Slashdot Mirror
Massive Government Report Says Climate Is Warming and Humans Are the Cause (npr.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: It is "extremely likely" that human activities are the "dominant cause" of global warming, according to the the most comprehensive study ever of climate science by U.S. government researchers. The climate report, obtained by NPR, notes that the past 115 years are "the warmest in the history of modern civilization." The global average temperature has increased by about 1.8 degree Fahrenheit over that period. Greenhouse gases from industry and agriculture are by far the biggest contributor to warming. The findings contradict statements by President Trump and many of his Cabinet members, who have openly questioned the role humans play in changing the climate. The report states that the global climate will continue to warm. How much, it says, "will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally." Without major reductions in emissions, it says, the increase in annual average global temperature could reach 9 degrees Fahrenheit relative to pre-industrial times. Efforts to reduce emissions, it says, would slow the rate of warming.
Twitler will have it pulled.
News for 'tards; Jewish propaganda.
Since Republicans are in power, they will stop this socialist global warming in it's tracks . Problem solved!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The Slashdot propoganda mill is working overtime this week. The methane fumes emitted by the Slashdot editors are causing considerable "climate change". Take your horse shit and eat it. Eat it raw.
I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked. How has this been allowed to go on without anyone warning us?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Bla bla bla you're all stupid cunts. AMERIKA! FUCK YEAH!!!
I suspect that 1Kelvin is kind of at the level of the noise. Especially considering average temperature is around 300 Kelvin and taking a measurement to the nearest degree of ambient outdoors it pretty much not realistic. Call me back when we are outside the noise.
Global temperatures just dropped below 2014 values. If we are suepposedley warming, where is the warming? Looking at the chart back past the year 2000, where is the warming?
One again, climate alarmists are the real deniers, the ones peddling fantasy that goes against measured results. That's not science.
Maybe we need a new paradigm : anyone retardedly trying to deny global warming at this point gets their non-functioning testicles removed and fed to them with tartar sauce.
"the increase in annual average global temperature could reach 9 degrees Fahrenheit"
It's ok, we just build some more coal power stations, turn up the air-con, and it's all good.
"the increase in annual average global temperature could reach 9 degrees Fahrenheit"
It's ok, we just build some more coal power stations, turn up the air-con, and it's all good..
The reason why the report had such an easy passage out the door, all too late, no stopping it now, damage done, all we can do now is attempt to mitigate harm. No deny it, because it will be worse next year and the year after that et al and in fact realy catastrophic years could be in there, really catasrophic. Denial and fucking around and fuck everyone I wont more money now, too late even for that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... You are already sinking and it will start to happen faster, done deal, you bought and you own it whether you want it or not.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
"The assessments are required by an act of Congress; the last one was published in 2014. "
So we have these laws requiring the government workers to model climate change and make assessments of it, those models are used by military and civil planners to anticipate flooding, food shortages, etc. Driven by the best models the scientists can build from all the data.
And we have Scott Pruit, head of the EPA, climate change denier, essentially driven by Hannity of Fox News, who in turn is simply sponsored propaganda of a dying coal industry. Pruit repeats basic flawed logic and misdirections to pretend its not happening.
Notice the split? Scott isn't working from the science or the data from under him, he's working from the sponsored commentary on Fox News. But then that's just paid for propaganda, it's not science. So you have one group working from real data and models that bypass his agency, and his agency working from PR puff pieces written by industries looking for favors.
That's not healthy.
What if the head of the Defense Department did that? Suppose US was at war with Russia and Russia hired Hannity to push its propaganda. Instead of making choices based on all the data and science the government could muster, you'd have a military undermined from the top by its own boss. You can see that now with the Russian cyber attacks against USA, Fox is doing a full on deflection. Not a denial, a deflection. They know Russia is doing that, yet trying to get their viewers to ignore it as a non-story.
This year was much cooler than normal yet the government's is still peddling this nonsense.
