Growing Evidence that Climate Change Is A HOAX

[tarheelbybirth1]

I have that same outfit. It would be super embarrassing if we wore it to the same place on the same day.

I only wear it when I cook. And Comic-Con. Do you go to Comic-Con?

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

nope Ned, didn't go home. He's just somewhat tired of being lectured on why he should take steps to save the planet by people who pollute 5, 10, 100 times more than he does. If the world is in such dire straights, maybe the leaders of the movement should practice what they preach. Doesn't that seem to be a reasonable thing to ask?

Do you believe climate change is real and presents a threat to civilization? Simple question. Should be a simple answer.

 

[GesterHawk]

I only wear it when I cook. And Comic-Con. Do you go to Comic-Con?

No.

 

[DailyBuck7]

Do you believe climate change is real and presents a threat to civilization? Simple question. Should be a simple answer.

Climate change is real but how much of it is due to carbon dioxide nobody knows. It is not a threat to civilization because accelerating science will find ways to ameliorate any problems caused by co2. Also, climate has always changed. In terms of geological time, it wasn't that long ago that major parts of the lower United States were covered by glaciers.

 

[DailyBuck7]

Yes, they are hard for regular folks - even those of us with solid science backgrounds - to read and digest. I hate that. But the facts are in there. And that's what's important.

You are engaging in another denier cliche by dwelling on this and then using it to conclude that climate science is junk science.

If you and Ned and other deniers here aren't getting paid for the nonsense you spew, you should talk to your agent (or get one).

You show your anti-science bias by using the ridiculous term denier to try to link people who think logically and practically about climate and warming to nazis. Whether and how to deal with climate change and warming is a practical political decision that involves balancing many factors. To show how stupid the use of the term denier is James Hansen likened the use of fossil fuels to Nazi death trains -- like when any potential sea rise would occur people would not move or adjust from the coast.

The term climate change was emphasized in order to be able to blame all climate difficulties on co2 and to hide the fact that global warming predictions were not very accurate. Anything, can be blamed on climate change as was proved by Kamala Harris who blamed increases in the number of illegals coming to the United States on climate change.

Also, I would add that the ipcc is a part of the UN, which is hardly a vote of confidence in terms of either lack of bias or competence.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You show your anti-science bias by using the ridiculous term denier to try to link people who think logically and practically about climate and warming to nazis. Whether and how to deal with climate change and warming is a practical political decision that involves balancing many factors. To show how stupid the use of the term denier is James Hansen likened the use of fossil fuels to Nazi death trains -- like when any potential sea rise would occur people would not move or adjust from the coast.

The term climate change was emphasized in order to be able to blame all climate difficulties on co2 and to hide the fact that global warming predictions were not very accurate. Anything, can be blamed on climate change as was proved by Kamala Harris who blamed increases in the number of illegals coming to the United States on climate change.

Also, I would add that the ipcc is a part of the UN, which is hardly a vote of confidence in terms of either lack of bias or competence.

That's a terrific Onion-esque parody. Except I worry that you weren't aiming for that.

If you weren't deliberately trying to misunderstand or misrepresent every point for humor's sake, then you belong on my Ignore Ignorant list.

 

[DailyBuck7]

That's a terrific Onion-esque parody. Except I worry that you weren't aiming for that.

If you weren't deliberately trying to misunderstand or misrepresent every point for humor's sake, then you belong on my Ignore Ignorant list.

Your uninformed response to my post doesn't exactly give you any credibility at all. If you want to put me on ignore, I have no reason to desire to interact with somebody whose knowledge is on such a low level. I have had mooogy on ignore for a long time and I think it is a good feature and if you want to use it I am more than good with you using it.

The real parody is leftists using climate change has an excuse for anything as demonstrated by how stupid Kamala Harris is.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

Climate change is real but how much of it is due to carbon dioxide nobody knows.

