DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez to introduce measure to declare climate change an official emergency: report

That is all part of a green initiative. Living responsibly with nature instead of using and abusing nature while assuming it will be just fine. Global warming isn't some fictional monster, it's nature reacting to us.

This has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with common sense.

Ice core science shows that co2 rise follows a heat rise, and continues after the heat falls. Water vapor is a more effective 'greenhouse' gas than carbon ever will be. Science shows that Mars has warmed along the same percentage as our planet has ever since we started measuring. No carbon producers there, but the sun has been hotter. Science has shown these trends are natural, but they are ignored for populism. Science shows that the planet has been in a warming trend for the last 20000 years, but that is ignored for populism. Science shows that all the computer models predicting a huge increase in temp are wrong, and the warming pushers just reset their dates for the end of the world to scam the next generation. We were supposed to have no arctic ice at least 5 years ago, and an arctic fox walked from Norway to Canada last spring. Even the founder of Greenpeace has called it a scam, but the redistributionists tell a more apocalyptic story, and the press only tells their side.

Yes, we both only have to wait to prove who's right, but the global warming proponents change their story every year, while my side is proven right every year.

So let me translate. The world hasn't ended.... yet, so my side is right. Who is "your side"? 3% of the worlds scientists?

You do know that number of 97% was pulled out of thin air? Actually I think al gore pulled it out his butt for a film without facts. Before you go off the deep end, the polar bear population is thriving, even with all the ones that dropped from the sky.

What is your degree in? You seem to have all the answers to climate change, when can we expect your paper on the matter?

Now I'm not knocking you, because much of what you said to me was reasonable and food for thought, but when you say things like that 97% figure was pulled out of thin air... well now you sound like a conspiracy theorist. We have to agree on facts or we are pissing in the wind.

You mean since they banned hunting them. That makes sense.

Consensus Confirmed: Over 90% Of Climate Scientists Believe We’re Causing Global Warming

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/c...global-warming/

You say a lot of things but never seem to back them up.

And what is your degree in? Unfortunately, I was unable to finish my degree in astrophysics. I am fully capable of reading scientific papers and research.

Then show me a link that says 97% was pulled out of thin air. A link from a source we can both agree is remotely credible.

If these doom and gloom predictions that are made never come true, how does that make you right? If the bad things that climate change is supposed to cause never happen, then whats the big emergency?

Have you ever considered that the reason they are doubters is because the doom and gloom that was predicted never happened?

Here's what I think people who buy this load of stuff don't get.

No matter how you think the climate changing is effecting the weather, or the glaciers or your sunburn or trash piles of plastic in the pacific ocean,

No matter how you think that effects daily life, all that I hear when I hear climate change is the same thing they did when (before Trump)!

It's overregulate business to stifle business
It's control peoples behavior at all costs because the goal is POWER, Power over you every move and word and thought!

It only yields one thing, It hurts American interests,
It hurts the American Economy, The lower class, middle class, and upper class,
it hurts Amerian business,

It regulates and shuts down, and adds costs, and taxes, and raises unemployment, and welfare, and food stamps,

The only thing democrat economics does that's a benefit, are investments in Solar and Windmills,

And they can't even do that right! Look at California,(they force solar panels on every new home)

The democrats idea of doing ANYTHING! Is mandated behavior from EVERYONE! EVERYONE!

Power! Forced compliance! everything cookie cutter to one Top Down Governemnt controlled idea of what's what!

No options for people to pick the right choice, nope, not with democrat economics, not with climate control measures,
10 dollar pint of ice cream? So what! Climate Change!

1000 bucks for 4 tires on your car? So What! Climate change!

It's like Mark Levin says every week, if what the Left wants in this country is so great,

Why don't they hold up the examples like Chicago, California, and Michigan, places where the Left leaning politicians have been in control for decades,

as nice examples of things going well,
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T!

San Francisco, apparently has a homeless problem so bad they can't take care of the sewage,

Their economies are going bad, and people are moving out! to avoid the high taxation.

So That's Climate change in a bucket!

The left takes power over individual rights and everyday choices, (there's a flippin surpise)
The left harms business' ability to do anything with emission standards, and impossible ways to make things "green"
It all destroys economic growth back like the Obama years did!