...you can do about it? Solar and Wind? Piffle! We can build that for 100 years, and until we get massive pumped storage of electricity, a "magic" battery for storing it, or a world-wide power grid that we can afford to use and guarantee it won't be interrupted by a war - unless we can get one of these up and working, the power will be unreliable and still require the coal and natural gas and nuclear plants to exist for when the wind stops blowing at night.
And then there's the transportation sector. Got a battery that will operate an 18-wheeler, a locomotive, a jet aircraft? I mean one that someone other than Donald can afford? No, no one has these. There's automotive solutions that won't compete favorably with the 1987 Yugo that completed the 1 Lap of America rally, 9000 miles in 10 days, almost always moving, and necessarily refueling in minutes at points wherever they happened to be low on fuel. No electric can do that. Still. Nothing electric is as good as a 1987 Yugo in terms of range and refuelability.
Sooooo... whatcha gonna do about all that evil CO2 and NOT totally wreck society without going back to horses and donkey carts? Eh?
Glad that's over. Next issue?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Cue the level headed debate with a focus in facts, solutions and mutual respect.
If you want to know what to believe about anything, look to the most deceptive, evil entity you can think of, and then believe the opposite.
In other words, believe the opposite of any government report.
Is this a report by a massive government or is the report itself massive? How big does a report have to be to be called massive?
Here we go:
https://www.nrdc.org/trump-wat...
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Did they line up a bunch of earths in a control group to prove that their climate conjecture is real?
Nope.... they are liberals... they have no concept of logic. No requirement of actually delivering scientific proof of their theory...
I mean... all you really have to say is that they are liberals and they don't really understand the concept of being able to reproduce a scientific proof. They are absolutely unconcerned with proving the garbage that comes from their worthless mouth.
Proof?!?!?!11 Liberals don't need to prove ANYTHING. Conjecture! Now THAT is liberal "science".
LOL
And then they wonder why conservatives don't respect them as intellectuals. Spoiler idiot... you aren't an intellectual. If you were we could actually solve the issues we face as humanity. Instead we find that all of a sudden they are using wood again to build things.
Didn't you just get shitty about us destroying forests?
Oh, that is right... you lack memory. Nope, lets do solar panels, but ignore the pollution that it took to create them in China.
Oh, lets use mirrors and a tower, but lets ignore the birds we kill.
Lets do some tidal shit... ignore the fish we kill.
Lets do some geo shit and pretend it doesn't change how the internal earth might persist.
Lets put up some wind vanes and ignore the birds that die.
Lets fission some shit and pretend it wont go sideways in practice nor go sideways in storage.
I know, lets pretend there is some solution to energey that doesn't fuck us, and because we are fucking idiots lets call ourselves "DEMOCRATS".
There are none so deaf as those who will not listen.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Okay, enough already! I got it. We are all doomed unless we lower our carbon footprint and the reason for out carbon footprint is the burning of coal, petroleum oil, and natural gas.
We'll we can't just turn everything off, that's just asking for death. We can scale back our energy consumption in some ways. We got our LED lights, low flo toilets, four cylinder aluminum cars running on ethanol (which is alcohol abuse in my mind), we got public busing running on natural gas (better than diesel but not best), electric trains, planes(?), and automobiles. Our houses have triple panes and double insulation and not a single pet, heat pump HVAC, and wood burning furnaces. And we are recycling, reducing, and redoing, or something like that. But that's just nibbling about the edges really.
To kill the big beast that is coal and oil we need a rethink. We should look at the goals here:
- Provides heat, light, electricity
- Cheap as coal
- safe as coal
- greener than coal, at a minimum, greener than natural gas is great, but getting as close to zero CO2 is best
- as reliable as coal
- domestically sourced
- domestically built, operated, and maintained
- available today
- did I miss something?
Stretch goals (goals we can strive for beyond having met the main goals):
- provides transportation (including to Earth orbit and beyond)
- Cheaper than coal
- Cheaper than natural gas
- Cheaper than wind
- Cheaper than solar
- even more reliable
- safer that coal
- safer than wind
- not just domestic but locally sourced
- did I miss something?
