Another closed thread because of politics @Egon

[MossRoad]

I'm picking my side right now! I firmly believe the vanilla frosty is better than the chocolate one at Wendy's. I accept no counter argument as it will certainly be flawed.

:licking: Too many choices!!!

 

[MossRoad]

I would get in line and wait a long time for the opportunity to kick that smarmy, smug, self righteous so and so in the goods.

See! Now if we all could just concentrate on the things we have in common, instead of our differences, we could solve a lot of important issues in short order. :laughing:

 

[Got2BTru]

I'm picking my side right now! I firmly believe the vanilla frosty is better than the chocolate one at Wendy's. I accept no counter argument as it will certainly be flawed.

See now, that's just blasphemous! I DO believe though they changed their recipe a while back and it's not as good as it once was...

 

[MossRoad]

OK, so lets just clean up and cease the pollution and call it a day and see what happens in the future.

 

[tcreeley]

I completely agree with everything you said. And when global warming first became a topic, I was worried about it too. But in my opinion, man made global warming, or human activity is causing the planet to warm up has not been proven to actually be happening. I'm actually leaning towards being concerned that the planet is cooling. I feel the sun is the only factor is what the temperature of the planet is going to be, and I also think that some warming to the planet would be a good thing based on historical evidence from periods in history when the planet was warmer then it is today.

Like most people who that do not believe man is increasing or affecting the temperature of the planet, we are very concerned with pollution and want a cleaner environment. I believe that they are separate issues, that in order to self enrich themselves, politicians have used scientist, by bribing them with grant money, to create a false concern that becomes a new world wild bureaucracy that will never find a solution, and will always require more and more money to keep it going to find that solution that doesn't actually exist.

I ask you this, why did NOAA adjust historical temperatures to reflect a greater increase in the planets temperature today? Their official reasoning was that those temperatures where taken at the wrong time of the day. So instead of copying how they where taken back then to prove an increase or a decrease, they put their monitoring stations at Airports, and inside big cities, where the temps are going to be artificially higher then out in the country side, and claim those to be the "correct" temperature for the planet, and not out in the countryside where there isn't miles and miles of asphalt and concrete.

On the most basic things, we are being misled.

The question then becomes why? If it's real, why do they have to lie to prove it? If it's not real, the answer is pretty obvious, it's all about the money.

I noticed things were changing through gardening - frost dates and planting times, the wood that went into the stove, ice on local lakes - freeze overs and ice outs. I saw it in birding- changing species. Cool summers were replaced with hot summers. I noticed these things before I ever heard of Gore on the topic - before I saw numbers, or reports or even heard the words global warming/climate change. - Maybe being in a seasonal state like Maine and being outside made it easier to see.
Only after I noticed the changes did I start looking to understand what was going on. I don't miss the cold winters, the arctic winds that chilled the house. I do miss the cool summers where the temps barely ever reached 80.
I do miss the quiet without the AC running. I remember a time when we had never even owned an AC.
I didn't need a scientist to tell me there was global warming, it was obvious. It must stand out more up here.

 

[aczlan]

OK, so lets just clean up and cease the pollution and call it a day and see what happens in the future.

That's all well and good, but at what cost, and what are we defining as pollution?
If we clean up to be "carbon neutral" at a cost of 1.5x the cost of building stuff anywhere else and other countries dont, we have put ourselves at a significant competitive disadvantage when competing with the rest of the world.
That was the issue with the Paris Agreement, we were to set to work towards some fairly aggressive goals while much of the world set much more modest goals and we were to pay them billions to achieve their modest goals.

Aaron Z

 

[Mike68]

OK, so lets just clean up and cease the pollution and call it a day and see what happens in the future.

I agree fully. If we focused on actual pollutants such as mercury, lead, NOx, SOx, etc we would force the retirement of inefficient power plants which in turn would lower CO2 levels. How much could we have improved our infrastructure and environment if we put all the money and resources used to promote the AGW agenda into making power generation more efficient?

 

[Steppenwolfe]

The origin of articles is always revealing as are the originators source's of information.

I really enjoy reading/watching articles on ancient aliens and their stone working ability. Now don't get too excited; I've also read the debunking side which usually have reference pages on the source of their data. It makes for relaxation.

Me, too. Love those shows, lot's of interesting theories out there.

 

[/pine]

I agree fully. If we focused on actual pollutants such as mercury, lead, NOx, SOx, etc we would force the retirement of inefficient power plants which in turn would lower CO2 levels. How much could we have improved our infrastructure and environment if we put all the money and resources used to promote the AGW agenda into making power generation more efficient?

Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn't count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for "green energy."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#4594355c7ebb

 

[buckeyefarmer]

I'm picking my side right now! I firmly believe the vanilla frosty is better than the chocolate one at Wendy's. I accept no counter argument as it will certainly be flawed.

Finally something i can agree on here.