And IN THE END! None of it makes a bits bit of difference in how bad the climate change proble effects the daily life of people struggling to overcome the Governments THUMB! on their lives.

The Climate gets worse! Wheter you use plastic bags or some carbon, disease germ ridden cloth grocery bag probably popluar in Portland type areas,

The Climate gets worse! whether you drive rice burning toy cars made out of igloo cooler materials, or if you drive dump trucks from the 1970's

and You driving a PRIUS Can't stop it! That's the rub of it.

The Climate gets Worse, because there are bout' 40 billion people worldwide that want to come to the USA, and bring west nile virus' to ebola' to whatever,

And my idea of building a super city in New Mexico for these people to thrive in and tax the snot out of em, and not let them be citizens for decades,
Doesn't make for more democrat voters, to elect democrats to power, to take the power, and put each and every American in a totalitarian state.

But Hey! Climate Change! it's the biggest threat to America???

Small wonder folks of other countries probably don't respect (seriously) our politicians, when they don't see what would be the case if/when we face real threats that need attention,

BECAUSE Wearing Solar Suits!
and Riding around on HOVERBOARDS
Won't stop Hurricane NEXT from destroying Florida or New Orleans again!

Couldn't read the WSJ link, but the other two argue the 97% consensus has no factual basis while saying the true number is between 80% and 100% or 90% and 100%...

I'll give you the win and a hats off nod for arguing the 97% in a fact check, but I'll take the manmade climate change is real win with the 80%-90%-100% scientific consensus from your links! Thanks for sharing.

So screw the climate because it changes the economy and it's all about power... blah blah blah blah... Alex Jones is that you?

Get real for a minute TL. No matter what is causing climate change, it's going to affect the economy one way or the other.

You just completely mistated what the articles said. One researcher selected 982 climate papers, with no backround on why she picked those certain papers. Those papers could have been selected because they already proved her point. Of those 982 papers, 80, 90, or 100% agreed there was man made climate change.

So, you have research papers picked with no reasoning or research as to why, and 3 random percentages of those papers that agree with what appears to be a predetermined conclusion. In other words, she picked a number out of thin air, and put it forth as proof. This is known as junk science.

You and I both know that there are more than 982 scientists in the world, and more than 982 climate scientists in the world. This again shows the percentages are pulled out of thin air, much like your conclusion. This whole premise has been fudged from the start, when the environmentalists said we were entering another ice age in the 70s.

Just how many times are you going to let them lie to your face and be their dupe before you actually do some research for yourself?

They were going by published papers. Of course there are more scientist in the world, but short of seeking out each and every one to ask their opinion, they looked at published papers where those who studied it came to conclusions... Not sure how that could be a conspiracy or controversial.

I guess we'll have to disagree and everyone else can read and make up their own minds.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I'm not following this thread closely because there is no movement from anyone. However - it looks like there is some debate about who and how many scientists believe in climate change. I have also read in the past or seen posted that only climate scientists promote climate change because it's self preservation of their job (smh).

The above link shows 18 organizations most/all of which are not climate scientists stating position on climate change.

I also saw this:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/global_warming_controversy.htm

Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (Royal Society, American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science) concur with the assessment that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with the consensus view.

Of course in the face of such overwhelming professional, scientific consensus from experts - it stands to reason that Trump, an expert in nothing and clearly (regardless of your opinion of him as POTUS) someone who struggles to concentrate on a single subject for more than a short time frame - calls it a hoax.

j/c

Long ago...the Earth was a lush, green place. Then...it became a giant ice cube...then...it became a lush, green place again. All that happened BILLIONS of years BEFORE man inhabited the planet.

There are scientists who think the Earth is 3-6 billion years old...here's what 3 billion looks like:

3,000,000,000

We've been "accurately" tracking temperature for less than 100 years...I'll round up to 200 years. Here's what 200 looks like:

200

200/3,000,000,000 = .00000667%

That's such a small sample size that it shouldn't even be called a sample size. It needs its own name.

If the Earth wants to become an Ice Cube again - as was the eventual scientific "fact" from the 70's - it's gonna become an Ice Cube and there isn't a darn thing we can do about it.

Any "scientific" report or belief that says ANYTHING about taxation or redistribution of wealth should be laughed off and scorned.

Take great care of the planet? Absolutely! Declare climate change an emergency? You have to be kidding me.