What energy source can meet the most of these points? I know of a few options but I'd like to hear others come up with answers and we can discuss. We hear the term "all the above" when these questions are asked so give me some all the above solutions for the all the above requirements.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
What I take away from the headline is that size does matter.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Hello Your site is very good! I like it!!. It is very helpful site. Thank you so much Please Check My Website :- http://www.divit.co.in/saligao...
Call Me Booking :- +91-9953272937 {24*7 Available} Escorts Services
First you tell the truth and that offends the right wing to their core. That truth then challenges a pile of false beliefs that can cause a conservative to fall apart completely. . On top of that you attack the cherished fantasy that if Trump says something it must be true. It is as if you are trying to kill these mental midgets. But then you fail to really grind into the meat and raw nerves of the right wing. After all, pollution is a consequence of human activity. Humans can only change their activities so much without the world crumbling in their imaginations so it is obvious that what is really called for is the shrinking of the size of the human population. That might involve all the Satanic stuff like birth control, use of condoms or even abortions or that sinful morning after pill. So what is really being pointed out is that all the topics that liberals want to have as standards in the community seem to be correct and all the really repressive nonsense sought by the right wing is exactly what is causing the horrors around us. Now run to your meaningless voting booths and place that limp vote for the freak of your choice. You'll really have to go some to get a leader worse than Trump in power.
"will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally."
NOT saying 'by humans'.
Also: it does not say humans emit the greater part of all CO2.
Nor does it explain the CO2 lagging a temperature rise.
That is thus a weak `scientific` report if the news article holds the core info.
Maybe we need a new paradigm : anyone retardedly trying to deny global warming at this point gets their non-functioning testicles removed and fed to them with tartar sauce.
You have stumbled upon one positive aspect of global warming without even knowing it. The potential reduction of human population by DANGEROUS GLOBAL TESTICLE WARMING.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
I, for one, welcome our climate-changing overlords!
Seriously, it's way too cold out there.
Here we go: https://www.nrdc.org/trump-wat...
What they are doing was already done in Canada by Stephen Harper. It was the major reason why he and his so called Conservatives got their ass handed to them on a plater in the last election. What they did was try to muzzle and pre-screen scientific data findings coming out of all scientists hired by the government of Canada. HOWEVER the Canadian public saw exactly what the assholes were up to and turfed their collective asses out of Ottawa. What happened afterwards was a purging of most the right wing nut jobs in the conservative party and some positive changes to bring some sanity back into the party.
Let us hope that the US does the same thing to Mr Trump next year by cutting the balls off the Republican controlled house and senate and turning Mr Trump into a yellow headed toupee sporting lame duck for the remainder of his term in office. I doubt that he is stupid enough to do something to cause his impeachment or that the whole Russian thing will bring down his castle, but trying to muzzle and castrate scientists could and should be an issue that will make enough intelligent Americans hand him his ass on a platter in 2018.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Typical /. response.
A. Study produced by eminent scientists based on lots of research, taking many man-years of effort to produce, shows clear conclusion.
B. Random /. poster, misrepresents article, then says: "nope, I know better".
[Misrepresentation is pointing out the article doesn't explicitly say that most CO2 is produced by humans, but ignores the clear statement at the beginning of the article that says: 'It is "extremely likely" that human activities are the "dominant cause" of global warming,' ]
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
baby...don't fear hapless *BSD there are only BitTorrent) Second, Much as Windows no matter how startling turn that he documents of OpenBSD versus Discussion I'm bottoms butt. Wipe The most vibrant brilliant plan Very sick anD its To the politically By BSDI who sell Posts. Therefore may do, may not How is the GNAA Not anymore. It's elected, we took thIs mistake or At death's door same year, BSD poor dead last Preferrably with an this exploitation,
100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made
HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:
1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
5) Throughout the Earth's history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than ten times as high.
6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
7) The 0.7ÂC increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.
11) Politicians and activists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago
12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds
13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that,
"fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class - predominantly - are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world".
14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions
15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an "absurdity"
16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is "embarrassed and puzzled" by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.
