Global warming conspiracy exposed
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-is-about-destroying-capitalism/
Comments
-
Why do you assume that changing to a post-Industrial model requires the destruction of capitalism?doogie said:“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-is-about-destroying-capitalism/ -
Because breitbart told him to believe itTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Why do you assume that changing to a post-Industrial model requires the destruction of capitalism?doogie said:“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-is-about-destroying-capitalism/ -
This.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Why do you assume that changing to a post-Industrial model requires the destruction of capitalism?doogie said:“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-is-about-destroying-capitalism/ -
The OP is a retard.
-
He's not retarded, he has alternative chromosomes.BennyBeaver said:The OP is a retard.
-
I could have a Teq level response to this, but the Global Warming conspiracy is so mind-numblingly delusional that I would be forced to light myself on fire if I took the time to type it out.
-
If you call it a conspiracy it gives the chance to focus on the ludicrous nature of the charge rather than a sober look at what can be done at what cost that will actually do anything.
The climate has changed before us? and will after us. That's not the issue either.
What effect are we really having? What can be done that isn't fucking stupid like shitty light bulbs?
A warm earth is better for mammals than another mini ice age. Or a REAL ice age
New York isn't going to sink and if Miami does who the fuck cares? The place is a swamp anyway.
Just when I thought I was out I got sucked back in again to yet another climate warming change cold thread
Lots of hyperbole on both sides of this. -
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.
-
So what works to change it?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.
Less predictable weather? Seriously?
Next -
It might be a good idea to reduce the voluntary human emissions of CO2.RaceBannon said:
So what works to change it?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.
Less predictable weather? Seriously?
Next
Will it help? I have no idea.
Will it hurt? No.
-
I have an idea.
-
I'm hearing costs of what but are way too high cause CO2 restrictions. Like milk would only be 50 cents a gallon. Trump will fix it and bring costs down.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
It might be a good idea to reduce the voluntary human emissions of CO2.RaceBannon said:
So what works to change it?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.
Less predictable weather? Seriously?
Next
Will it help? I have no idea.
Will it hurt? No. -
The only thing that can be done, as Boobs said, is to reduce emissions drastically and get back to reasonable, say 1950 levels. That would take a massive global initiative that people will balk at because they are making money now and don't give a fuck what kind of world their grandkids have to live in later.RaceBannon said:
So what works to change it?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.
Less predictable weather? Seriously?
Next
Climate is not really weather, climate is weather over time. Significant shifts in climate will start to affect things like where you can grow food and where you get water from. These are not problems that you will have to deal with in your lifetime. These are long term problems with longer term solutions, but will be real and crippling one day if the solutions are not set into motion.
The rising sea levels aren't a danger in the sense of short term flooding. There are bigger dangers like the amounts of fresh water being introduced from massive melt-offs and disrupting ocean currents, which are huge factors in climate as well. The earth is a system and the system will try to correct itself. Problem is, the system doesn't give a fuck about us.
-
I like to side with politicians, pundits, and oil companies and say that climate scientists are the ones that are lying for profit.
-
Which one of you fucks is 400 thousand years old that was measuring this shit?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. -
I know it's fun to bash boomers but we cleaned up the air and water.
We are reducing CO2 but it is also a vital part of the lifestyle we ALL enjoy.
So let's cut the hysteria and do actual cost benefit analysis
Make sense? -
Same person that you quote when you say the temperature variation now is normal compared with the last millions of years.Sledog said:
Which one of you fucks is 400 thousand years old that was measuring this shit?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. -
In a case like this, the benefit is not measurable to those weighing the costs. The benefit is 200 years away. Its a matter of trusting the data and trusting science, which people do every day when they ride in a tube of metal 30,000 ft in the air or take their medication. For some weird reason they stop when it fucks with their bottom line.RaceBannon said:I know it's fun to bash boomers but we cleaned up the air and water.
We are reducing CO2 but it is also a vital part of the lifestyle we ALL enjoy.
So let's cut the hysteria and do actual cost benefit analysis
Make sense? -
You? are also trying to get rid of the EPA, so let's not jerk ourselves off quite yet.RaceBannon said:I know it's fun to bash boomers but we cleaned up the air and water.
We are reducing CO2 but it is also a vital part of the lifestyle we ALL enjoy.
So let's cut the hysteria and do actual cost benefit analysis
Make sense?
A cost-benefit analysis really depends on how old you are and whether you are altruistic for future generations. Though either way fossil fuels are a limited resource. Establishing infrastructure for renewables is a good thing since it will be required at some point (unless we figure out fusion). Fuck the coal bullshit, I'd rather see photovoltaic plants in WV and PA. -
Race was there.Sledog said:
Which one of you fucks is 400 thousand years old that was measuring this shit?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.
-
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 said:
Same person that you quote when you say the temperature variation now is normal compared with the last millions of years.Sledog said:
Which one of you fucks is 400 thousand years old that was measuring this shit?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.
-
OK!Sledog said:
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 said:
Same person that you quote when you say the temperature variation now is normal compared with the last millions of years.Sledog said:
Which one of you fucks is 400 thousand years old that was measuring this shit?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.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.
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.salemcoog said:
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.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.
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??? -
Yet no conservative pundit, politician or CEO/business ever made money by polluting and investing in denying climate change.Sledog said:
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.salemcoog said:
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.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.
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???
OK! -
I'll wait for your list!2001400ex said:
Yet no conservative pundit, politician or CEO/business ever made money by polluting and investing in denying climate change.Sledog said:
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.salemcoog said:
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.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.
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???
OK!
