Duh......
- Thread starter eastcane
- Start date
Its the conclusions that are the problem. But the climate cartel is trying to jiggle the facts to fit their projections. As I've said before, the evidence of that was when they closed the 600 temp reading stations worldwide because the temps there didn't fit their warming diagnosis. My reply was "isn't more data better than less?" But of course the usual suspects just "denied" those stations were closed because of the data they were putting out.
But what can't be denied right now is the weather outside isn't warm. Just a fact.
There is new evidence that the ice at the poles is thicker than ever.
East coast is expecting record cold and snow again this year.
Global warming?
East coast is expecting record cold and snow again this year.
Global warming?
SCOTUS ignores due process, popular opinion and science? Trifecta.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/opinion/the-court-blocks-efforts-to-slow-climate-change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/opinion/the-court-blocks-efforts-to-slow-climate-change.
Because they ruled that parties don't have to comply with an order while the constitutionality of the same is under judicial review? Can I never request an injunction preventing a party from doing a particular act while the validity of said act is being judicially determined?
The good news for you is that not very many people are going to be buying tar sand crudes when the price of regular sweet crude is so low . So I don't imagine that that pipeline is in as big of a hurry as it was .
Having read more about this, it seems less troubling, but placing a stay before the issue has even been looked at by a lower court is unusual and reinforces the view that this is an activist court that is happy to play politics.
The driver for pollution is subsidies:
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...es-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...es-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf
"That’s important because the governments of the world have set two degrees Celsius as the must-not-cross red line".
Haven't we now come to the realization that given the continued and projected CO2 emissions from China along with the developing world that we will almost certainly now pass the doomsday red line mark of 2 degrees C?
Haven't we now come to the realization that given the continued and projected CO2 emissions from China along with the developing world that we will almost certainly now pass the doomsday red line mark of 2 degrees C?
Looks like we'd better close down "crossfire" now. Loretta Lynch stated before congress the JD has discussed taking civil action against certain Climate Change deniers.
Is this a freedom of speech issue or at least an attempt to limit freedom of inquiry? Should skepticism be an important part of scientific inquiry? Should the SCOTUS look into this after the next election and could the deniers counter sue the JD?
IMO this tactic is right out of the NAZI propaganda booklet? No wonder people are mad at the govt.
Discuss.
Is this a freedom of speech issue or at least an attempt to limit freedom of inquiry? Should skepticism be an important part of scientific inquiry? Should the SCOTUS look into this after the next election and could the deniers counter sue the JD?
IMO this tactic is right out of the NAZI propaganda booklet? No wonder people are mad at the govt.
Discuss.
Last edited:
Two of my points on this are always ignored.
Even if we are 25% of the worlds, CO2 [ a figure that is just as hard to prove as it is to deny] and even if CO2 is the only cause of global warming and even if we cut our CO2 emission to 0, By the time we do that the world population, by UN estimates will grow 35%. The answer is always that we need to set an example, if there is any response at all.
The other that is ignored is the mobile source emissions of things that will be very hard to replace with electricity. It may happen but not in any time frame relative to the time claimed for temperature rise. Even with electricity enough will have to be generated to replace what is lost from coal and natural gas as well as natural growth. And grid will have to be updated in places where there are already brownouts. Better get to work fast, because we reached to point of no return long ago according to past predictions.
Even if we are 25% of the worlds, CO2 [ a figure that is just as hard to prove as it is to deny] and even if CO2 is the only cause of global warming and even if we cut our CO2 emission to 0, By the time we do that the world population, by UN estimates will grow 35%. The answer is always that we need to set an example, if there is any response at all.
The other that is ignored is the mobile source emissions of things that will be very hard to replace with electricity. It may happen but not in any time frame relative to the time claimed for temperature rise. Even with electricity enough will have to be generated to replace what is lost from coal and natural gas as well as natural growth. And grid will have to be updated in places where there are already brownouts. Better get to work fast, because we reached to point of no return long ago according to past predictions.
I am starting to join the “Global warming” band wagon and it is totally man made.
I recently read several articles about methane gas and that it’s affects on the atmosphere are 21 time more than CO2 emissions.
I have traced the cause. Many years ago we used to burn our garbage but the EPA banned burning, and we started burying our garbage in landfills. Thus the rise in methane gas.
I recently read several articles about methane gas and that it’s affects on the atmosphere are 21 time more than CO2 emissions.
I have traced the cause. Many years ago we used to burn our garbage but the EPA banned burning, and we started burying our garbage in landfills. Thus the rise in methane gas.