17) The science of what determines the earth's temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.
18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can't even pretend to control
19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.
20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates
21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth's temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vap
Is measured in billions of years. We have had instruments capable of precise temp measurement covering the earth for what? 150 years max? How is this not extrapolation from a statistically insignificant sample?
Okay the "modern era" is from the 16th Century to now.
Guess what ALSO occupied MOST of that.
The Little Ice Age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Basically ending in the late 19th or early 20th century.
Hello? *TAP*TAP*TAP* Is this thing on? Anyone home?
So wow. The last 115 years are the only 115 years of the modern era that didn't coincide with the Little Ice Age.
HOLY SHIT! WHAT A CONCEPT!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
NPR, the vile entity which can only survive on stolen taxpayer money because nobody would actually pay voluntarily to hear that verbal diarrhea, publishes a report from its benefactor (Uncle Sam) under the auspices of increasing the power of Uncle Sam.
The empirical data show the Transient Climate Response is 1/3rd the modeled value, down by nearly a factor of 10 from the modeled value a decade ago. The ECS is about half the modeled value. See Figure 7 of the following peer-reviewed paper:
http://www.iieta.org/sites/def...
Stop listening to people and look at the empirical evidence of the satellite and balloon datasets for yourself. The UN IPCC AGW Hypothesis is now falsified at the 95% level and the observed rate of warming matches the rate for the last 150 years where changes in solar magnetic activity cause the well-attested Little Ice Age and we've been warming out of it ever since. If you deny the 3 satellite and 7 balloon datasets in favor of the Lysenkoist Government position then you are an anti-scientific Flat Earther.
Buzz Aldrin (Second Man to walk on the Moon) and a lot of other astronauts are skeptical about the UN IPCC AGW Hypothesis:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
You would think the doomsayers would be happy that the Earth was not being destroyed by modern technology. but no, they appear to want to cling to their apocalyptic delusion in defiance of the observed data.
ps. the surface data sets are completely worthless. Most people who cling to them don't know that nearly 50% of the data is now 'estimated' based on assuming the IPCC model is true. The surface data sets are no longer 'observations' according to the Scientific Method, they are in fact 'hypothesis'. The data are the satellite and balloon data sets.
If only a pandemic would wipe them like a shit stain from the asshole of humanity. I really hope, if it does happen, it rids us of the worthless fucking Vegans. I really wish they didn't exist and it would be nice if some disease wiped those worthless beings from our world.
It was dying. That was last year. We're under new management.
Coal mining is way up. Miners are getting hired. Mine engineers are getting hired. Coal exports are way up.
We now export to China, bigly. China used to buy from North Korea, but now China buys from us.
but trying to muzzle and castrate scientists could and should be an issue that will make enough intelligent Americans hand him his ass on a platter in 2018.
If there were enough intelligent Americans to hand him his ass, he wouldn't have gotten past the primaries.
The problem with democracy is, it is mostly a vote against something. A voter can say "I won't support this corruption" and vote for the other guy. He can't stop the corruption, which leaves the USA in a position of self-collapse because US parties don't purge corrupt policies. The first consequence being, when Trump loses, his corruption remains. The second consequence being, there's nothing sane to replace him: The government now protects his corrupt polices. It's effect will extend to party insiders, who won't demand better policies but better propaganda to bring voters to their cause. Then the cycle repeats.
In 2008, the Republican party promised to obstruct everything the Democrat party did: It's no longer about finding a middle ground, it's about bullying whoever disagrees with the Republicans. Maybe the Republicans will be so weak that won't be possible but they spent a lot of time building a gerrymander so that they never truly lose power. The probability of the Democrats being able (and willing) to undo Republican corruption is almost nil.
Of course, the Democrat party recently took a lot of things for granted, to their detriment, so they are suffering too. There are 101 studies explaining how Clinton and Democrat policies aren't attracting voters but few studies exploring what the voters want. It's something most outsiders can see: The Democrat's inclusive policies ignored basic economic principles and it's voters who suffered for it. The party can either "bring some sanity" themselves, or wait for Republican greed and incompetence to send the voters their way. Historically, it's been the latter choice.
