Climate continues to change.

[KingOrfeo]

Your kind of wasting your greenhouse gases speaking about geologic time to a cult that thinks high temperatures in Des Moines on any given day are symptomatic of climate change.

Which at least makes more sense than a contrary assumption based on a cold spell.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

The greenhouse gases given off by livestock, farts, are directly being taxed.

Not in America.

 

[chillywilly2]

Dude. You know the lakes in Cali were bone dry within a couple of years. That wasn't some long geological timescale.

I think thats cause it never rained for a while luk...take another look...they filled up again in a couple weeks

 

[chillywilly2]

Not in America.

Not with Trump in charge...give it time

 

[Conager]

Which at least makes more sense than a contrary assumption based on a cold spell.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png

Most of taking your SATs 30 times in order to score high enough to get into Mensa.

 

[Conager]

Not in America.

California is, for now, "in America."

SB1383

http://www.agcouncil.org/september-19-2016

 

[Disgustipated]

I think thats cause it never rained for a while luk...take another look...they filled up again in a couple weeks

I live here, I know. I also know that we have wildfires again because it wasn't enough.

 

[phrodeau]

California is, for now, "in America."

SB1383

http://www.agcouncil.org/september-19-2016

Not a tax, sorry.

 

[Disgustipated]

The greenhouse gases given off by livestock, farts, are directly being taxed.

You are taxed for your burgers farts, because that's green!!



The man made ones we intentionally drained to keep the lawns and farms in the deserts of SoCal green??

Yea that's got fuck all to do with the fact that over the course of time geological features of the planet, including lakes and rivers, naturally move around.

We might not notice some of it in our tiny lifetimes, but even the mountains are moving about as we speak.

Naci wasn't intentionally drained.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Which at least makes more sense than a contrary assumption based on a cold spell.

Not even the tiniest bit.

Not in America.

Yes, in America.

Not a tax, sorry.

Any cost arbitrarily incured upon an industry by the government is a tax.

Call them fees, fines, regulations, or environmental protection.....at the end of the day it's a tax.

Naci wasn't intentionally drained.

Man made in an arid area that's historically speaking been an arid wasteland.

That lake was never meant to exist and the piss trickle that feeds it is a historical anomaly. Like it or not the past 10k years have been some of cali's wettest. Earth for most of human history has been in an ice age. We know there have been HUGE stretches of times spanning millions of years where earth was a good bit warmer and California was not only far more scalding but much much dryer as well. This will happen again.

Climate change is inevitable, the Earth goes through wave of life and extinction, dry and wet, hot and cold, more O2 rich atmosphere to more carbon rich atmosphere.

We can prove it, there is tons of geological and ice core evidence supporting these cycles.

The question is how much is human activity effecting it, can we do something about it and do we really need to regulate farts and subsidize Chevy Volts to achieve those goals.

 

[Conager]

Not a tax, sorry.

Neither was the ACA. Not sorry.

 

[Conager]

The question is how much is human activity effecting it, can we do something about it and do we really need to regulate farts and subsidize Chevy Volts to achieve those goals.

You can't even begin to discuss cost benefit analysis with True Believers that are willing to spend an unlimited amount of other people's capital and who, not only do not actually understand what little is known, don't even acknowlege what the unknowns are.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Your kind of wasting your greenhouse gases speaking about geologic time to a cult that thinks high temperatures in Des Moines on any given day are symptomatic of climate change.

Just like the cult that thinks because it was a bit chilly in Des Moines on any given day that global warming is a myth.

 

[phrodeau]

You can't even begin to discuss cost benefit analysis with True Believers that are willing to spend an unlimited amount of other people's capital and who, not only do not actually understand what little is known, don't even acknowlege what the unknowns are.

Especially when you make up stuff, refuse to contribute real information, and (in the case of gun control) legislate against anyone actually researching the topic.

 

[Conager]

Especially when you make up stuff, refuse to contribute real information, and (in the case of gun control) legislate against anyone actually researching the topic.

It's illegal to conduct research?

...or it's illegal to squander taxpayer resources on politically motivated conflation of stastistics?

I'm pretty sure you can legally research all the bias confirmation you can google. On subjects that you're passionate about you can actually hire qualified researchers to do actual research if you wish.

 

[Conager]

Just like the cult that thinks because it was a bit chilly in Des Moines on any given day that global warming is a myth.

Are atheists that disbelieve Christianity a cult? Are atheist requireds to disprove Christianity or are they free to simply look at scant evidence and draw obvious conclusions?

Why is it that man-caused climate change being both currently measurable and catastrophically inevitable in the future the only tenants that the left accept on faith?

 

[Hard_Rom]

Are atheists that disbelieve Christianity a cult? Are atheist requireds to disprove Christianity or are they free to simply look at scant evidence and draw obvious conclusions?

Why is it that man-caused climate change being both currently measurable and catastrophically inevitable in the future the only tenants that the left accept on faith?

It's not accepted on faith. It is accepted on scientific evidence that is accepted by 95% of scientists. Those who disagree are going on faith that the fossil fuel companies supporting the opposite are telling the truth.

 

[water505]

It's not accepted on faith. It is accepted on scientific evidence that is accepted by 95% of scientists. Those who disagree are going on faith that the fossil fuel companies supporting the opposite are telling the truth.

The 90 something percent claim was disproven long ago. Lefties still love it like they do all their other isms.

 

[phrodeau]

The 90 something percent claim was disproven long ago. Lefties still love it like they do all their other isms.

What percentage is it exactly, then? You have zero idea.

 

[Conager]

What percentage is it exactly, then? You have zero idea.

You seem to have no idea what zero means. His statement suggested a range of numbers, inclusive of the actual number, so I'd say his statement was fairly accurate and yours, not at all.

 

[Disgustipated]

You seem to have no idea what zero means. His statement suggested a range of numbers, inclusive of the actual number, so I'd say his statement was fairly accurate and yours, not at all.

Think about this for a minute. Re-read if necessary.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The 90 something percent claim was disproven long ago. Lefties still love it like they do all their other isms.

No it wasn't. That is just more propaganda from the fossil fuel industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Opposing

This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

[water505]

No it wasn't. That is just more propaganda from the fossil fuel industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Opposing

This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[3] this list represents a minority viewpoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Ninety something percent of scientists do not believe in man made global warming.

Read your own post.

You have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. Use your brain and do some proper research instead of putting up wiki links.

It's not difficult. If you want to know the truth.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans.

*you read my posts*

 

[water505]

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans.

*you read my posts*

You are a perfect example of willful ignorance. Are you that childish that you might find out what you said isn't true?

A simple Google search using two words turned up dozens of articles from the left and the right that totally discredit the 90 whatever percent claim and clearly demonstrate why it's not the truth.

If you'd rather just double down on stupid there's absolutely nothing anyone can do for you.

Have a nice life, dumb ass.