It’s almost entirely due to CO2 from burning fossil fuels and everybody knows that. You making that claim discredits you in every way imaginable.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

You show your anti-science bias by using the ridiculous term denier to try to link people who think logically and practically about climate and warming to nazis. Whether and how to deal with climate change and warming is a practical political decision that involves balancing many factors. To show how stupid the use of the term denier is James Hansen likened the use of fossil fuels to Nazi death trains -- like when any potential sea rise would occur people would not move or adjust from the coast.

Sure... abandon trillions of dollars of infrastructure and just... move. And you post that thinking no one will see how f'n stupid it is.

The term climate change was emphasized in order to be able to blame all climate difficulties on co2 and to hide the fact that global warming predictions were not very accurate. Anything, can be blamed on climate change as was proved by Kamala Harris who blamed increases in the number of illegals coming to the United States on climate change.

It's called "climate change" because the climate is... changing. And just WTF do you think people are going to do when crops fail due to drought or flooding or just too much heat? Sit tight?
More stupidity.

Also, I would add that the ipcc is a part of the UN, which is hardly a vote of confidence in terms of either lack of bias or competence.

The IPCC compiles and presents information from climate scientists from around the world. It doesn't do the science, dumbass.

 

[DailyBuck7]

It’s almost entirely due to CO2 from burning fossil fuels and everybody knows that. You making that claim discredits you in every way imaginable.

Moran

 

[BelemNole]

Moran

Nice of you to self-identify

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

Moran

Awwww... look at you trying so hard to be relevant.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Your uninformed response to my post doesn't exactly give you any credibility at all. If you want to put me on ignore, I have no reason to desire to interact with somebody whose knowledge is on such a low level. I have had mooogy on ignore for a long time and I think it is a good feature and if you want to use it I am more than good with you using it.

The real parody is leftists using climate change has an excuse for anything as demonstrated by how stupid Kamala Harris is.

So . . . not an intelligent parody but someone who mimics thinking by parroting wingnut talking points.

Got it.

Get back to us when you can pass a Turing Test.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It’s almost entirely due to CO2 from burning fossil fuels and everybody knows that. You making that claim discredits you in every way imaginable.

Yep. But here's the thing our idiots can't grasp . . . . Climate change is a looming catastrophe. Even if NONE of it was man-caused, we should be doing all we can to combat it, mitigate it, ameliorate it, and adapt to it.

If climate change was caused by vegetables, and we could combat it by growing and eating less broccoli, the whole denier industry wouldn't exist.

 

[baltimorened]

Your uninformed response to my post doesn't exactly give you any credibility at all. If you want to put me on ignore, I have no reason to desire to interact with somebody whose knowledge is on such a low level. I have had mooogy on ignore for a long time and I think it is a good feature and if you want to use it I am more than good with you using it.

The real parody is leftists using climate change has an excuse for anything as demonstrated by how stupid Kamala Harris is.

you might be able to inject a little RFK Jr in here based on his interactions with Dana Bash.

Anybody who dares question the agenda is a climate denier. Any scientist who publishes information counter to the agenda is automatically wrong. And the media and folks like WWJD know that they are right and everyone with a different opinion is wrong. The groupthink with the loudest voices and the most bodies wins...in spite of reasonable arguments from someone with a different POV.

 

[Billanole.]

nope Ned, didn't go home. He's just somewhat tired of being lectured on why he should take steps to save the planet by people who pollute 5, 10, 100 times more than he does. If the world is in such dire straights, maybe the leaders of the movement should practice what they preach. Doesn't that seem to be a reasonable thing to ask?

You only seem to focus on “the leaders” who are pitiful few in the grand scheme regarding carbon usage. Yes, it is absurd, but unfortunately their usage follows typical patterns of much of our society.
Well, I focus on the bazillionaires who are worse about the topic of this thread, meanwhile paying a pittance of taxes that could help move forward mediation tactics.
You remind me of those who point to the carbon emissions of China, but don’t acknowledge that China installs more solar yearly than the US has in total. They install more each year than the US has in production yearly.
The Chinese import most of their oil and are heavy into mitigation of that fact.