"will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally." NOT saying 'by humans'.
True. Large-scale carbon dioxide emissions from any other source would be just as problematic wrt. global warming. However, I'd consider those somewhat unlikely to happen, though not impossible (two obvious possibilities would be alien invaders from outside the solar system setting up carbon-dioxide-emitting facilities, or large scale spontaneous coal seam fires).
Also: it does not say humans emit the greater part of all CO2.
Yes. Some things are omitted, either because they are well known (like humans emitting the greater part of carbon dioxide, or Earth being a planet), or because they are to be implied from context (such as the report referring to Earth, not Mars by "globally"). This has the benefit of a finite report length, which helps with writing and reading.
Philipp
This report was issued as the collaborative work of hundreds of serious scientists over years of work.... ...and is really intended as a giant "fuck you" to President Trump.
I'm not saying this impugns the data or conclusions necessarily, but let's not pretend there's no subjective context either.
-Styopa
Nobody would have expected it!
...and fossil fuel consumption curbs sexual assault because you can't do it with the lights on. Seriously, if such morons can get government positions or even become president, why am I worried about losing my job. US politics seems to be the career path for the dumb and inept. I guess I'd be overqualified, but do not have a chance anyway because I did not inherit millions from my dad's shady businesses.
If you are serious about the removal of CO2, I suggest a ban on CO2 injection into beverages (e.g. soda pop). That costs nothing to do and will have an immediate effect.
Not only will it reduce the CO2 footprint, it will improve your health!
How many of you will take me up on that?
...that says climate is warming and humans are the cause than that just cinches things up.
We don't need no steenkin' scientific method when we've got massive government reports. Everybody had damned well better fall in line now because a massive government report means the science is settled and anyone who doesn't immediately begin nodding their heads in agreement is the proper target of invective and threats.
People have to understand that in the twenty-first century science is no longer encumbered by the need for a demonstration of the validity of a hypothesis. If enough scientists decide a hypothesis is verified than by God, it's verified.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
I'm pretty sure a question can't be contradicted, only answered with some form of, "you're wrong".
Global Warming is 100% BS and lies.
"essentially driven by Hannity of Fox News" - got a source for this?
"simply sponsored propaganda of a dying coal industry" - got a source for this?
If the industry is dying - how can they afford Hannity on the payroll? BTW - Natural gas is killing coal for economic reasons - not environmental conspiracy reasons.
"the Russian cyber attacks against USA" - got a source for this? All evidence that has been presented so far indicates that most of these hacks were not hacks but intentional leaks.
Since they are planning to build 700 new coal fired power plants.
I can pretty much guarantee two things here: First, proponents of this report will demand that we do something this very second before we all die. Second, within a week, the cracks in the validity of the report will begin to appear and within a year, the entire thing will be debunked. This is how every attempt to use fear and crisis plays out. The goal is never to solve any problem, only to amass power.
If you don't like NPR, here are some other sources:
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-climate-real.html
http://blog.ucsusa.org/rachel-licker/what-is-the-national-climate-assessment-the-most-comprehensive-report-on-climate-change-in-the-u-s
http://www.themorningsun.com/article/MS/20170822/LOCAL1/170829886
And links to the actual document:
PDF file draft as of June 2017: https://assets.documentcloud.o...
New York Times link to the draft report: https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
National Academy of Sciences Review of the Draft report: https://nas-sites.org/americas...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
My friends on the Internet and our Government of Billionaires says this ain't true!!
I do have to say that comments on this thread have the lowest signal to noise ratio (or I should say "signal to troll ratio") of any comment thread I've ever seen on slashdot.
Anybody have anything to say about the actual report? (or about the draft report-- NPR apparently got a prerelease version, but the actual final version is due to be released at 2pm today.
Slashdot's scientifically illiterate population of twats think it's all a conspiracy from BIG GREEN. Dopey cunts might as well be flat earthers at this point.
It's what you do with the energy and the USA has done plenty with ours.