Actually, every president since JFK have been warned about CO2 emissions and the impact on it has on climate.

Never happened? Never and forever are both words that describe the past and future. Despite all of the evidence it sounds like some propose we just sit on our butts, send "thoughts and prayers" in hopes it never happens.

Even if it does, the deniers would still claim that man didn't cause it. I guess the best answer is to just sit back and see what happens?

Just to get on the same page, so I understand your point,
Are you saying "increased natural, weather disastors', affect on the economy,
Or,
Are you saying the Lefts' industry and business crippling regulations' and laws (which is a totally futile attempt at addressing the inevitable natural weather disastors)
those regulations' affect on the economy?

I think the Trump administrations decisions to allow coal companies to resume dumping coal ash back into waterways and cutting back emission standards will be great for the environment.

You know, I thought everyone believed that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Until you start talking about trashing our environment. Then it's, "Nah!"

So Trump actually made a Presidential order that said that the coal industry can dump things as coal ash into our waterways ,,Hmmmmmm, but if he did I would certainly disagree wit that decision

J\C

No, he appointed a man who opposed the EPA to run the EPA.

Trump nominates acting EPA head, an ex-coal lobbyist, to run agency

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/09/trump-no...run-agency.html

Conflict of interest used to actually mean something.

Me too.
I like my water gritty, grimy and gray.
That's progress- "IQ45 style."




"FORWARD- TO THE '50'S!!!"

MAGA!

goin' to the sock hop this Saturday?

When you see Riley, tell him that he doesn't have the legs to pull off that poodle skirt-

And I'm saying that the vast majority of people out there wishing to do everything that can be done to save this planet are influenced by those who hold these positions and the comments that they make...

And the reason he might have been gone in 2015, is for comments like this... he just wasn't supposed to say something like that.

But what did he actually mean by it?

Wouldn't you say that wealth was redistributed when we changed from the horse and buggy to the automobile? Don't you think that wealth was redistributed when we changed over from coal lamps to electricity?

The redistribution of wealth has only lately been seen as going from the hands of the rich into the hands of the poor.

As our society has progressed, new inventions and technology has caused wealth to be redistributed into different sections of business in our society.

It's not like poor people are suddenly going to get wealthy because we change over to renewable energy. What it does mean is that it will go from the pockets of fossil fuels into the pockets of renewable energy companies.

But how is that really any different than any progress that has happened during the industrial age?

So what's the solution? (Theoretically speaking.) Let's just completely stop living the way we do while the other 6,000,000,000 people on the planet do whatever they want? Hey...let's take some of our $$$ and give it to them along the way.

Defeating things like cancer and Alzheimer's are an emergency...the crisis at the border is an emergency...keeping a thumb on Iran can be an emergency.

We are already one of the least-polluted countries on the planet (of any reasonable size). Climate change acceptors would do much, much better if their argument had solutions - and those solutions best not be wrapped around taxation and wealth distribution.

Actually we were in a worldwide agreement where most nations were working to help solve the problem. The Paris Climate Accord.

Not all nations were meeting their goals but they were all improving and working towards those goals. Trump pulled out of that agreement.

Actually, as of 2015 we were #2 only behind China on the entire planet in CO2 emissions. It sounds great to say we're one of the cleanest or to think we're one of the cleanest but the facts simply do not bare that out to be the case.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-us-carbon-emissions-rank-internationally-180956142/

Thank goodness for that.

Yeah, first you claimed we couldn't do it alone. then you praise not working with others to accomplish it. Yet we rank #2 in the world in CO2 emissions.

No. Not in any of those instances would I say that wealth was "redistributed"... opportunities were created for different players to capture market share in new and emerging technologies through their own innovation and work... but not in a single case that you have identified, that I'm aware of, did nations actually meet and sit down to "negotiate" (his word) how the world's resources would be redistributed to level the playing field between richer and poorer nations...

Yet in both of those examples the Government didn't step in and say sorry we are making horse and buggies illegal so you have to switch to Model T-Fords. They also didn't put regulations into place to drive up the price of coal oil so high that it was way more expensive than electricity.

The Paris accords were nonbinding. No one country actually had to follow them. They were weighted against the US in such a way that we were punished for past success, while India and china, the world two biggest polluters, had no restrictions. It was nothing more than wealth distribution.

She should run for President.

Trump supporters agree.