Why can’t, or more importantly won’t, the US wake the eff up? Big oil is one of many “owners” of our government that profits to our detriment.

 

[Billanole.]

Of course they are,.. My point being that the 3rd world currently has so many other, more pressing, problems that they don't have time to dwell on climate change.

You don’t understand that many of their problems are the result of this thread’s topic? It is one of the things many third world folks worry about the most, duh.

 

[Billanole.]

Climate change is real but how much of it is due to carbon dioxide nobody knows. It is not a threat to civilization because accelerating science will find ways to ameliorate any problems caused by co2. Also, climate has always changed. In terms of geological time, it wasn't that long ago that major parts of the lower United States were covered by glaciers.

You could have just said that you don’t believe it poses a threat to civilization instead of ducking and dodging.
Do you have kids?

 

[Billanole.]

You show your anti-science bias by using the ridiculous term denier to try to link people who think logically and practically about climate and warming to nazis. Whether and how to deal with climate change and warming is a practical political decision that involves balancing many factors. To show how stupid the use of the term denier is James Hansen likened the use of fossil fuels to Nazi death trains -- like when any potential sea rise would occur people would not move or adjust from the coast.

The term climate change was emphasized in order to be able to blame all climate difficulties on co2 and to hide the fact that global warming predictions were not very accurate. Anything, can be blamed on climate change as was proved by Kamala Harris who blamed increases in the number of illegals coming to the United States on climate change.

Also, I would add that the ipcc is a part of the UN, which is hardly a vote of confidence in terms of either lack of bias or competence.

You don’t think climate change is causing people to migrate to safer areas?

 

[Scrubby]

Trump is the goat

 

[Billanole.]

you might be able to inject a little RFK Jr in here based on his interactions with Dana Bash.

Anybody who dares question the agenda is a climate denier. Any scientist who publishes information counter to the agenda is automatically wrong. And the media and folks like WWJD know that they are right and everyone with a different opinion is wrong. The groupthink with the loudest voices and the most bodies wins...in spite of reasonable arguments from someone with a different POV.

ned, the sad part is that nobody has a burning desire to prove you wrong about climate change or make your life miserable. You talking about too much carbon use by Gore, etc… is just another take on me talking about how the bazzionaires are crushing our way of life.
The important thing here is to realize we all have to push for EVERYBODY to look for ways to mitigate global warming, which is the engine driving climate change. Climate change is making our lives infinitely less pleasant.

 

[baltimorened]

You only seem to focus on “the leaders” who are pitiful few in the grand scheme regarding carbon usage. Yes, it is absurd, but unfortunately their usage follows typical patterns of much of our society.
Well, I focus on the bazillionaires who are worse about the topic of this thread, meanwhile paying a pittance of taxes that could help move forward mediation tactics.
You remind me of those who point to the carbon emissions of China, but don’t acknowledge that China installs more solar yearly than the US has in total. They install more each year than the US has in production yearly.
The Chinese import most of their oil and are heavy into mitigation of that fact.

Why can’t, or more importantly won’t, the US wake the eff up? Big oil is one of many “owners” of our government that profits to our detriment.

see this is where a lot of us just don't see eye to eye. to the best of my knowledge solar panels (in spite of the fact that they require large amounts of energy to produce) has little to do with the fact that China emits more into the atmosphere than we do - almost 3 times as much. So until they emit as "little"as we do, the argument about China doesn't go away. Who cares how many solar panels they have? They're emitting three times as much as we do. And according to experts their production has flattened - which is a good thing.
Then take a look at the countries who lined up to sign the Paris accords. How many of them have lived up to the terms.. well it seems as if they are not as concerned as you are. Most are not meeting the core temperature and emissions standards.

