How Global Warming Really Works

I understand enough about climate change denial. Science is not involved.

I don't know a single person who denies the climate is changing. You would have to be really, really stupid, or at least incredibly ignorant, to believe the climate of the planet is immotile.
 
Two steps backward?

In the wake of the Ukraine crisis and Germany’s nuclear shutdown Swedish-state-owned Vattenfall is supplying even more energy from coal.

Coal remains popular in Germany.

Article
 
In the wake of the Ukraine crisis and Germany’s nuclear shutdown Swedish-state-owned Vattenfall is supplying even more energy from coal.

Coal remains popular in Germany.

Article

Coal and other fossil fuels will remain popular for many decades, unless somebody comes up with something a whole lot better than windmills and solar panels to replace them.
 
Which comes naturally to the starry eyed idealists and pseudo intellectuals of the left, and to the young who haven't lived long enough to develop enough common sense to think otherwise.:)

Are you dumb enough to think none on the right think the same way?
 
And I think you have to be naive and stupid to think man is causing it as well.

I think man has at least a minor effect on climate change, but I see no reason to believe it's anything more than that.
 
When compared to the cataclysmic environmental events along the long dark multi billion year chronology of Earth's violent existence, considering as well the insignificant little spark along that dark chronology the existence of Man really represents, I think it's beyond intellectually arrogant and stupid to think we are capable of destroying the environment, or effect it in cataclysmic ways.

Radical environmentalism is about fear without foundation and playing off that fear to advance a socialist agenda against the West. Promoting clean water isn't environmentalism, it's evolutionary common sense, just like running water, and prohibitions about shitting in your yard. It isn't about "saving the Earth." Cap and trade for instance, is about looting western enterprise and advancing the control of the administrative state, while major polluters in the Third World benefit.:rolleyes:

Yes or no. Zero effect or not. You think it's arrogant to say we affect (not effect, btw) the environment? Then explain to the class toxic waste areas, polluted rivers and lakes, wearing surgical masks in China. Aliens?
 
Yes or no. Zero effect or not. You think it's arrogant to say we affect (not effect, btw) the environment? Then explain to the class toxic waste areas, polluted rivers and lakes, wearing surgical masks in China. Aliens?


Pollution is a completely different topic.


 
Last edited:


Pollution is completely different topic.



No it's not, he said we were incapable of having a serious effect on the environment. That is what I was responding to. But thanks.
 
There were several billion passenger pigeons in North America in 1866. Thirty years later, they were gone.

Ecosystems are fragile, and humans can and do destroy them.
 
We know that you folks require the EPA to tell you not to crap in your drinking water.

No we require the EPA to tell corporations not to crap in our drinking water, and they still do it anyway. Because paying the fine is cheaper than actually disposing of their toxic waste properly.
 
You should probably learn how to read. I said, "I think it's beyond intellectually arrogant and stupid to think we are capable of destroying the environment, or effect it in cataclysmic ways." You just misquoted me.

Good thing too. We should tell the people around Chernobyl, Fukishima, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and dozens of test sites that we were mistaken. Those places are perfectly survivable.

After that we should do a tour of the desert south of the Hoover Dam and remember that had nothing to do with altering the flow of water in the region and finish up our whirlwind tour with the river we once set on fire.
 
You should probably learn how to read. I said, "I think it's beyond intellectually arrogant and stupid to think we are capable of destroying the environment, or effect it in cataclysmic ways." You just misquoted me.

Cataclysmic is serious, destroying is serious. My reading skills are just fine, thanks. Now tell me again how there is zero effect on our climate conditions with seven billion people on earth.
 
Back
Top