Global warming conspiracy exposed

Sledog

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

WilburHooksHands said:

The effect is here:



It is inarguable that we are contributing to an anomalous level of CO2 based on the norms of the current geological epoch. It's absolutely true that this isn't the first time levels have been that high, but at that time human habitation wasn't a thing. A warmer earth may be better for mammals in a vacuum, but it's not better for our current geographic patterns and the way humanity is set up for the foreseeable future. Our cities, systems, and livelihoods are build around reasonably predictable climate patterns. The higher that level gets, the less predictable those become, and that's a huge issue for people that aren't 70 year olds in Temecula.

Which one of you fucks is 400 thousand years old that was measuring this shit?

Same person that you quote when you say the temperature variation now is normal compared with the last millions of years.

Nah I say it's cooler than the middle ages "hockey stick" that is so conveniently left out of the "warming" calculations. We know that warm period caused more food to be grown, an increase in population and then the Renaissance. Damn that warming!

2001400ex

Sledog said:

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

WilburHooksHands said:

The effect is here:



It is inarguable that we are contributing to an anomalous level of CO2 based on the norms of the current geological epoch. It's absolutely true that this isn't the first time levels have been that high, but at that time human habitation wasn't a thing. A warmer earth may be better for mammals in a vacuum, but it's not better for our current geographic patterns and the way humanity is set up for the foreseeable future. Our cities, systems, and livelihoods are build around reasonably predictable climate patterns. The higher that level gets, the less predictable those become, and that's a huge issue for people that aren't 70 year olds in Temecula.

Which one of you fucks is 400 thousand years old that was measuring this shit?

Same person that you quote when you say the temperature variation now is normal compared with the last millions of years.

Nah I say it's cooler than the middle ages "hockey stick" that is so conveniently left out of the "warming" calculations. We know that warm period caused more food to be grown, an increase in population and then the Renaissance. Damn that warming!

OK!

Kaepsknee

WilburHooksHands said:

The effect is here:



It is inarguable that we are contributing to an anomalous level of CO2 based on the norms of the current geological epoch. It's absolutely true that this isn't the first time levels have been that high, but at that time human habitation wasn't a thing. A warmer earth may be better for mammals in a vacuum, but it's not better for our current geographic patterns and the way humanity is set up for the foreseeable future. Our cities, systems, and livelihoods are build around reasonably predictable climate patterns. The higher that level gets, the less predictable those become, and that's a huge issue for people that aren't 70 year olds in Temecula.

While the two things aren't comparable, I feel the global warming movement has been as overdone as California falling into the Ocean. According to NASA we've had huge anomalies in average temp for 50 years. Glaciers have regressed exponentially. And when someone dares to ask, So what? They bloviate about rising sea levels and more intense storms and droughts.

But the funny thing is that there have been much more powerful storms on record that happened a hundred years ago and the Sea level rise is negligible,

So what gives??? What is the problem???

Sledog

salemcoog said:

WilburHooksHands said:

The effect is here:



It is inarguable that we are contributing to an anomalous level of CO2 based on the norms of the current geological epoch. It's absolutely true that this isn't the first time levels have been that high, but at that time human habitation wasn't a thing. A warmer earth may be better for mammals in a vacuum, but it's not better for our current geographic patterns and the way humanity is set up for the foreseeable future. Our cities, systems, and livelihoods are build around reasonably predictable climate patterns. The higher that level gets, the less predictable those become, and that's a huge issue for people that aren't 70 year olds in Temecula.

While the two things aren't comparable, I feel the global warming movement has been as overdone as California falling into the Ocean. According to NASA we've had huge anomalies in average temp for 50 years. Glaciers have regressed exponentially. And when someone dares to ask, So what? They bloviate about rising sea levels and more intense storms and droughts.

But the funny thing is that there have been much more powerful storms on record that happened a hundred years ago and the Sea level rise is negligible,

So what gives??? What is the problem???

The problem is they want to take the wealth of successful countries and give to 3rd world shit holes and this was the plan they came up with. Nothing that can be proved. But the successful countries caused it and they must give to the unsuccessful countries because now they don't get the chance to pollute and need reparations so to speak. That and Al Gore held a huge position in the company that would have issued carbon credits and stood to make billions.

2001400ex

Sledog said:

salemcoog said:

WilburHooksHands said:

The effect is here:



It is inarguable that we are contributing to an anomalous level of CO2 based on the norms of the current geological epoch. It's absolutely true that this isn't the first time levels have been that high, but at that time human habitation wasn't a thing. A warmer earth may be better for mammals in a vacuum, but it's not better for our current geographic patterns and the way humanity is set up for the foreseeable future. Our cities, systems, and livelihoods are build around reasonably predictable climate patterns. The higher that level gets, the less predictable those become, and that's a huge issue for people that aren't 70 year olds in Temecula.

While the two things aren't comparable, I feel the global warming movement has been as overdone as California falling into the Ocean. According to NASA we've had huge anomalies in average temp for 50 years. Glaciers have regressed exponentially. And when someone dares to ask, So what? They bloviate about rising sea levels and more intense storms and droughts.

But the funny thing is that there have been much more powerful storms on record that happened a hundred years ago and the Sea level rise is negligible,

So what gives??? What is the problem???

The problem is they want to take the wealth of successful countries and give to 3rd world shit holes and this was the plan they came up with. Nothing that can be proved. But the successful countries caused it and they must give to the unsuccessful countries because now they don't get the chance to pollute and need reparations so to speak. That and Al Gore held a huge position in the company that would have issued carbon credits and stood to make billions.

Yet no conservative pundit, politician or CEO/business ever made money by polluting and investing in denying climate change.

OK!

Sledog

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

salemcoog said:

WilburHooksHands said:

The effect is here:



It is inarguable that we are contributing to an anomalous level of CO2 based on the norms of the current geological epoch. It's absolutely true that this isn't the first time levels have been that high, but at that time human habitation wasn't a thing. A warmer earth may be better for mammals in a vacuum, but it's not better for our current geographic patterns and the way humanity is set up for the foreseeable future. Our cities, systems, and livelihoods are build around reasonably predictable climate patterns. The higher that level gets, the less predictable those become, and that's a huge issue for people that aren't 70 year olds in Temecula.

While the two things aren't comparable, I feel the global warming movement has been as overdone as California falling into the Ocean. According to NASA we've had huge anomalies in average temp for 50 years. Glaciers have regressed exponentially. And when someone dares to ask, So what? They bloviate about rising sea levels and more intense storms and droughts.

But the funny thing is that there have been much more powerful storms on record that happened a hundred years ago and the Sea level rise is negligible,

So what gives??? What is the problem???

The problem is they want to take the wealth of successful countries and give to 3rd world shit holes and this was the plan they came up with. Nothing that can be proved. But the successful countries caused it and they must give to the unsuccessful countries because now they don't get the chance to pollute and need reparations so to speak. That and Al Gore held a huge position in the company that would have issued carbon credits and stood to make billions.

Yet no conservative pundit, politician or CEO/business ever made money by polluting and investing in denying climate change.

OK!

I'll wait for your list!