Nobody is saying the earth is not warming. It's just not warming as much as the experts have posited and as someone pointed out, technology is already having an impact. But for some reason some in our country seem to have a "sky is falling" concept and can't seem to accept that the rest of the world, or a large part of it, doesn't see it the same way. And for every scientist who agrees with your position there is an equal and opposite scientist - some who went to the same schools - who have different opinions.

Lots of us who were told to trust the science a few short years ago, are being told the same thing today about climate change. Now we find out the science was not as settled as we were told. Is it any wonder that a segment of the population confronted with different charts and statistics from opposing points of view might be just a little leery?

I personally do not agree with dismantling the turbines that were contracted during the Biden administration and support building as many as private business wants. IMO Obama had it right " with the all of the above approach. And as technology comes on line we can wean ourselves off of as much fossil fuels as we can. I am happy to see more emphasis being applied to the mini nuclear energy sites. But we're a long way away from doing away with fossil fuels.

 

[Billanole.]

see this is where a lot of us just don't see eye to eye. to the best of my knowledge solar panels (in spite of the fact that they require large amounts of energy to produce) has little to do with the fact that China emits more into the atmosphere than we do - almost 3 times as much. So until they emit as "little"as we do, the argument about China doesn't go away. Who cares how many solar panels they have? They're emitting three times as much as we do. And according to experts their production has flattened - which is a good thing.
Then take a look at the countries who lined up to sign the Paris accords. How many of them have lived up to the terms.. well it seems as if they are not as concerned as you are. Most are not meeting the core temperature and emissions standards.

Nobody is saying the earth is not warming. It's just not warming as much as the experts have posited and as someone pointed out, technology is already having an impact. But for some reason some in our country seem to have a "sky is falling" concept and can't seem to accept that the rest of the world, or a large part of it, doesn't see it the same way. And for every scientist who agrees with your position there is an equal and opposite scientist - some who went to the same schools - who have different opinions.

Lots of us who were told to trust the science a few short years ago, are being told the same thing today about climate change. Now we find out the science was not as settled as we were told. Is it any wonder that a segment of the population confronted with different charts and statistics from opposing points of view might be just a little leery?

I personally do not agree with dismantling the turbines that were contracted during the Biden administration and support building as many as private business wants. IMO Obama had it right " with the all of the above approach. And as technology comes on line we can wean ourselves off of as much fossil fuels as we can. I am happy to see more emphasis being applied to the mini nuclear energy sites. But we're a long way away from doing away with fossil fuels.

Ok, ned. You wore me out. But, but, but, what about…
Don’t pay any attention to what is right in front of your face… wildfires like none you have ever known. Drought not seen since the dust bowl. Mass migrations of those leaving impacted areas.
Until China changes, bump it. We shouldn’t give a rip about our kids. Good night, old boy.

 

[fskillet]

Nobody is saying the earth is not warming. It's just not warming as much as the experts have posited and as someone pointed out, technology is already having an impact. But for some reason some in our country seem to have a "sky is falling" concept and can't seem to accept that the rest of the world, or a large part of it, doesn't see it the same way. And for every scientist who agrees with your position there is an equal and opposite scientist - some who went to the same schools - who have different opinions.

Lots of us who were told to trust the science a few short years ago, are being told the same thing today about climate change. Now we find out the science was not as settled as we were told. Is it any wonder that a segment of the population confronted with different charts and statistics from opposing points of view might be just a little leery?

I don't really know where to begin with all this. Thinking it's a complete 50-50 breakdown between world scientists who do and don't believe that human actions are influencing climate change is the first thing that's way off base. It's like 95-5, and the 5% against it are probably on the payroll of corporations who have a vested interest in pushing back against it. I mean, ****, Shell and Exxon knew about the impact of burning fossil fuels on the atmosphere back in the ~70s and made a coordinated effort to discredit it.

