO2 molecules you produce? Then anything else that exists that is removing CO2 from the atmosphere should do that regardless of whether you are writing a check, and it would be more effective on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere if you weren't dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, right? Do the math on that issue, slappy.

You are dumb as dirt. Co2 plus h2o equals c6h12o6 you stupid high school math flunking moron.

Good grief. Of course it takes a six. Just like you take all six of trumps dick in your ass. And of course it takes light and chlorophyll. I thought u has some chemistry so I skipped the elementary steps. I’ll make sure to treat you more like a child in the future.
Hey dumbass. I’m harvesting plants and locking up their carbon and then planting more. Are you fucking retarded? Don’t answer that.

You really don’t know anything about chemistry do you? Or botany. Or soil science. Or wood, and no I’m not talking about the wood your nazi overloads stick in your ass.

STFU you fat stupid tard. Nobody is doing that.

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:53 am What kind of "scientist" uses 1/30,000,000th of available history to draw off of when he/she is trying to formulate an opinion?

Cars have only been around for the last 100 years, tardling. Get it?

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:39 am

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:53 am What kind of "scientist" uses 1/30,000,000th of available history to draw off of when he/she is trying to formulate an opinion?

Cars have only been around for the last 100 years, tardling. Get it?

That's his point, dumb fukk.

And it's technically more like 125 years, which, if you multiply by 300 millions equals what?

I'll take your answer off line.

Cars are destroying the planet. Are you really debating this?

Papa Willie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:37 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:Cars are destroying the planet. Are you really debating this?

So are dumbasses. Your point?

Nice white flag.

88 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:25 pm This ^^^^ is why the global warming hoax is so successful. Moron thinks Greenland calved off an ice chunk 121,697 square miles in size, and argues that massive storms are wreaking havoc during the quietest hurricane season in the last 37 years. Felix, you should off yourself for the good of the planet and future generations.

Let me get this right. Are you disputing the Amazon rainforest provides 20% of the oxygen, or are you disputing it's burning up?

Are you claiming that giant sized ice chunks aren't calving from the glaciers or what?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/opin ... hange.html

So in a few years Iceland won't have any ice....because there is no climate change.

Got to say bud, you're a pretty selfish guy. Leaving my grandkids with a planet we've treated like an ashtray.
Not sure I've seen anyone argue for the right to trash the planet but hey, knock yourself out.

You'll be gone long before two generations from now people asking "why didn't you stop it"

88 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:33 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:34 pm Cars are destroying the planet. Are you really debating this?

Yes. People are changing the composition of the planet’s atmosphere. No one knows what that change will mean. If you want to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, reduce human population. Everything else is just lying. Which you are very comfortable of doing at all times.

So 88, where did you get your climate science degree from?