Modern civilization dates from the first widespread use of the automobile, i.e. from about 1910. Thus the snippet reads
the past 115 years are "the warmest in the last 107 years."
There's a problem here.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Okay. Sure. If you moronic assclowns say so. It's funny how you liberal maggots refuse to believe ANYTHING the current administration says, yet swallow this like a $5 hooker in a back alley.
You dipshits are priceless.
China already is at lass than half the level of the US. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to cut your levels in more than half...
China has been taking a role as a leader in making use of coal as an electricity source more clean and responsible. For instance, the country built new ultra-supercritical coal plants (~44% efficiency) before the United States. Chinas coal fleet has currently (2017) an average efficiency of 38.6% compared to the USA with 37.4%. In 2009, China required companies building new plants to retire an old plant for every new one built.
Yes they are replacements, and yes they are more efficient, and yes Chinas coal use is dropping.
I keep piling on blankets, putting on MORE thermal underwear, and throwing more and more logs on the fire, and I just keep getting hotter and hotter!
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
Yet some knuckledraggers will STILL call it "fake news". Stupid ignorant fucks.
Stop increasing the number of heat producing humans.
It would penalize regular people more while leaving the policymakers untouched.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
The official report with revised language has more validity than this.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
Just this week there is a big push in Congress to hinder the business of Tesla that makes all electric cars.
When are you people going to get it? Even if there is climate change, the big push in government is all about money, It's to get control over you and your money.
* If they were serious about going green, about climate change they would outlaw any new plant being built from pollution into the air, water and land.
* If they were serious about going green, I wouldn't have to pay $6000 just for a permit to build a windmill. A permit is nothing but a permission to do something. Imagine how many people are not going green all because of that permit fee. Make it $100 and lots of people will build them. The same is true with permits of Solar and geothermal.
* If they were serious about going green, there wouldn't be any restrictions on people collecting rainwater. For every gallon of water collected, that is a gallon of water that doesn't need to go through the treatment plant, through the filters and the pipes. That is less energy and less ware and tear on the equipment. 100% of all water goes back into the water table, and each gallon I collect is a gallon I don't have to take from the city.
* If they were serious about going green, there wouldn't be restrictions on making your own gardens. Less gas used to deliver produce to the stores.
* If they were serious about going green, they would stop making and re-taring roads year after year. Abandon many of them, let nature and the locals reclaim them. Less energy and waste. America has more roads than any other country on Earth.
I can go on and on but at the end of the day, all the propaganda on Earth isn't going to brainwash all of us into accepting a carbon tax which is what this story is really about. I will NEVER pay any carbon tax.
Don't worry; global warming makes volcanic eruptions much more probable, and the eruption of the Yosemite supervolcano will cause a nuclear winter-like event that will more than compensate for the warming caused by massive C02 and methane emissions. Face it, in the long run the Earth does regulate it's own temperature, and massive global extinction events are just part of that regulation mechanism. Just like parents used to say whenever we whined about something terrible happening to us as kids: "100 years from now, nobody will know the difference!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"The planet isn't f-ed... we are!" https://www.goodreads.com/quot...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The psychotic, murderous legacy of communism on full display. Hatred of free speech, radical censorship, bloodthirsty ambition. Stalin would love you.
China produces less than half as much CO2 on the only measure that counts, per person. It will take America 50 years to drop to the levels of China. Except China is also dropping, so it will take double or triple that.
Just in case you were wondering...
Just more fake news from the sino-liberal conspiracy to destroy the U.S.
#maga
They will be using this latest report to (politely) beat some sense into their fellow conservatives. The CCL training is for politeness, the Chair of the Conservative Caucus likes to tell conservative members of Congress that others will rant and chant and block your doors, but CCL will walk with you, talk with you and open doors to new solutions.
Libertarians often lurk within the conservative caucus, since they are often more liberty-oriented and individualistic than the liberals.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
20 gallon car fuel tank consumes 20,000 cubic feet of Oxygen i.e 2500 sq.ft. house https://animagraffs.com/how-a-...
Casteism