I'm not really getting into a COVID "trust the science" discussion, because we clearly will not see eye to eye on that topic and it's a waste of time. Climate change has been modeled for DECADES. COVID was a NOVEL virus that we were dealing with for the first time ever. Scientists get plenty of stuff wrong, but that's part of the scientific method.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

You could have just said that you don’t believe it poses a threat to civilization instead of ducking and dodging.
Do you have kids?

He could have just said the Earth is flat and birds aren’t real.

 

[LafayetteBear]

It was a shift in word usage by some to reduce confusion, not a change in the science or the accurate narrative.

For some people - like you - it just gave you something else to nitpick about and to use as a deflection.

THIS ^^^^.

 

[LafayetteBear]

It will still be in the 80s at midnight here this weekend. Gonna suck for the next week.

I was driving back from Lake Tahoe to Lafayette last night and, as I was driving through Sacramento at almost 9:00 P.M., my car's thermometer registered the outside ambient temperature at an even 100 degrees. But I timed it well. I was up in Tahoe from last Wednesday through last night, and it was a solid 15 degrees cooler there during the day and probably 30 degrees cooler at night. Did you go up to the Lake?

 

[baltimorened]

Ok, ned. You wore me out. But, but, but, what about…
Don’t pay any attention to what is right in front of your face… wildfires like none you have ever known. Drought not seen since the dust bowl. Mass migrations of those leaving impacted areas.
Until China changes, bump it. We shouldn’t give a rip about our kids. Good night, old boy.

nope, just pointing out the fallacies in the argument. I'm not saying "do nothing" I agreed with the all of the above Obama position - I should get some credit, I agreed with Obama . But if the US does away with fossil fuels and the rest of the world stays the same, what is the environmental impact? We are still subject to the emissions generated by the rest of the world.
Doesn't it seem odd to you that so many nations don't seem as "upset" as you, don't you question what folks who are the main proponents of the climate change catastrophe don't take the same steps to eliminate emissions as they want you and I to do?

I don't encourage anyone to change their views and the steps they take to change the planet. Go for it...Just please recognize that there are people who hold alternate views and who believe that if those leading the climate change charge are really concerned they should do what they encourage the rest of us to do.



By the way, the latest wildfire was caused by arson....no matter how many emissions you eliminate, you're not stopping that

 

[Billanole.]

nope, just pointing out the fallacies in the argument. I'm not saying "do nothing" I agreed with the all of the above Obama position - I should get some credit, I agreed with Obama . But if the US does away with fossil fuels and the rest of the world stays the same, what is the environmental impact? We are still subject to the emissions generated by the rest of the world.
Doesn't it seem odd to you that so many nations don't seem as "upset" as you, don't you question what folks who are the main proponents of the climate change catastrophe don't take the same steps to eliminate emissions as they want you and I to do?

I don't encourage anyone to change their views and the steps they take to change the planet. Go for it...Just please recognize that there are people who hold alternate views and who believe that if those leading the climate change charge are really concerned they should do what they encourage the rest of us to do.



By the way, the latest wildfire was caused by arson....no matter how many emissions you eliminate, you're not stopping that

I don't encourage anyone to change their views and the steps they take to change the planet. Go for it...Just please recognize that there are people who hold alternate views and who believe that if those leading the climate change charge are really concerned they should do what they encourage the rest of us to do.


But, but, but what about… you can’t stop .

Referring to one of your earlier posts, does it really seem strange to you that China, in your words, emits three times as much carbon as the US? Checks notes, their population is basically three times that of the US. Thing is, they are aggressively trying to lessen their reliance on carbon, while some in this country are content to point fingers at them and say until they “stop emissions“ why should we.
Whatever, ned. Do you have kids?

 

[baltimorened]

I don't encourage anyone to change their views and the steps they take to change the planet. Go for it...Just please recognize that there are people who hold alternate views and who believe that if those leading the climate change charge are really concerned they should do what they encourage the rest of us to do.


