Jump to content

Caused By Natural Variations...


smitty

Recommended Posts

Certainly the climate can vary naturally, but carbon also certainly can trap heat near the surface of the planet. You do understand how a greenhouse works correct? There is no doubt or debate scientifically, dumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere absolutely dirupts climate. To claim otherwise, is to live in an alternate reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly the climate can vary naturally, but carbon also certainly can trap heat near the surface of the planet. You do understand how a greenhouse works correct? There is no doubt or debate scientifically, dumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere absolutely dirupts climate. To claim otherwise, is to live in an alternate reality.

​that volcano erupting in South America dumped more carbon into the atmosphere in a week than humans have done in the entire history of humanity.......to claim that we are causing any of that "climate change" is rather ignorant when seen on that scale.......your "climate change" is just the natural cycle of things....we USED to call it the weather.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know that climate and weather aren't the same thing right. You also realize the rise in carbon in the atmosphere over the last century since the industrial revolution has been the sharpest rise in measurable history right? sure, there used to be more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now, but at that time the atmosphere was not breathable to humans lol. it's hard to take people serious when they can look at demonstrable observable science, and tens of thousands published and peer-reviewed papers by climatologist all over the planet. but you're probably right Fox News probably knows best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know that climate and weather aren't the same thing right. You also realize the rise in carbon in the atmosphere over the last century since the industrial revolution has been the sharpest rise in measurable history right? sure, there used to be more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now, but at that time the atmosphere was not breathable to humans lol. it's hard to take people serious when they can look at demonstrable observable science, and tens of thousands published and peer-reviewed papers by climatologist all over the planet. but you're probably right Fox News probably knows best

​How long have we been recording this history of climate change...and why was there a global cooling scare in the 70s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we can take core samples and measure the carbon thousands of years back.will climate change could cause some areas to cool down, and others to heat up. the climate is the natural balance, if it goes out of balance it will affect many things in many different ways, it already is. I'm not saying there's anything we can do about it, but to deny that its real is pretty silly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we can take core samples and measure the carbon thousands of years back.will climate change could cause some areas to cool down, and others to heat up. the climate is the natural balance, if it goes out of balance it will affect many things in many different ways, it already is. I'm not saying there's anything we can do about it, but to deny that its real is pretty silly

​I don't deny global climate change...but many do think we are the cause of it...now that is silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well I guess I'm in good company, considering every reputable publication on climate, and every reputable climatologists on planet earth agrees with me. its not even a debate except for those who watch Fox News

​lol...hang in there...in 30 years you and your "experts" will be sounding the global cooling alarm...and Al Gore and his ilk will figure out a way to make money off of it.

Like I have been saying...you better figure out how to cork volcanoes if you don'w want nox spewed into the atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's so weird, in almost any other field people trust the experts. if you have cancer you listen to the best oncologist, if you're having heart trouble you want to see the best cardiologist, if you're building a high rise you want to consult the best structural engineers. however, for some reason when it comes to climate no one wants to listen to the thousands of climatologist that all agree lol it's baffling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's so weird, in almost any other field people trust the experts. if you have cancer you listen to the best oncologist, if you're having heart trouble you want to see the best cardiologist, if you're building a high rise you want to consult the best structural engineers. however, for some reason when it comes to climate no one wants to listen to the thousands of climatologist that all agree lol it's baffling

​There are "experts" that say global warming is a hoax...why don't you listen to them?

And don't you remember the emails that were found confirming this hoax...if you don't, look it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how is anyone making money off of global climate change? The money is all in keeping people like you thinking it's a hoax, so the oil companies keep getting their government subsidies... Your head is in the sand deep bro

​Really...look that up too, I don't have time to do your research...we have been over this.

And I knew the big bad oil companies would come up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well I guess I'm in good company, considering every reputable publication on climate, and every reputable climatologists on planet earth agrees with me. its not even a debate except for those who watch Fox News

​You failed to mention the ones who have PROVEN that the data used by those "reputable" climatologists was falsified.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
    • See why I don't trust my Hogs?
    • Come on dude, don’t take anything away from the kids on the field. If you want to talk uncharacteristic, we made what 3 or 4 errors in game one. Y’all had 2 EARNED runs.  Defense is normally our strong suit. Your ace didn’t strike out a single one of our kids. Like I said also, you did not out hit us in game 1. Hell you barley out hit us in game 2. We had all the uncharacteristic walks. Josh pitched a hell of a game is what made that game what it was.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...