But, but, but what about… you can’t stop .

Referring to one of your earlier posts, does it really seem strange to you that China, in your words, emits three times as much carbon as the US? Checks notes, their population is basically three times that of the US. Thing is, they are aggressively trying to lessen their reliance on carbon, while some in this country are content to point fingers at them and say until they “stop emissions“ why should we.
Whatever, ned. Do you have kids?

yes I have kids and grandkids. But you're missing my point...you accuse me of but, but, but, then turn around and give me a "but China is 3x "etc. The US has decreased emissions by 18% since 2005. I didn't say "until they stop emissions why should we"....I said we should go for an "all of the above" approach..that seemed to be adequate during the Obama years, but when I post it its.but but but....

Look, you obviously have a different viewpoints than I, and are interpreting my posts is a manner different from my intent. I'm all in favor of reducing our emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. I'm just not as "anxious" about it as you appear to be. Sorry, that's just the way I feel.

 

[Rifler]

You don’t understand that many of their problems are the result of this thread’s topic? It is one of the things many third world folks worry about the most, duh.

No, you don't understand,... Third world populations worry about the immediate problems that have been thrust upon them by climate change,.. Why are my crops failing?,.. How will I feed my family?,.. Where can we go to be safe?,... They don't have the luxury of worrying about "climate change", let alone how to address it.

 

[BelemNole]

I was driving back from Lake Tahoe to Lafayette last night and, as I was driving through Sacramento at almost 9:00 P.M., my car's thermometer registered the outside ambient temperature at an even 100 degrees. But I timed it well. I was up in Tahoe from last Wednesday through last night, and it was a solid 15 degrees cooler there during the day and probably 30 degrees cooler at night. Did you go up to the Lake?

Went up Sunday for the day as my sister is in town and up at the house. It was significantly cooler up there - but still pretty hot for Tahoe.

 

[fskillet]

Why are countries with the capability to address climate change the only ones actively doing so? One of those questions we probably will never get answered...

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

But if the US does away with fossil fuels and the rest of the world stays the same, what is the environmental impact? We are still subject to the emissions generated by the rest of the world.

What's the point of raising this since it's basically the opposite of the truth (in the developed world)?

Even some nations in the global south are doing much better than we are. And those who aren't are probably a drop in the bucket compared to us.

The actual numbers would doubtless be interesting, but I've asked Claude my climate change question for the day.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Referring to one of your earlier posts, does it really seem strange to you that China, in your words, emits three times as much carbon as the US? Checks notes, their population is basically three times that of the US. Thing is, they are aggressively trying to lessen their reliance on carbon, while some in this country are content to point fingers at them and say until they “stop emissions“ why should we.

Claude generated this interesting list, ordered by CO2 emissions per capita.

Rank (per capita)	Country	CO₂ per capita (tons/person)	Total CO₂ emissions
1	Palau	63.7	1.5 million tons
2	Qatar	45.3	135.3 million tons
3	Kuwait	25.5	115.9 million tons
4	Bahrain	20.7	38.0 million tons
5	United Arab Emirates	19.5	200.6 million tons
6	Oman	17.9	98.5 million tons
7	Saudi Arabia	17.7	652.5 million tons
8	Canada	14.9	578.0 million tons
9	Australia	14.4	383.4 million tons
10	Russia	14.1	2.01 billion tons
11	United States	13.6	4.63 billion tons
12	South Korea	11.3	588.0 million tons
13	Japan	7.8	972.3 million tons
14	Iran	9.6	829.0 million tons
15	China	9.1	13.12 billion tons
16	Germany	7.0	579.9 million tons
17	South Africa	7.2	440.2 million tons
18	United Kingdom	4.3	292.4 million tons
19	Italy	5.1	299.2 million tons
20	France	4.1	274.5 million tons
21	Mexico	3.4	476.0 million tons
22	Turkey	5.4	460.0 million tons
23	Indonesia	2.9	812.2 million tons
24	Brazil	2.2	491.5 million tons
25	India	2.2	3.15 billion tons
26	Nigeria	0.6	131.9 million tons
27	Pakistan	0.9	204.0 million tons
28	Bangladesh	0.7	124.2 million tons
29	Ethiopia	0.2	19.4 million tons
30	DR Congo	0.06	6.2 million tons

(World average is about 4.9 tons per person.)


A few things jump out:

• Small oil/gas states dominate the very top. Palau's number is an artifact of a tiny population running diesel power plants and inter-island transport, not industrial scale. Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, and Oman are all driven by fossil fuel extraction/processing combined with small populations.
• Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, Russia, and the U.S. form the next tier — large economies with either heavy fossil fuel production, cold climates requiring lots of heating, long-distance transport, or all three.
• China sits mid-pack per capita (~9 tons) despite being the largest total emitter by far — its population of 1.4 billion dilutes the per-person number even as its total dwarfs everyone else's.
• India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Nigeria — despite large or growing total emissions — remain far below the global average per person, reflecting lower average energy consumption across huge populations.
• The bottom of the list (DR Congo, Ethiopia, and most of sub-Saharan Africa) shows emissions per person that are a rounding error next to the top of the list — often less than 1% of U.S. or Gulf-state levels.

 

[DailyBuck7]

You could have just said that you don’t believe it poses a threat to civilization instead of ducking and dodging.
Do you have kids?

I think it is silly to claim that global warming poses a catastrophic threat to civilization. Technology will ameliorate any potential global warming problems. I didn't duck & dodge. I have a 25 yr old son and 20 yr old daughter and they can think for themselves and out vote me. Also, I have a nephew in California who works in trucking business that you are trying to put out of business. Meanwhile you have outed yourself as a Malthusian.

Here is what Obama's chief science advisor John Holdren stated in his 1971 book Global Ecology: ""...some form of eco-catastrophe... seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century." In terms of global warming "The Machinery of Nature (1986, p. 274): “As University of California physicist John Holdren has said, it is possible that carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020. [Of all people Obama would choose this dunce to be his chief science advisor] His close collaborator, Paul Ehrlich stated: "65 million Americans would die of famine/starvation in the 1980s" [from Grok mademoiselle interview] and that "he would “take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” (from Grok)

 

[Billanole.]

I think it is silly to claim that global warming poses a catastrophic threat to civilization. Technology will ameliorate any potential global warming problems. I didn't duck & dodge. I have a 25 yr old son and 20 yr old daughter and they can think for themselves and out vote me. Also, I have a nephew in California who works in trucking business that you are trying to put out of business. Meanwhile you have outed yourself as a Malthusian.

Here is what Obama's chief science advisor John Holdren stated in his 1971 book Global Ecology: ""...some form of eco-catastrophe... seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century." In terms of global warming "The Machinery of Nature (1986, p. 274): “As University of California physicist John Holdren has said, it is possible that carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020. [Of all people Obama would choose this dunce to be his chief science advisor] His close collaborator, Paul Ehrlich stated: "65 million Americans would die of famine/starvation in the 1980s" [from Grok mademoiselle interview] and that "he would “take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” (from Grok)

You think it is silly that global warming poses a catastrophic threat?

 

[DailyBuck7]

You think it is silly that global warming poses a catastrophic threat?

Any logical person that is familiar with who is doing the research and the rapidly increasing pace of scientific knowledge believes the same. The claims of catastrophe are simply a ruse for Leftists to increase state control over individuals.

 

[Billanole.]

Any logical person that is familiar with who is doing the research and the rapidly increasing pace of scientific knowledge believes the same. The claims of catastrophe are simply a ruse for Leftists to increase state control over individuals.

Zzz. You don’t live in areas impacted yet.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

Zzz. You don’t live in areas impacted yet.